4 ms·

If nuclear power requires more vigilance or competence from the people running it to avert disaster then that's a real demerit.

rightbyte 4y ago
Which especially makes me nervous about all these plans for small reactors. Harder to supervise for authorities and more "silos" where incompetence could emerge.
- tb_technical 4y ago
  Beware fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The new small reactors have safer designs and more fail-safes than the last gen reactors.
mpweiher 4y ago
It doesn't. Fukushima clearly demonstrated this. 1. The reactor was an old design, not really considered safe 2. Known deficiencies were not fixed 3. Despite the regulations saying they needed to be fixed 4. Regulations that were also found to be insufficient So really colossal screwups piled on top of each other. And so an accident happened. Explosions happened. Without the containment of more modern plants. And yet, the actual effect was minimal. (The panic, on the other hand...)
- cinntaile 4y ago
  You clearly prove his point, more vigilance and/or competence is needed.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is always desirable: Absolutely! If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is required to operate nuclear power: I clearly showed the opposite.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      I was under the assumption we were taking about what was required to operate a nuclear power plant while trying to prevent accidents. If accidents are no issue then I agree that the vigilance/competence bar needn't be very high to operate a plant. I don't see how you would sell that to the general public though and I'm not sure I get your point in that case? It's technically right but not really applicable to running a nuclear power plant in society. Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents.
      - mpweiher 4y ago
        > operate a nuclear power plant No. I was talking about whether countries/societies operate nuclear power. Very different. For example, the Bhopal disaster at a chemical plant killed several thousand people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Germany did not get out of chemicals production afterward, or after Seveso or Flixborough, even though the case for that was a lot stronger than for getting out of nuclear. But of course this does not imply it is fine to run a chemical plant this way. Separate issues. > trying to prevent accidents Key word is trying. You will never be able to prevent all accidents and being 100% certain to prevent all accidents cannot be the standard, and it is not a standard applied anywhere else. And Fukushima showed that a lot of idiocy has to be stacked on top of each other in order to get to an accident, and even then the actual effects of the accident are fairly benign. > If accidents are no issue No. Accidents are issues. But the response to those issues has to be appropriate and proportionate. > Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents. Society also wants and needs energy, and nuclear energy is one of the safest/cleanest forms of energy we have, and the safest/cleanest form of reliable energy we have. Not having reliable energy would be a far greater disaster than any nuclear accident to date. In fact, the net effect is highly, highly positive even for fossil fuels.
        cinntaile 4y ago
        Chemical plants serve a different purpose than a nuclear power plant. You can produce electricity in a lot of different ways, you usually can't produce chemicals in a lot of different ways. They're a prerequisite to produce other chemicals or products so not producing them damages your supply chain. Sometimes you can subsitute them for another chemical, usually you can't. Chemical accidents such as the ones you mentioned have for that matter resulted in a lot of new safety precautions. > And Fukushima showed that a lot of idiocy has to be stacked on top of each other in order to get to an accident, and even then the actual effects of the accident are fairly benign. A lot of accidents are considered unlikely, but it doesn't stop them from happening. Even if we accept that the impact on humans has been limited, we still cannot ignore the $100+ billion in additional costs costs. > Society also wants and needs energy, and nuclear energy is one of the safest/cleanest forms of energy we have, and the safest/cleanest form of reliable energy we have. If only it was flexible, that would be something. Unfortunately OpEx is pretty much unchanged when you vary the output.
  - danson 4y ago
    I think his point is that even with the current levels of vigilance and competence (which unarguably can and should be improved) the actualized impact was "minimal". In other words, the expected scale of "disaster" here matters when assessing risk vs current operational fitness.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      Well put, thank you!
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      It's a bit strange to describe a total cost of $100+ billion as "minimal".
      - mpweiher 4y ago
        I am talking about actual effects, not effects due to overreaction. If you count effects due to overreaction, you can also count Germany's Atomausstieg, which almost certainly materially contributed to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine...

rightbyte 4y ago

Which especially makes me nervous about all these plans for small reactors. Harder to supervise for authorities and more "silos" where incompetence could emerge.

tb_technical 4y ago
Beware fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The new small reactors have safer designs and more fail-safes than the last gen reactors.

mpweiher 4y ago

It doesn't. Fukushima clearly demonstrated this. 1. The reactor was an old design, not really considered safe 2. Known deficiencies were not fixed 3. Despite the regulations saying they needed to be fixed 4. Regulations that were also found to be insufficient So really colossal screwups piled on top of each other. And so an accident happened. Explosions happened. Without the containment of more modern plants. And yet, the actual effect was minimal. (The panic, on the other hand...)

cinntaile 4y ago
You clearly prove his point, more vigilance and/or competence is needed.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is always desirable: Absolutely! If you mean that more vigilance and/or competence is required to operate nuclear power: I clearly showed the opposite.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    I was under the assumption we were taking about what was required to operate a nuclear power plant while trying to prevent accidents. If accidents are no issue then I agree that the vigilance/competence bar needn't be very high to operate a plant. I don't see how you would sell that to the general public though and I'm not sure I get your point in that case? It's technically right but not really applicable to running a nuclear power plant in society. Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      > operate a nuclear power plant No. I was talking about whether countries/societies operate nuclear power. Very different. For example, the Bhopal disaster at a chemical plant killed several thousand people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Germany did not get out of chemicals production afterward, or after Seveso or Flixborough, even though the case for that was a lot stronger than for getting out of nuclear. But of course this does not imply it is fine to run a chemical plant this way. Separate issues. > trying to prevent accidents Key word is trying. You will never be able to prevent all accidents and being 100% certain to prevent all accidents cannot be the standard, and it is not a standard applied anywhere else. And Fukushima showed that a lot of idiocy has to be stacked on top of each other in order to get to an accident, and even then the actual effects of the accident are fairly benign. > If accidents are no issue No. Accidents are issues. But the response to those issues has to be appropriate and proportionate. > Society wants a safely operated plant without serious accidents. Society also wants and needs energy, and nuclear energy is one of the safest/cleanest forms of energy we have, and the safest/cleanest form of reliable energy we have. Not having reliable energy would be a far greater disaster than any nuclear accident to date. In fact, the net effect is highly, highly positive even for fossil fuels.
      - cinntaile 4y ago
        Chemical plants serve a different purpose than a nuclear power plant. You can produce electricity in a lot of different ways, you usually can't produce chemicals in a lot of different ways. They're a prerequisite to produce other chemicals or products so not producing them damages your supply chain. Sometimes you can subsitute them for another chemical, usually you can't. Chemical accidents such as the ones you mentioned have for that matter resulted in a lot of new safety precautions. > And Fukushima showed that a lot of idiocy has to be stacked on top of each other in order to get to an accident, and even then the actual effects of the accident are fairly benign. A lot of accidents are considered unlikely, but it doesn't stop them from happening. Even if we accept that the impact on humans has been limited, we still cannot ignore the $100+ billion in additional costs costs. > Society also wants and needs energy, and nuclear energy is one of the safest/cleanest forms of energy we have, and the safest/cleanest form of reliable energy we have. If only it was flexible, that would be something. Unfortunately OpEx is pretty much unchanged when you vary the output.
- danson 4y ago
  I think his point is that even with the current levels of vigilance and competence (which unarguably can and should be improved) the actualized impact was "minimal". In other words, the expected scale of "disaster" here matters when assessing risk vs current operational fitness.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Well put, thank you!
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    It's a bit strange to describe a total cost of $100+ billion as "minimal".
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      I am talking about actual effects, not effects due to overreaction. If you count effects due to overreaction, you can also count Germany's Atomausstieg, which almost certainly materially contributed to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine...