3 ms·

It has actually, in places and times where regulations were reasonable.

kelnos 4y ago
You mean the places and times and regulatory environment that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima? I'm not going to get into a debate over the safety of nuclear over other generation options, but is it conceivable that, if the modern regulatory environment were in place when those three plants were built and operated, they never would have suffered major incidents?
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  Those power plants wouldn't have been allowed to be built... so yes? With the modern regulatory environment, those three nuclear power plants would never have melted down (because they wouldn't exist).
  - iopq 4y ago
    But you can't both have cheap nuclear and the current regulations since they are in conflict. But I think molten salt thorium plants can offer superior safety
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Molten salt reactors might provide superior safety (the thorium is irrelevant to that). However, they also would likely imply higher operating costs, because now instead of being sealed in fuel elements your fuel is flowing through a larger part of your reactor, and volatile fission products are escaping into the off gas and have to be trapped in another system (which will have to be cooled to prevent melting). So you now have complex systems that are too radioactive for anyone to touch for maintenance. Reactor structural elements are also now exposed to more neutron radiation as well.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  There was less than 100 deaths from chernobyl, and only one person died directly from fukushima[1]. I suspect more people have died from falling off roofs while fitting or cleaning solar panels than that. You're correct that nobody builds rbmk reactors any more, but others of the design continued to operate safely for many years. [1]https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    > There was less than 100 deaths from chernobyl There may well be tens of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl. No, we can't state that these deaths absolutely occurred/will occur -- they are spread throughout large populations, mixed into the vast number of naturally occurring cancers -- but technology regulation is not like criminal prosecution where things must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty.
    - dTal 4y ago
      > Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty That depends entirely on the technology, and who is paying who. Fossil fuels have been proven guilty of numerous sins time and again and are still relentlessly defended as innocent. Leaded fuel in particular enjoyed an undeserved benefit of the doubt. Food additives are another category of chemical with very permissive regulation, provided they don't cause lab rats to immediately keel over. Technology regulation is unprincipled at best and outright corrupt at worst, and even with the most pessimistic estimates nuclear power has the best safety record per watt of any power generation technology (and it's not close).
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        That's nice, but it's no justification for that earlier poster lying about the number of people killed by Chernobyl. There's very good reason to think the number is much larger than 100. Fossil fuels being bad is an argument for getting off fossil fuels, not an argument for nuclear in particular.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Having a fukushima and a three mile island happen every year would be easily worth it if it made nuclear 20% cheaper (feel free to do the maths if you dont believe me). And it would actually make things fourfold cheaper judging by the difference in price per KW between the 80s and now.
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
which times and places were those?
- concordDance 4y ago
  80s USA.

You mean the places and times and regulatory environment that brought us Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima? I'm not going to get into a debate over the safety of nuclear over other generation options, but is it conceivable that, if the modern regulatory environment were in place when those three plants were built and operated, they never would have suffered major incidents?

jimmydorry 4y ago
Those power plants wouldn't have been allowed to be built... so yes? With the modern regulatory environment, those three nuclear power plants would never have melted down (because they wouldn't exist).
- iopq 4y ago
  But you can't both have cheap nuclear and the current regulations since they are in conflict. But I think molten salt thorium plants can offer superior safety
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Molten salt reactors might provide superior safety (the thorium is irrelevant to that). However, they also would likely imply higher operating costs, because now instead of being sealed in fuel elements your fuel is flowing through a larger part of your reactor, and volatile fission products are escaping into the off gas and have to be trapped in another system (which will have to be cooled to prevent melting). So you now have complex systems that are too radioactive for anyone to touch for maintenance. Reactor structural elements are also now exposed to more neutron radiation as well.
RobotToaster 4y ago
There was less than 100 deaths from chernobyl, and only one person died directly from fukushima[1]. I suspect more people have died from falling off roofs while fitting or cleaning solar panels than that. You're correct that nobody builds rbmk reactors any more, but others of the design continued to operate safely for many years. [1]https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-cher...
- pfdietz 4y ago
  > There was less than 100 deaths from chernobyl There may well be tens of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl. No, we can't state that these deaths absolutely occurred/will occur -- they are spread throughout large populations, mixed into the vast number of naturally occurring cancers -- but technology regulation is not like criminal prosecution where things must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty.
  - dTal 4y ago
    > Technologies are not innocent until proven guilty That depends entirely on the technology, and who is paying who. Fossil fuels have been proven guilty of numerous sins time and again and are still relentlessly defended as innocent. Leaded fuel in particular enjoyed an undeserved benefit of the doubt. Food additives are another category of chemical with very permissive regulation, provided they don't cause lab rats to immediately keel over. Technology regulation is unprincipled at best and outright corrupt at worst, and even with the most pessimistic estimates nuclear power has the best safety record per watt of any power generation technology (and it's not close).
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      That's nice, but it's no justification for that earlier poster lying about the number of people killed by Chernobyl. There's very good reason to think the number is much larger than 100. Fossil fuels being bad is an argument for getting off fossil fuels, not an argument for nuclear in particular.
concordDance 4y ago
Having a fukushima and a three mile island happen every year would be easily worth it if it made nuclear 20% cheaper (feel free to do the maths if you dont believe me). And it would actually make things fourfold cheaper judging by the difference in price per KW between the 80s and now.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

which times and places were those?

concordDance 4y ago
80s USA.