11 ms·

None of this is true in Japan, you might want to read up about the cost scaling that’s happened there. The short version is, you need to have enough generation

None of this is true in Japan, you might want to read up about the cost scaling that’s happened there. The short version is, you need to have enough generations of reactor building to allow later projects to benefit from previous learnings. Because of various outside effects (this is a euphemism for the anti-nuke lobby) that type of iterative improvement and workforce skilling didn’t happen in other countries.

worik 4y ago
- tragictrash 4y ago
  You shouldn't leave it there, because that accident has nothing to do with cost scaling. Why don't you leave the thinking for the ones better at it.
  - worik 4y ago
    > You shouldn't leave it there, because that accident has nothing to do with cost scaling. The accident, that single accident on its own, probably doubled the cost of nuclear power to Japan. It is hard to tell because the costs have not all been paid and are mounting still. This is the Achilles heal of nuclear power, that the boosters want us to ignore: The risk of catastrophic failure. One reactor can be looked after carefully (not economically - others have pointed out here the eye watering costs) and safely. But lots of reactors? No. We will keep have catastrophic failures until we stop.
    - shakna 4y ago
      > But lots of reactors? No. We will keep have catastrophic failures until we stop. The military have fielded many reactors for a considerable amount of time. We've got a bit over fifty years of fielding nuclear reactors in submarines. Where are all the inevitable disasters, if that is the case?
      - worik 4y ago
        > The military have fielded many reactors for a considerable amount of time. > We've got a bit over fifty years of fielding nuclear reactors in submarines. Where are all the inevitable disasters, if that is the case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari... Three from the USA navy. It is a lie that the nuclear reactors on submarines have been safe. Two have been lost at sea (one was sunk in harbour) Nuclear reactors on ships generally, submarines in particular, are a terrible idea. As evidenced by the fact that the US Navy has sunk three, two catestrophically. If the US Navy cannot do it, who can?
        shakna 4y ago
        2 disasters in 50 years is not exactly catostrophic. We've had over 120 shipping disasters in that same timeframe, resulting in many thousands greater loss of life, and greater environmental disasters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_20th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_i... Should global shipping be abolished?
        worik 4y ago
        Two disasters that leave nuclear reactors irrecoverably deep is indeed a catastrophe. If you care at all for the future. But the present trumps the future...
        shakna 4y ago
        The number of oil spills that happened in that same time frame, that we're still trying to recover from, exceeds that by a great number. The environmental damage caused by those isn't purely theoretical. Compare that, to the Exxon Valdez, and the Deepwater Horizon.
        tragictrash 4y ago
        I'd like you to demonstrate what damage that's causing.
    - saxonww 4y ago
      Genuine question: is this a nuclear power failing, or a business failing? According to the wiki article, several issues from the inception of the plant through the failure were ignored, all of which either made the failure worse or would have arguably prevented it. My understanding is that the plant itself was already supposed to have been shut down, but duty was extended; I'm not sure if this was to move towards break-even on cost, or just to prevent a power generation gap, or make more money. Note that the plant in question is one that had been shut down previously because TEPCO had been caught falsifying inspection and repair records. IMO (as a total non-expert) nuclear is probably safe, it's the people running it that screw it up for everyone. Maybe that's not a meaningful distinction? I'd sure like to have a discussion about nuclear that doesn't conflate failures of leadership with failures of technology, though.
- hedora 4y ago
  Fukishima was still probably cleaner per kWh than most coal plants.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  you better leave it there because any other word would show how bad of a point it is.
Spooky23 4y ago
The capital costs of nuclear are so high the current model of marketing electricity doesn’t work. The same will be true of fusion. Set a target level of service and make electric generation a government service. The government is better at capital projects anyway and if energy were a taxpayer funded service it would transform society in many ways.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  Can you name any capital projects in the last 30 years where the US government did a great job of a) controlling costs, b) meeting the stated design goal, c) on time?
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    A few that come to mind: - Alaskan Way Viaduct - Tappan Zee bridge replacement - Billions in highway projects.
    - cpwright 4y ago
      I might not hold up the new Tappan Zee Bridge as a beacon of meeting design goals. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/mario-cuomo-bridge-structural-problems-covered-up-15594755.php https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/mario-cuomo-bridge-s...
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    I’m very happy with the massive road construction and maintenance in my area.
    - tomohawk 4y ago
      I have a family member who was an engineer in the Federal Highway Administration for many years. The amount of waste and excess cost on these projects is really hard to exagerate. Comparative costs to other OECD countries for similar infrastructure - there really isn't one, as the US is way out of line in terms of cost and quality. My family member communicated with counterparts in other countries, impressed with what they were doing. When asked what the research was that they based their projects on, they all said it was the US funded research (which the US doesn't take advantage of).

worik 4y ago

tragictrash 4y ago
You shouldn't leave it there, because that accident has nothing to do with cost scaling. Why don't you leave the thinking for the ones better at it.
- worik 4y ago
  > You shouldn't leave it there, because that accident has nothing to do with cost scaling. The accident, that single accident on its own, probably doubled the cost of nuclear power to Japan. It is hard to tell because the costs have not all been paid and are mounting still. This is the Achilles heal of nuclear power, that the boosters want us to ignore: The risk of catastrophic failure. One reactor can be looked after carefully (not economically - others have pointed out here the eye watering costs) and safely. But lots of reactors? No. We will keep have catastrophic failures until we stop.
  - shakna 4y ago
    > But lots of reactors? No. We will keep have catastrophic failures until we stop. The military have fielded many reactors for a considerable amount of time. We've got a bit over fifty years of fielding nuclear reactors in submarines. Where are all the inevitable disasters, if that is the case?
    - worik 4y ago
      > The military have fielded many reactors for a considerable amount of time. > We've got a bit over fifty years of fielding nuclear reactors in submarines. Where are all the inevitable disasters, if that is the case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submari... Three from the USA navy. It is a lie that the nuclear reactors on submarines have been safe. Two have been lost at sea (one was sunk in harbour) Nuclear reactors on ships generally, submarines in particular, are a terrible idea. As evidenced by the fact that the US Navy has sunk three, two catestrophically. If the US Navy cannot do it, who can?
      - shakna 4y ago
        2 disasters in 50 years is not exactly catostrophic. We've had over 120 shipping disasters in that same timeframe, resulting in many thousands greater loss of life, and greater environmental disasters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_20th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_i... Should global shipping be abolished?
        worik 4y ago
        Two disasters that leave nuclear reactors irrecoverably deep is indeed a catastrophe. If you care at all for the future. But the present trumps the future...
        shakna 4y ago
        The number of oil spills that happened in that same time frame, that we're still trying to recover from, exceeds that by a great number. The environmental damage caused by those isn't purely theoretical. Compare that, to the Exxon Valdez, and the Deepwater Horizon.
        tragictrash 4y ago
        I'd like you to demonstrate what damage that's causing.
  - saxonww 4y ago
    Genuine question: is this a nuclear power failing, or a business failing? According to the wiki article, several issues from the inception of the plant through the failure were ignored, all of which either made the failure worse or would have arguably prevented it. My understanding is that the plant itself was already supposed to have been shut down, but duty was extended; I'm not sure if this was to move towards break-even on cost, or just to prevent a power generation gap, or make more money. Note that the plant in question is one that had been shut down previously because TEPCO had been caught falsifying inspection and repair records. IMO (as a total non-expert) nuclear is probably safe, it's the people running it that screw it up for everyone. Maybe that's not a meaningful distinction? I'd sure like to have a discussion about nuclear that doesn't conflate failures of leadership with failures of technology, though.
hedora 4y ago
Fukishima was still probably cleaner per kWh than most coal plants.
ekianjo 4y ago
you better leave it there because any other word would show how bad of a point it is.

Spooky23 4y ago

The capital costs of nuclear are so high the current model of marketing electricity doesn’t work. The same will be true of fusion. Set a target level of service and make electric generation a government service. The government is better at capital projects anyway and if energy were a taxpayer funded service it would transform society in many ways.

tomohawk 4y ago
Can you name any capital projects in the last 30 years where the US government did a great job of a) controlling costs, b) meeting the stated design goal, c) on time?
- Spooky23 4y ago
  A few that come to mind: - Alaskan Way Viaduct - Tappan Zee bridge replacement - Billions in highway projects.
  - cpwright 4y ago
    I might not hold up the new Tappan Zee Bridge as a beacon of meeting design goals. https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/mario-cuomo-bridge-structural-problems-covered-up-15594755.php https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/mario-cuomo-bridge-s...
- pyuser583 4y ago
  I’m very happy with the massive road construction and maintenance in my area.
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    I have a family member who was an engineer in the Federal Highway Administration for many years. The amount of waste and excess cost on these projects is really hard to exagerate. Comparative costs to other OECD countries for similar infrastructure - there really isn't one, as the US is way out of line in terms of cost and quality. My family member communicated with counterparts in other countries, impressed with what they were doing. When asked what the research was that they based their projects on, they all said it was the US funded research (which the US doesn't take advantage of).