4 ms·

>a worst case scenario like Chernobyl Chernobyl was not a worst-case scenario, it is just the worst scenario that has happened so far. If it hadn't been handle

>a worst case scenario like Chernobyl Chernobyl was not a worst-case scenario, it is just the worst scenario that has happened so far. If it hadn't been handled by humans sacrificing their lives to stop the chain of events, it could have been much, much worse. Had the fire continued it could indeed have been a "wasteland" scenario. The site you recommend makes claims about safety that are logically broken. Things are not safe based on what has happened so far, they are safe or unsafe based on what could happen in the future. Surely you realize this. The claim this site makes is equivalent to saying that a gun is safe if it hasn't been used yet. I frankly find it to be a very dishonest argument, it seems designed to mislead rather than enlighten.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
The fact that it was: a) an unstable reactor b) without a containment structure c) that was put through a dangerous experiment overriding safety systems means to me that it's very likely to be the worst commercial nuclear power scenario we'll see. Compare with Fukushima where a whole area was inundated by a tsunami and a triple meltdown, leading to very few, if any, people receiving more than the minimum dose known to cause measurable harm. And again keep in mind that we're comparing against fossil and biofuel, which power over 80% of the planet and cause 7 million premature deaths from particulate emissions every single year just operating normally. I guess the term 'worst case scenario' isn't really useful since there's always someone who can come up with something else, regardless of how unlikely it is. Fair point on that.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Now try get private insurance for a nuclear power plant. The alternative is not burning things, it is renewables. Stop creating a strawman to argue against.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Try to get private insurance against climate change and air pollution and blackouts. Fossil and biofuel make 80% of our energy. This is not a straw man argument.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Moving the goalposts... Primary energy. That will shift dramatically as industries get electrified. No point cooling 70% of the produced energy in a nuclear or coal plant anymore. Similarly, the question of interest is what to build. Fossil, or nuclear plants barely exist on that list globally. It is simply too expensive. 5x the CO2 emissions get displaced by building renewables compared to nuclear, with a much shorter time to value. Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis.
      - ehvatum 4y ago
        > Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis. This kind of willfully blind thinking continues our reliance on fossil fuels. There is a need for reliable energy that cannot yet be met by renewable energy. For this specific reason, Russia funded German opposition to nuclear power.
        Gwypaas 4y ago
        Let's fix the +90% that is trivial without storage and work on the last percents when we get there in the 2030s. The research finds it easily solvable today, but a holistic approach is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
        acidburnNSA 4y ago
        "Easily solvable" is highly dubious. The guy behind the 100% renewables no nuclear allowed push sued his scientific critics for publishing a critique of his work and was eventually forced to pay their legal fees. [1] But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2] [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered... [2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...
- Kon5ole 4y ago
  In my opinion the interesting point is c). Simply put, humans failed and caused a catastrophe. If you have c), a) and b) don't matter. And we will always have c). Humans are currently failing by waging a war around nuclear power plants. How safe those plants are under normal operation doesn't really matter. Humans fail by performing terrorist attacks too. They fail by building nuclear plants that can't handle a tsunami in a tsunami-prone area. Nuclear power provides centuries of opportunity for humans to fail in ways that have immense damage potential. This is clearly a very real risk, and makes nuclear power unsafe. One can still argue for nuclear power, but not by saying it's safe. It simply isn't.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

The fact that it was: a) an unstable reactor b) without a containment structure c) that was put through a dangerous experiment overriding safety systems means to me that it's very likely to be the worst commercial nuclear power scenario we'll see. Compare with Fukushima where a whole area was inundated by a tsunami and a triple meltdown, leading to very few, if any, people receiving more than the minimum dose known to cause measurable harm. And again keep in mind that we're comparing against fossil and biofuel, which power over 80% of the planet and cause 7 million premature deaths from particulate emissions every single year just operating normally. I guess the term 'worst case scenario' isn't really useful since there's always someone who can come up with something else, regardless of how unlikely it is. Fair point on that.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Now try get private insurance for a nuclear power plant. The alternative is not burning things, it is renewables. Stop creating a strawman to argue against.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Try to get private insurance against climate change and air pollution and blackouts. Fossil and biofuel make 80% of our energy. This is not a straw man argument.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Moving the goalposts... Primary energy. That will shift dramatically as industries get electrified. No point cooling 70% of the produced energy in a nuclear or coal plant anymore. Similarly, the question of interest is what to build. Fossil, or nuclear plants barely exist on that list globally. It is simply too expensive. 5x the CO2 emissions get displaced by building renewables compared to nuclear, with a much shorter time to value. Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis.
    - ehvatum 4y ago
      > Investing in nuclear today prolongs the climate crisis. This kind of willfully blind thinking continues our reliance on fossil fuels. There is a need for reliable energy that cannot yet be met by renewable energy. For this specific reason, Russia funded German opposition to nuclear power.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        Let's fix the +90% that is trivial without storage and work on the last percents when we get there in the 2030s. The research finds it easily solvable today, but a holistic approach is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
        acidburnNSA 4y ago
        "Easily solvable" is highly dubious. The guy behind the 100% renewables no nuclear allowed push sued his scientific critics for publishing a critique of his work and was eventually forced to pay their legal fees. [1] But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2] [1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered... [2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...
Kon5ole 4y ago
In my opinion the interesting point is c). Simply put, humans failed and caused a catastrophe. If you have c), a) and b) don't matter. And we will always have c). Humans are currently failing by waging a war around nuclear power plants. How safe those plants are under normal operation doesn't really matter. Humans fail by performing terrorist attacks too. They fail by building nuclear plants that can't handle a tsunami in a tsunami-prone area. Nuclear power provides centuries of opportunity for humans to fail in ways that have immense damage potential. This is clearly a very real risk, and makes nuclear power unsafe. One can still argue for nuclear power, but not by saying it's safe. It simply isn't.