3 ms·

Thinking we know the future risk profile of nuclear power from their past history is a dangerous fallacy. Apart from the obvious "black swan" problems with tha

Thinking we know the future risk profile of nuclear power from their past history is a dangerous fallacy. Apart from the obvious "black swan" problems with that fallacy, so far nobody actually tried to cause incidents intentionally. And expanding nuclear power means scaling up access to nuclear material rapidly and massively. Including in countries with less stable prospects. The "past risk profile" is worth nothing in that context.

realusername 4y ago
Nobody is saying those countries have to maintain their infrastructure, they can outsource it to countries which have good nuclear industries
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  That idea is so far from practical reality it isn't even funny.
  - realusername 4y ago
    That's already what happens for gas and petrol anyways
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      Not true. Development countries are massively expanding their energy usage. You can handwave around and say they are outsourcing whatever, but in reality, it is much safer to help them transition to renewables or even leave them on fossil fuels rather than give them access to nuclear technology and nuclear material and build nuclear plants were bad shit can happen. Come to think of it, with the lifespan of a nuclear plant, or worse the nuclear waste, there aren't a lot of regions left you would trust to stay completely safe from war, civil war and political upheaval.
      - realusername 4y ago
        Again I'm not saying they have to manage it themselves. Those developing countries don't manage petrol refineries and transportation either and would be incapable of insuring it in case of having an issue.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        That's a particularly ignorant statement, but I get where you are coming from now. Developing countries and those on the verge of becoming industrialized nations, are quite capable of handling complex technology. India and Pakistan have their own nuclear industry complete with nuclear weapons, mostly driven by indigineous efforts. And foreigners running a nuclear plant in such a country does absolutely nothing to the security risks from wars and political unrest. ISIS tried to find material for dirty bombs in Mossul for example. The only reason they didn't find anything was that they were looking in the wrong places. If you start putting that stuff in countries were you can't be sure if the government stays stable for the next five years, much less fifty years or even multiple centuries if they don't manage to store the waste securely, that's a recipe for desaster.
        realusername 4y ago
        That argument is completely moot though since there's absolutely no viable infrastructure you can make in countries which is ran by terrorists. It's not only an issue with nuclear but absolutely everything, you can't build dams, maintain a petrol or a gas infrastructure, water, bridges... Nothing will work, not even the wires for the grid itself.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        You can build plenty of infrastructure in countries that are currently NOT run by terrorists but may be some time in the next fifty years. The point being that a large fraction of the earth just isn't stable enough to rely on fifty to a hundred years of total peace, stability and reliability. Which is the prerequisite for all the safety assumptions around nuclear power. Dams are actually less dangerous, because the potential area of damage is more limited, whereas a dirty bomb may be used quite some distance away and radioactive fallout also isn't that localized. Also most "conventional" infrastructure just degrades and becomes useless when not properly maintained. Can't say that about nuclear infrastructure (besides power plants you need mines, processing and research facilities and waste storage). And even with things like river dams people do ask questions about political stability and who gets the short end of the stick when the dam breaks, intentionally or unintentionally. Just because you don't like an argument doesn't make it "moot". I think I'm not alone in not being comfortable with new nuclear projects going up in eastern Europe... The political situations are relatively stable apart from Ukraine, but I wouldn't bet my life on it staying that way for the next fifty years. Don't even ask about Africa or most of Asia....

realusername 4y ago

Nobody is saying those countries have to maintain their infrastructure, they can outsource it to countries which have good nuclear industries

bayesian_horse 4y ago
That idea is so far from practical reality it isn't even funny.
- realusername 4y ago
  That's already what happens for gas and petrol anyways
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Not true. Development countries are massively expanding their energy usage. You can handwave around and say they are outsourcing whatever, but in reality, it is much safer to help them transition to renewables or even leave them on fossil fuels rather than give them access to nuclear technology and nuclear material and build nuclear plants were bad shit can happen. Come to think of it, with the lifespan of a nuclear plant, or worse the nuclear waste, there aren't a lot of regions left you would trust to stay completely safe from war, civil war and political upheaval.
    - realusername 4y ago
      Again I'm not saying they have to manage it themselves. Those developing countries don't manage petrol refineries and transportation either and would be incapable of insuring it in case of having an issue.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        That's a particularly ignorant statement, but I get where you are coming from now. Developing countries and those on the verge of becoming industrialized nations, are quite capable of handling complex technology. India and Pakistan have their own nuclear industry complete with nuclear weapons, mostly driven by indigineous efforts. And foreigners running a nuclear plant in such a country does absolutely nothing to the security risks from wars and political unrest. ISIS tried to find material for dirty bombs in Mossul for example. The only reason they didn't find anything was that they were looking in the wrong places. If you start putting that stuff in countries were you can't be sure if the government stays stable for the next five years, much less fifty years or even multiple centuries if they don't manage to store the waste securely, that's a recipe for desaster.
        realusername 4y ago
        That argument is completely moot though since there's absolutely no viable infrastructure you can make in countries which is ran by terrorists. It's not only an issue with nuclear but absolutely everything, you can't build dams, maintain a petrol or a gas infrastructure, water, bridges... Nothing will work, not even the wires for the grid itself.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        You can build plenty of infrastructure in countries that are currently NOT run by terrorists but may be some time in the next fifty years. The point being that a large fraction of the earth just isn't stable enough to rely on fifty to a hundred years of total peace, stability and reliability. Which is the prerequisite for all the safety assumptions around nuclear power. Dams are actually less dangerous, because the potential area of damage is more limited, whereas a dirty bomb may be used quite some distance away and radioactive fallout also isn't that localized. Also most "conventional" infrastructure just degrades and becomes useless when not properly maintained. Can't say that about nuclear infrastructure (besides power plants you need mines, processing and research facilities and waste storage). And even with things like river dams people do ask questions about political stability and who gets the short end of the stick when the dam breaks, intentionally or unintentionally. Just because you don't like an argument doesn't make it "moot". I think I'm not alone in not being comfortable with new nuclear projects going up in eastern Europe... The political situations are relatively stable apart from Ukraine, but I wouldn't bet my life on it staying that way for the next fifty years. Don't even ask about Africa or most of Asia....