5 ms·

The danger of hitting a PWR core just right so it actually becomes a dirty bomb instead of having a meltdown seems kinda irrelevant next to the overall casualti

The danger of hitting a PWR core just right so it actually becomes a dirty bomb instead of having a meltdown seems kinda irrelevant next to the overall casualties of a war. “Real” dirty bombs aren’t really any more deadly than a conventional bomb; they’re not WMDs. They just happen to make continued inhabitation of an area more risky or impossible for some time. Keep in mind that radiological dangers are very easy and cheap to measure, especially compared to chemical or biological contamination.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. I really don't understand why nuclear power is still being taken seriously. It's expensive and slow to build, expensive and slow to decommission, dirty, unsafe, and strategically risky - not just because of the dirty bomb issue, but because it's not a distributed technology and operates from a small number of critical locations. Renewables have none of these issues.
- andbberger 4y ago
  it is in fact objectively the safest base load power source. and economical when financed properly. but you're right, you can't run paxos on an AP1000
- luckylion 4y ago
  > A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. Russia has literal nuclear weapons that are made specifically for that purpose. They've threatened to use them. Why would they bomb a nuclear power plant to get an uncontrollable release instead of simply dropping a nuclear bomb if they want a nuclear war? Because obviously, that will happen if they're blowing up nuclear power plants.
  - yellow_lead 4y ago
    Because the political fallout is lower. Reportedly, the US has already outlined the consequences of Russia using nuclear weapons. I haven't heard of anything similar for damage to a nuclear power plant.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Because dropping a nuclear bomb is a clear and attributable act that comes with clear consequences. An "accident" at a nuclear energy facility can be very easily made to look like it was the work of your enemy, or the work of third parties, or ... who knows? The ambiguity and confusion works in your favour and you can lie at will. This is a state that most likely just blew up its own undersea natural gas pipelines to send a message and make it clear that it is capable and willing to perform such actions when cornered. Now, I don't think irradiating Ukrainian territory makes a whole lot of sense, tactically. But I fear what this regime can and will do in desperation.
    - rendall 4y ago
      > But I fear what this regime can and will do in desperation. Why are you afraid what they will do in desperation? First, their desperation is self-imposed. There is no outside force that warrants their desperation. Russian desperation is Russia's alone to deal with. They behave like the mad dog in the room to get what they want. Their apparent desperation is a tactic to frighten the easily frightened. More importantly, are you in Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland or rural northern Norway? Because the people who live in these areas will suffer in a nuclear war, but they fear nuclear war far less than a Russian victory. They support Ukraine despite Russian threats. Ask yourself why that is. Unrelated, nuclear power is the Earth's best chance to avert climate change from carbon emissions, war notwithstanding. Modern reactor design will ameliorate even missile attacks.
      - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
        To be clear my fear of what this regime can/will do does mean I feel we should submit to them. That is, I'm not giving the Elon Musk argument that "nuclear war is possible therefore give Putin what he wants."
        rendall 4y ago
        That was so diplomatically reckless of Musk. I went from general admiration for the guy to deep unease at his lack of maturity.
  - fleischhauf 4y ago
    just make it look like an accident and you are not responsible for starting a nuclear war. counting the number of people accidentally falling out of windows these days certain organizations seem to have more of them..
- Kuinox 4y ago
  What do you do when there is no sun nor wind ?
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    You use a backup source. Currently that would likely be gas; increasingly batteries are taking over for short term, and in the long term hydrogen can be added. At reasonable cost projections, renewables + batteries + hydrogen will give a 100% renewable grid at a cost less than one including new nuclear plants. Additional strategies (transmission, demand dispatch, other storage technologies) can only improve the case for renewables vs. nuclear.
    - Kuinox 4y ago
      Thank you for describing Germany strategy that have been internationally shown to be a bad idea these last months.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Germany failed to roll out enough renewables. They were depending on gas for more than backing up renewables.
        Kuinox 4y ago
        Except you still need a backup energy source like you said. They failed to roll out enough renewables ? How much do you want them to install ? Right now they have: - 55GW of installed solar, outputing 0% because it's the night. - 65GW of installed wind power, at 22% because not enough wind. Except, they need 60GW right now. They would need 390W of installed wind power to handle this totally regular evening. That's more wind energy than what both USA, and China have currently installed.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        Yes, you need a backup source. In a 100% renewable grid, that backup source could be (for example) hydrogen instead of natural gas. Some other shorter term storage systems would handle most of the short term load shifting, and hydrogen would cover seasonal shifting and rare prolonged dark/calm periods.
- baxtr 4y ago
  Do you agree that in order to come to a fact based conclusion all pros and cons of each power source need to be considered? I am asking because you only cared to mention the down sides of nuclear. EDIT: this is not meant to be a provocation, I am genuinely interested to understand if you agree that up AND down sides need to be considered.
- lnxg33k1 4y ago
  > but because it's not a distributed technology and operates from a small number of critical locations. I would also think from a defense point of view, this is good, as if you have a strategical asset, defending could be easier to defend a set of wind power sources or solar, which are distributed. From an attacker point of view, if they want to smash a country's power sources to gain an advantage it could be easier to send few missiles around low protected wind / solar sources, than put off a well defended nuclear plant
  - isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
    Most existing anti-air systems are easily saturated by volleys of cruise missiles, as was the Ukrainian air defence (which is in a better shape than that of most european countries).
- BjoernKW 4y ago
  Nuclear power also is the best option we have until we have enough renewables to meet our energy needs and the batteries and grid resilience required to complement those. The short-term alternatives to nuclear power amount to either further exacerbating climate change (by burning coal and lignite, for example) or to accepting regular blackouts.
- samus 4y ago
  Nuclear power plants are usually located quite some distance away from larger settlements. This has multiple reasons - NIMBYism mostly - but it also severely reduces the impact a disaster would have. Evacuate that area and don't touch it for x decades. Except for the core areas, it will basically turn into a national park. Only disadvantage is that it would be mostly unusable for humans. It's sad to have to think about this way, but to me it's much more acceptable to have a Chernobyl or a Fukushima every 50 years than permanently f*king up our ecosystems and threatening the continued survival of hundreds of millions of people due to climate change. Consider that both disasters were caused by plants with outdated designs that were kept running for way longer than reasonable. On top of that, they were handled not only somewhat negligently, but outright hazardously. The Fukushima plant was hit by a freaking tsunami and was not completely set up to mitigate the risks posed by natural hazards (this was known since the '90s) Newer plants generally have safety features that completely prevent or at least help contain the hazards of the older designs. And many of them are built like fortresses. Especially Soviet designs are impregnable to all but dedicated attacks with bunker busters or thermobaric weapons.
- defrost 4y ago
  > A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. 50+ years on from the aerial minelaying of the Vietnam War people there and in surrounding countries are still being maimed and killed by landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). War is a dirty business with generational consequences. Many non-nuclear industrial processing operations could also be targeted in a war and leave a deadly footprint for decades. Existing nuclear plants were built at large scale, future nuclear power plants could be made smaller and more widely distributed.
- laverya 4y ago
  > A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. So does being the target of a sustained artillery barrage, among other things. Unexploded ordinance, after all.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. I really don't understand why nuclear power is still being taken seriously. It's expensive and slow to build, expensive and slow to decommission, dirty, unsafe, and strategically risky - not just because of the dirty bomb issue, but because it's not a distributed technology and operates from a small number of critical locations. Renewables have none of these issues.

andbberger 4y ago
it is in fact objectively the safest base load power source. and economical when financed properly. but you're right, you can't run paxos on an AP1000
luckylion 4y ago
> A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. Russia has literal nuclear weapons that are made specifically for that purpose. They've threatened to use them. Why would they bomb a nuclear power plant to get an uncontrollable release instead of simply dropping a nuclear bomb if they want a nuclear war? Because obviously, that will happen if they're blowing up nuclear power plants.
- yellow_lead 4y ago
  Because the political fallout is lower. Reportedly, the US has already outlined the consequences of Russia using nuclear weapons. I haven't heard of anything similar for damage to a nuclear power plant.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Because dropping a nuclear bomb is a clear and attributable act that comes with clear consequences. An "accident" at a nuclear energy facility can be very easily made to look like it was the work of your enemy, or the work of third parties, or ... who knows? The ambiguity and confusion works in your favour and you can lie at will. This is a state that most likely just blew up its own undersea natural gas pipelines to send a message and make it clear that it is capable and willing to perform such actions when cornered. Now, I don't think irradiating Ukrainian territory makes a whole lot of sense, tactically. But I fear what this regime can and will do in desperation.
  - rendall 4y ago
    > But I fear what this regime can and will do in desperation. Why are you afraid what they will do in desperation? First, their desperation is self-imposed. There is no outside force that warrants their desperation. Russian desperation is Russia's alone to deal with. They behave like the mad dog in the room to get what they want. Their apparent desperation is a tactic to frighten the easily frightened. More importantly, are you in Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland or rural northern Norway? Because the people who live in these areas will suffer in a nuclear war, but they fear nuclear war far less than a Russian victory. They support Ukraine despite Russian threats. Ask yourself why that is. Unrelated, nuclear power is the Earth's best chance to avert climate change from carbon emissions, war notwithstanding. Modern reactor design will ameliorate even missile attacks.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      To be clear my fear of what this regime can/will do does mean I feel we should submit to them. That is, I'm not giving the Elon Musk argument that "nuclear war is possible therefore give Putin what he wants."
      - rendall 4y ago
        That was so diplomatically reckless of Musk. I went from general admiration for the guy to deep unease at his lack of maturity.
- fleischhauf 4y ago
  just make it look like an accident and you are not responsible for starting a nuclear war. counting the number of people accidentally falling out of windows these days certain organizations seem to have more of them..
Kuinox 4y ago
What do you do when there is no sun nor wind ?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  You use a backup source. Currently that would likely be gas; increasingly batteries are taking over for short term, and in the long term hydrogen can be added. At reasonable cost projections, renewables + batteries + hydrogen will give a 100% renewable grid at a cost less than one including new nuclear plants. Additional strategies (transmission, demand dispatch, other storage technologies) can only improve the case for renewables vs. nuclear.
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    Thank you for describing Germany strategy that have been internationally shown to be a bad idea these last months.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Germany failed to roll out enough renewables. They were depending on gas for more than backing up renewables.
      - Kuinox 4y ago
        Except you still need a backup energy source like you said. They failed to roll out enough renewables ? How much do you want them to install ? Right now they have: - 55GW of installed solar, outputing 0% because it's the night. - 65GW of installed wind power, at 22% because not enough wind. Except, they need 60GW right now. They would need 390W of installed wind power to handle this totally regular evening. That's more wind energy than what both USA, and China have currently installed.
        pfdietz 4y ago
        Yes, you need a backup source. In a 100% renewable grid, that backup source could be (for example) hydrogen instead of natural gas. Some other shorter term storage systems would handle most of the short term load shifting, and hydrogen would cover seasonal shifting and rare prolonged dark/calm periods.
baxtr 4y ago
Do you agree that in order to come to a fact based conclusion all pros and cons of each power source need to be considered? I am asking because you only cared to mention the down sides of nuclear. EDIT: this is not meant to be a provocation, I am genuinely interested to understand if you agree that up AND down sides need to be considered.
lnxg33k1 4y ago
> but because it's not a distributed technology and operates from a small number of critical locations. I would also think from a defense point of view, this is good, as if you have a strategical asset, defending could be easier to defend a set of wind power sources or solar, which are distributed. From an attacker point of view, if they want to smash a country's power sources to gain an advantage it could be easier to send few missiles around low protected wind / solar sources, than put off a well defended nuclear plant
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
  Most existing anti-air systems are easily saturated by volleys of cruise missiles, as was the Ukrainian air defence (which is in a better shape than that of most european countries).
BjoernKW 4y ago
Nuclear power also is the best option we have until we have enough renewables to meet our energy needs and the batteries and grid resilience required to complement those. The short-term alternatives to nuclear power amount to either further exacerbating climate change (by burning coal and lignite, for example) or to accepting regular blackouts.
samus 4y ago
Nuclear power plants are usually located quite some distance away from larger settlements. This has multiple reasons - NIMBYism mostly - but it also severely reduces the impact a disaster would have. Evacuate that area and don't touch it for x decades. Except for the core areas, it will basically turn into a national park. Only disadvantage is that it would be mostly unusable for humans. It's sad to have to think about this way, but to me it's much more acceptable to have a Chernobyl or a Fukushima every 50 years than permanently f*king up our ecosystems and threatening the continued survival of hundreds of millions of people due to climate change. Consider that both disasters were caused by plants with outdated designs that were kept running for way longer than reasonable. On top of that, they were handled not only somewhat negligently, but outright hazardously. The Fukushima plant was hit by a freaking tsunami and was not completely set up to mitigate the risks posed by natural hazards (this was known since the '90s) Newer plants generally have safety features that completely prevent or at least help contain the hazards of the older designs. And many of them are built like fortresses. Especially Soviet designs are impregnable to all but dedicated attacks with bunker busters or thermobaric weapons.
defrost 4y ago
> A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. 50+ years on from the aerial minelaying of the Vietnam War people there and in surrounding countries are still being maimed and killed by landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO). War is a dirty business with generational consequences. Many non-nuclear industrial processing operations could also be targeted in a war and leave a deadly footprint for decades. Existing nuclear plants were built at large scale, future nuclear power plants could be made smaller and more widely distributed.
laverya 4y ago
> A dirty bomb would render areas uninhabitable - or at least dangerous - for decades after a war is over. So does being the target of a sustained artillery barrage, among other things. Unexploded ordinance, after all.