3 ms·

Not only that, the potential risk that contemporary nuclear energy (worse yet, older tech) keeps increasing as the world becomes more complex. You could make a

Not only that, the potential risk that contemporary nuclear energy (worse yet, older tech) keeps increasing as the world becomes more complex. You could make a list very very long by jotting down the threats that would be caused by and directed at a nuclear installation of any size. Frankly, I don't trust the Human to manage the risk of a nuclear installation. Look what Humans are doing elsewhere in every other domain. We don't need the sun to be brought to Earth.

panick21_ 5y ago
This is quite simply contradicted by evidence. And newly built nuclear plant would be incredibly safe. And if we actually build really modern plants they would be absurdly safe. People make way to big a deal of how amazingly complex nuclear plants are. Its not some magical spell that prevents demons from entering the world. And the potential of accidents even in case of terrorist attack (or whatever fantasy scenario) is far smaller then people want to claim.
- teachrdan 5y ago
  But OP isn't talking about newly-built plants. OP is doing what many pro-nuclear folks do, which is to posit a counterfactual history where we built dozens (hundreds?) of nuclear plants in the 70s. That would leave us with many, many obsolete nuclear plants reaching the end of their intended lifespan all at once over the last few years. (Nuclear plants were typically permitted to operate for 40 years, although may have successfully applied for extensions and continue to run today.)
  - realusername 5y ago
    They were not "permitted" to run 40 years, they were planned for at least 40 years, that's completely different. Any time extension is a tradeoff, there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
    - teachrdan 5y ago
      It looks like I was imprecise with my language. It looks like plants are licensed for 40 years. Extensions are for an additional 20 years. (!) > there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it. Perhaps! Unless regulators make a mistake, or are pressured politically or by industry to extend licenses when they ought not be. I'm not sure I'd want to go into a hypothetical 2030s where the US had scores of nuclear power plants to decommission two decades after the end of their original lifespan. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21
ohgodplsno 5y ago
The risks _are_ managed. Pretty much every reactor in existence has a negative void coefficient (the more the reactor heats up, the more it is moderated, lowering total energy production, hence lowering heat, etc.) Pretty much every reactor in existence is in failsafe: if power or control is lost, rods close, reaction stops. Pretty much every reactor in existence is not powered by its own output: if your reactor starts going wild for any reason, it won't be able to keep itself powered up. You shut off the small generator outside (and by outside, I mean it is physically _outside_ the reactor building), and it stops. Pretty much every reactor in existence has walls solid enough to block a plane crashing into it. Hell, Zaporizhzhya has been shelled repeatedly and is doing... fine. (As in, the reactor, not necessarily the people). So, no, nuclear energy is about the safest means of producing energy we have today. Offsetting environmental damage to third world countries to mine your rare earth minerals for solar does not get to make you feel better about it. Nuclear installations are not handled like a shitty startup that goes "wE'Re AgIlE wE'lL dEaL WiTh iT iN tImE". The IAEA is absurdly stringent on their requirements. The ASN in France puts such harsh conditions and requires every crucial safety equipment to be not just doubled, but tripled. There is no domain in which we are more demanding.
- landemva 5y ago
  >>There is no domain in which we are more demanding. Interesting perspective of relative risks in life. Makes me think of Boeing's 737MAX that should have gone through a new type certification process and was instead allowed (by regulators in multiple countries) to apply software to make it seem like it flies like other 737s. This saved on pilot retraining costs, and resulted in a couple mass deaths. We don't seem to be coherent with risks.
try_again 5y ago
The death toll of nuclear energy is only a minute fraction of the casualties brought about by coal and oil. The most pessimistic estimations of deaths caused by all nuclear power accidents that ever occurred and waste that has been produced utterly pale in comparison to the insane human cost of the fossil fuels. And thanks to their greenhouse gas emissions the worst of it is likely yet to come. And the sun generates its energy output as a result of nuclear fusion, not the nuclear fission of a chain reaction. We'd very much like to bring the sun to earth because controlled sustained fusion could potentially solve the majority of our energy troubles. Unfortunately thus far we've brought it in the form of thermonuclear weapons.

panick21_ 5y ago

This is quite simply contradicted by evidence. And newly built nuclear plant would be incredibly safe. And if we actually build really modern plants they would be absurdly safe. People make way to big a deal of how amazingly complex nuclear plants are. Its not some magical spell that prevents demons from entering the world. And the potential of accidents even in case of terrorist attack (or whatever fantasy scenario) is far smaller then people want to claim.

teachrdan 5y ago
But OP isn't talking about newly-built plants. OP is doing what many pro-nuclear folks do, which is to posit a counterfactual history where we built dozens (hundreds?) of nuclear plants in the 70s. That would leave us with many, many obsolete nuclear plants reaching the end of their intended lifespan all at once over the last few years. (Nuclear plants were typically permitted to operate for 40 years, although may have successfully applied for extensions and continue to run today.)
- realusername 5y ago
  They were not "permitted" to run 40 years, they were planned for at least 40 years, that's completely different. Any time extension is a tradeoff, there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it.
  - teachrdan 5y ago
    It looks like I was imprecise with my language. It looks like plants are licensed for 40 years. Extensions are for an additional 20 years. (!) > there's nothing wrong with extending the lifespan if the regulators are okay with it. Perhaps! Unless regulators make a mistake, or are pressured politically or by industry to extend licenses when they ought not be. I'm not sure I'd want to go into a hypothetical 2030s where the US had scores of nuclear power plants to decommission two decades after the end of their original lifespan. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21

ohgodplsno 5y ago

The risks _are_ managed. Pretty much every reactor in existence has a negative void coefficient (the more the reactor heats up, the more it is moderated, lowering total energy production, hence lowering heat, etc.) Pretty much every reactor in existence is in failsafe: if power or control is lost, rods close, reaction stops. Pretty much every reactor in existence is not powered by its own output: if your reactor starts going wild for any reason, it won't be able to keep itself powered up. You shut off the small generator outside (and by outside, I mean it is physically _outside_ the reactor building), and it stops. Pretty much every reactor in existence has walls solid enough to block a plane crashing into it. Hell, Zaporizhzhya has been shelled repeatedly and is doing... fine. (As in, the reactor, not necessarily the people). So, no, nuclear energy is about the safest means of producing energy we have today. Offsetting environmental damage to third world countries to mine your rare earth minerals for solar does not get to make you feel better about it. Nuclear installations are not handled like a shitty startup that goes "wE'Re AgIlE wE'lL dEaL WiTh iT iN tImE". The IAEA is absurdly stringent on their requirements. The ASN in France puts such harsh conditions and requires every crucial safety equipment to be not just doubled, but tripled. There is no domain in which we are more demanding.

landemva 5y ago
>>There is no domain in which we are more demanding. Interesting perspective of relative risks in life. Makes me think of Boeing's 737MAX that should have gone through a new type certification process and was instead allowed (by regulators in multiple countries) to apply software to make it seem like it flies like other 737s. This saved on pilot retraining costs, and resulted in a couple mass deaths. We don't seem to be coherent with risks.

try_again 5y ago

The death toll of nuclear energy is only a minute fraction of the casualties brought about by coal and oil. The most pessimistic estimations of deaths caused by all nuclear power accidents that ever occurred and waste that has been produced utterly pale in comparison to the insane human cost of the fossil fuels. And thanks to their greenhouse gas emissions the worst of it is likely yet to come. And the sun generates its energy output as a result of nuclear fusion, not the nuclear fission of a chain reaction. We'd very much like to bring the sun to earth because controlled sustained fusion could potentially solve the majority of our energy troubles. Unfortunately thus far we've brought it in the form of thermonuclear weapons.