4 ms·

Statistics like these are largely useless for comparison for several reason. One of these is the small sample size of nuclear accidents while the probability di

Statistics like these are largely useless for comparison for several reason. One of these is the small sample size of nuclear accidents while the probability distribution of their impact exhibits an extremely high kurtosis risk, what Nassim Taleb calls a "Black Swan". All it takes is one Chernobyl-level accident in a densely populated area, and these statistics would look significantly worse for nuclear energy. But even if you could avoid an extremely large number of immediate and long-term deaths from the accident, suddenly having to evacuate and relocate tens of millions of people overnight would take most countries to the brink of collapse. And none of that even takes into account how completely uncompetitive nuclear energy is in economic terms, how long it would take to build new plans, and that long-term storage of radioactive waste still lacks a proper solution despite decades of work. It's a dead technology, and the time has come to stop wasting resources on trying to make it work when those could be used much more productively to accelerate the move towards renewables.

dotancohen 4y ago
And yet, in nuclear's first half-century of existence no such accident has happened. And the next half-century has technology to be far, far safer than the first.
- 10g1k 4y ago
  First nuclear reactor: 1942. First INES level 6 incident: 1957.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Yes, and with negligible deaths or injuries. And if you would like to dispute my claim of negligible deaths or injuries, please tell me what percentage of a whole is considered negligible for you? 1%? 0.1%? I'd like to use that information to tailor my reply to your response.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  So we're back to pretending Mayak didn't happen now?
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Of course not. How many people do you think died or were injured in the Kishtim accident?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You just said there were no such accidents.
      - dotancohen 4y ago
        Are you suggesting that Mayak was densely populated in 1957? Or that it even is today? Neither of us would have ever heard of the place, or any place within a thousand kilometers ten times its size, if not for the 1957 incident.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You're still trying to distract from your claims that no nuclear incident that could wipe out a city has ever happened. Remoteness of the destruction isn't a counter argument.
beeboop 4y ago
>And none of that even takes into account how completely uncompetitive nuclear energy is in economic terms Nuclear is extremely price competitive if you actually force carbon producing power generation methods to pay to clean up the pollution they emit. Which is something we require of nuclear but for some reason not any other. > long-term storage of radioactive waste still lacks a proper solution despite decades of work. This is both a solved problem and also a non-problem. Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste. > It's a dead technology, and the time has come to stop wasting resources on trying to make it work when those could be used much more productively to accelerate the move towards renewables It's not dead?
- worik 4y ago
  > Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste. Really?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Nuclear is extremely price competitive if you actually force carbon producing power generation methods to pay to clean up the pollution they emit. Which is something we require of nuclear but for some reason not any other. Price competitive with fossil fuels. Still 10x the cost of renewables. Please do implement a carbon price though. Also they don't clean up. There are unremediated uranium mines, nuke plants, mills, and plutonium separation facilities all over the world that are just left for the public to deal with while any money set aside is embezzeled or is only a fraction of what is needed for cleanup. > This is both a solved problem and also a non-problem. Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste. Closed fuel cycles are not a thing. It's never happened. It's not on the drawing board. No series program is trying. The one reactor that allegedly could have a breeding ratio over one is used in a plutonium shell game and achieves nothing other than a small boost in fuel economy for some other reactors and to keep some weapons grade plutonium ready. Reprocessing does nothing other than spew fission products everywhere.

dotancohen 4y ago

And yet, in nuclear's first half-century of existence no such accident has happened. And the next half-century has technology to be far, far safer than the first.

10g1k 4y ago
First nuclear reactor: 1942. First INES level 6 incident: 1957.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  Yes, and with negligible deaths or injuries. And if you would like to dispute my claim of negligible deaths or injuries, please tell me what percentage of a whole is considered negligible for you? 1%? 0.1%? I'd like to use that information to tailor my reply to your response.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
So we're back to pretending Mayak didn't happen now?
- dotancohen 4y ago
  Of course not. How many people do you think died or were injured in the Kishtim accident?
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You just said there were no such accidents.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      Are you suggesting that Mayak was densely populated in 1957? Or that it even is today? Neither of us would have ever heard of the place, or any place within a thousand kilometers ten times its size, if not for the 1957 incident.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You're still trying to distract from your claims that no nuclear incident that could wipe out a city has ever happened. Remoteness of the destruction isn't a counter argument.

beeboop 4y ago

>And none of that even takes into account how completely uncompetitive nuclear energy is in economic terms Nuclear is extremely price competitive if you actually force carbon producing power generation methods to pay to clean up the pollution they emit. Which is something we require of nuclear but for some reason not any other. > long-term storage of radioactive waste still lacks a proper solution despite decades of work. This is both a solved problem and also a non-problem. Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste. > It's a dead technology, and the time has come to stop wasting resources on trying to make it work when those could be used much more productively to accelerate the move towards renewables It's not dead?

worik 4y ago
> Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste. Really?
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Nuclear is extremely price competitive if you actually force carbon producing power generation methods to pay to clean up the pollution they emit. Which is something we require of nuclear but for some reason not any other. Price competitive with fossil fuels. Still 10x the cost of renewables. Please do implement a carbon price though. Also they don't clean up. There are unremediated uranium mines, nuke plants, mills, and plutonium separation facilities all over the world that are just left for the public to deal with while any money set aside is embezzeled or is only a fraction of what is needed for cleanup. > This is both a solved problem and also a non-problem. Advanced nuclear reactor designs have effectively zero waste. Closed fuel cycles are not a thing. It's never happened. It's not on the drawing board. No series program is trying. The one reactor that allegedly could have a breeding ratio over one is used in a plutonium shell game and achieves nothing other than a small boost in fuel economy for some other reactors and to keep some weapons grade plutonium ready. Reprocessing does nothing other than spew fission products everywhere.