6 ms·

We have had very few nuclear hazards in the past, with very limited impact as shown in this article. Nuclear plants that were really old rarely failed as well,

by epups 4y ago

We have had very few nuclear hazards in the past, with very limited impact as shown in this article. Nuclear plants that were really old rarely failed as well, before we added all this regulatory overhead. Weird how something "borderline unmanageable" causes way less damage than the alternatives.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Depends on if you count the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. It is still impossible to get private third party insurance for a nuclear plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...
- illiarian 4y ago
  > the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. > A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 Severe as in: exploded? people died?
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    > Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. Typical nuclear proponents, trying to shift blame. The $2T is for the nuclear side of things.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      Typical nuclear fearmongers throwing nonsensical number about. "Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima " That amounts to 84 billion dollars. That includes everything, including compensations and decomissioning. The cleanup itself is roughly 30 billion dollars. While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        Lying with numbers? We should rely on the Japanese government instead of random HN:ers defending their pet technology. > The cost of dealing with the aftermath of the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant will reach 21.5 trillion yen, roughly double the government's initial prediction of 11 trillion yen, preliminary calculations released on Dec. 8 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have shown. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/009000c https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/00... > While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Read again what I said. The cause was special, while the risk was systemic. All western countries require independent core cooling today because there have been too many near-misses with causes related to power failures. > Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels. Who said anything about radiation? We are talking about cost. The alternative is renewables, which are vastly safer and more economical than nuclear. Again, typical blame shifting. You are not doing nuclear power any service with coal based whataboutism.
        illiarian 4y ago
        > of random HN:ers defending their pet technology. Ah yes. You are not a random HNer spreading FUD. > Who said anything about radiation? We are talking about cost. The alternative is renewables, which are vastly safer If you're talking about safer, then we need to talk about safety. And nuclear power is one of the safest we have. > Again, typical blame shifting. You are not doing nuclear power any service with coal based whataboutism. What?
        epups 4y ago
        So you provide a source that is 2x larger than the estimate from the other guy but over 10x smaller than yours, and you accuse him of lying with numbers? The fact that they spent a lot of money to clean the area just proves they thought this level of investment was needed, not that it actually was. If in fact they overspent, as I believe they did, this is consistent with the idea from the article, that there is overspending on misguided levels of safety when it comes to nuclear.

by epups 4y ago

Gwypaas 4y ago

Depends on if you count the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. After Fukushima about all plants in the west had to install independent core cooling because the regulators realized the risk was systemic, even though the cause was special. A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 when many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. It is still impossible to get private third party insurance for a nuclear plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J...

illiarian 4y ago
> the $2T cleanup cost for Fukushima as limited. Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. > A nuclear reactor in Sweden had a severe incident in 2006 Severe as in: exploded? people died?
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  > Let's ignore the earthquake and tsunami that happened and pretend that all that cleanup is only due to Fukushima. Typical nuclear proponents, trying to shift blame. The $2T is for the nuclear side of things.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    Typical nuclear fearmongers throwing nonsensical number about. "Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima " That amounts to 84 billion dollars. That includes everything, including compensations and decomissioning. The cleanup itself is roughly 30 billion dollars. While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Lying with numbers? We should rely on the Japanese government instead of random HN:ers defending their pet technology. > The cost of dealing with the aftermath of the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant will reach 21.5 trillion yen, roughly double the government's initial prediction of 11 trillion yen, preliminary calculations released on Dec. 8 by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have shown. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/009000c https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161209/p2a/00m/0na/00... > While the costs are still huge, note: this is for a plant that was both hit by an earthquake and flooded by unprecedented tsunami. Read again what I said. The cause was special, while the risk was systemic. All western countries require independent core cooling today because there have been too many near-misses with causes related to power failures. > Also note: even with all that in mind only one person died as the result of direct radiation exposure, and radiation levels in Fukushima region are normal or below average levels. Who said anything about radiation? We are talking about cost. The alternative is renewables, which are vastly safer and more economical than nuclear. Again, typical blame shifting. You are not doing nuclear power any service with coal based whataboutism.
      - illiarian 4y ago
        > of random HN:ers defending their pet technology. Ah yes. You are not a random HNer spreading FUD. > Who said anything about radiation? We are talking about cost. The alternative is renewables, which are vastly safer If you're talking about safer, then we need to talk about safety. And nuclear power is one of the safest we have. > Again, typical blame shifting. You are not doing nuclear power any service with coal based whataboutism. What?
      - epups 4y ago
        So you provide a source that is 2x larger than the estimate from the other guy but over 10x smaller than yours, and you accuse him of lying with numbers? The fact that they spent a lot of money to clean the area just proves they thought this level of investment was needed, not that it actually was. If in fact they overspent, as I believe they did, this is consistent with the idea from the article, that there is overspending on misguided levels of safety when it comes to nuclear.