9 ms·
Most of the arguments in favor of the renewed development of nuclear power rely on faith in engineering culture to prevent catastrophic failures and avoid large
by kingkawn 5y ago
Most of the arguments in favor of the renewed development of nuclear power rely on faith in engineering culture to prevent catastrophic failures and avoid large-scale loss of habitability of areas around these plants. This faith does not account for conflict and significant social disruption. We are fortunate that so far the nuclear assets in Ukraine have not been critically disrupted. I hope this is not where and when we learn this lesson.
- jdkee 5y agoWestern democracies, Japan and South Korea are politically stable so power plant disruptions due to armed conflict on their territories are likely a relatively low risk.
- simulate-me 5y ago
- pasquinelli 5y agopolitically stable for now. how long is the average period of political stability?
- danhor 5y agoIf prosperous (as that's usually a match for a low chance of armed conflicht) nations mostly expand to non-fossil energy sources that aren't available/viable for developing/poorer nations, this is an issue since their power system won't profit from a large amount of research & investments on how to run a non-fossil fuel based system. With the energy usage of non-western countries exploding quickly this could be a major hinderance to stopping climate change if all prosperous nations go all-in on nuclear and discourage other countries from doing so because of the risk. A non realistic scenario tbh, it's very unlikely that e.g. germany will construct new nuclear power plants and a lot of not-very-stable countries already use nuclear power as we're seeing right now.
- throwaway6532 5y agoWhat about Russia? What if famine strikes and the nuclear engineers at a given power plant starve to death?
- pvaldes 5y agoRussia has been politically stable for the last 20 years also
- himinlomax 5y agoPoisoning and harassing political opponents does not strike me as particularly stable.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoRussia has had several significant nuclear material release incidents in the last twenty years, only detected because the waste/fallout plume reached monitoring sites outside the country. The most recent was the 2018 disaster involving a nuclear torpedo. Russia has used its reactors to produce materials to conduct political assassinations on foreign soil, which have ended up injuring and contaminating many innocent people.
- kingkawn 5y agoThat you cite Japan as an example of reliable nuclear safety after Fukushima…
- KennyBlanken 5y agoThe US and UK nuclear programs - commercial and military - are littered with incidents, many of them fatal or releasing significant quantities of radioactive waste. In one case, someone was likely murdered as part of a coverup (google Karen Silkwood.) The attitude during much of the US nuclear program was "you're either with us or you're for those commie bastards." In Japan, TEPCO demonstrated a long-running, stunning disregard for safety that led to the Fukashima disaster (and it was not Japan's first nuclear power plant disaster, either): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster#Prior_safety_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster#Pri... And as a reminder, Chernobyl happened because a bunch of engineers were basically engaged in a dick-measuring contest, likely to satisfy some apparatchik. I'd say the world's nuclear power programs have demonstrated extensively that humans as a whole can't handle the responsibilities, and now we have numerous, much safer alternatives. It's an absolute miracle we haven't had an accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon near a population center given bombs have even been released from planes, in some cases with multiple safety systems satisfied - and that the permissive action link system was almost completely bypassed by petulant air force commanders who had weapons set to (I wish I were making this up) codes of all zeros.
- natmaka 5y agoDon't forget KEPCO: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_Korea_forgery_scandal-1010137.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Indictments_for_South_...
- AngryData 5y agoIt isn't like you have to blow up the reactor itself to disable a foreign nuclear plant. I see no reason why anybody would ever target a reactor core. There is a HUGE amount of electrical substation infrastructure outside of these plants which would take like 1/1000 the effort to damage or blow up as the reactor core itself and would shut the whole thing down. The only reason you would target a reactor core itself is to spread nuclear debri on purpose, which is still probably more effort than it would take to just make a dirty bomb and far less effective than a dirty bomb. Also you destroy all value in taking that territory, piss off every other country in the world likely prompting them to join the war against you, and likely spread the poison back into your own territory.
- nicoburns 5y agoWould destroying the support infrastructure for these plants be any safer? My understanding is that almost all (if not all) nuclear power stations presently in operation need active cooling even after the reactor is shutdown. If that cooling infrastructure is disrupted then that could be just as disastrous as if the reactor core itself was targeted.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoTac nuke ground burst + reactor core = extremely bad news. And of course you can wait until the wind is blowing in the right direction. Yes, there would be consequences. But there are also consequences for going on a random shooter spree, and they don't stop random shooters.
- 5y ago
- acidburnNSA 5y agoWith the fossil and biofuel status quo powering more than 80% of the world causing climate change and air pollution on the scale of 8 million deaths per year [1], I don't find this argument particularly compelling. Sure there are hazards with nuclear, but even in wild hypothesized scenarios the damage from not doing nuclear is worse. For perspective, fossil + biofuel kill a full Chernobyl's worth of people (short term plus long term deaths) every 7 hours, and counting. And as for loss of habitability, the dose rates around Chernobyl are elevated but not incompatible with life. Around Fukushima, I'd join Elon Musk in eating any locally grown food. Better to avoid airplanes if you're concerned about those levels of radiation, below the threshold known to cause the smallest measurable increase in cancer (100 mSv acute, 300 mSv annual). Good read here: [2] [1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1 [2] https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...
- throwaway6532 5y agoI'm not as worried about global warming as I used to be after taking a look at world demographics and learning a bunch of stuff about global supply chains and agricultural practices as a result of this conflict breaking out. World population is likely to steeply decline, and globalization plus high living standards will most probably go away. We just won't consume as much energy or make and trade as much stuff in the future.
- 14u2c 5y agoSo basically you are hoping it all sorts itself out? Maybe it will, but that seems like an incredibility risky position for humanity to make without hedging our bets.
- throwaway6532 5y agoWe're long past the point of hedging our bets. Put it this way... when the world runs out of NPK fertilizers (or can't access them) and billions of people start to starve to death, climate change will no longer be seen as the big risk. After going down the rabbit hole that is modern agricultural practices, and more importantly the supply chains that underpin them, the writing is absolutely on the wall for humanity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]