4 ms·

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.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      Why don't you keep reading the article on the list submarines that you referenced, all the way down to the 4th paragraph that talks about causes of sinking. 1 of 9 (Soviet K-37) was scuttled with no loss of life due to reactor issues spanning years. 1 had an undetermined cause of sinking with theories having to do with the usual submarine issues (fire, torpedo accent, ballast/pressure issues), not its reactor. All others were lost for reasons having nothing to do with nuclear reactors.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
      What are the issues with sunk nuclear submarines? I tend to think the bottom of the ocean is a reasonably good place for the nuclear reactors in those subs.
- 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.

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.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Why don't you keep reading the article on the list submarines that you referenced, all the way down to the 4th paragraph that talks about causes of sinking. 1 of 9 (Soviet K-37) was scuttled with no loss of life due to reactor issues spanning years. 1 had an undetermined cause of sinking with theories having to do with the usual submarine issues (fire, torpedo accent, ballast/pressure issues), not its reactor. All others were lost for reasons having nothing to do with nuclear reactors.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
    What are the issues with sunk nuclear submarines? I tend to think the bottom of the ocean is a reasonably good place for the nuclear reactors in those subs.
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.