6 ms·

> and it's been decades without any reactor-related incidents. I'm not anti-nuclear, but using decades to measure substances with half lifes on the order of te

> and it's been decades without any reactor-related incidents. I'm not anti-nuclear, but using decades to measure substances with half lifes on the order of tens or hundreds of millenia isn't very helpful. The (legitimate) concern is that even low frequency accidents are frequent enough on the timescale of human civlization that they could present semi-permanent damage to the biosphere.

shakow 4y ago
> could present semi-permanent damage to the biosphere. Burning coal, gas or oil present immediate, virtually permanent (at least on a human time scale) damages to the biosphere; hydro electric power already killed at least two more orders of magnitude people than even the most delirious casualty estimations of nuclear power accidents; and air pollution is estimated killing millions of people per year. At some point, people should start learning to count.
- Krssst 4y ago
  Pretty dark take (by all means feel free to correct me), but I am sometimes wondering if the fact that dam failures kill everybody and most of their families at once helps its public image since there's few remaining affected people that can spread awareness. (not saying that hydro is a bad choice; it looks to be the best when possible thanks to load following and ability to double as storage)
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    They also produce a ton of methane by trapping a valley's worth of vegetation at the bottom of an artificial lake, and need dredging to stay functional, but who's really counting?
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      Please provide a citation showing that this is even remotely a significant problem in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, how much methane compared to one cow?
  - VintageCool 4y ago
    The overwhelming majority of deaths from dam failures in living memory were the result of one disaster in China in 1975 which was suppressed by the communist government. It wasn't until 20 years later that Westerners started to learn about it.
    - shakow 4y ago
      Sure, there is this one outlier, but there are quite a few >100s deaths incidents in the West too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
      - natmaka 4y ago
        Most of them were not hydro-electric dams, which are statistically more recent and in practice way more effectively monitored (people are permanently occupying most of the not-tiny-ones).
- ramblenode 4y ago
  And coal burning emits more radioactive pollution than nuclear power! All relevant points. I didn't mean to suggest that nuclear power is less safe than alternatives, just that the risk profile is different. The risks of nuclear power are in a long tail of infrequent but potentially large accidents so we can only understand its risks properly by looking at a long timeframe.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  People constantly raise the "coAl poLLuTiON!" argument and always do so with a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel, completely ignoring any renewables like solar, wind, or hydro. If you're accusing people of not learning to count, maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, and that's despite nearly a century of heavy government subsidization. It is, in fact, getting more expensive, while wind and solar get less expensive.
  - shakow 4y ago
    > a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel That's not a false choice, there is also hydro (unfortunately my country is more or less saturated there), solar (OK if you're a really sunny country and only need electricity during the day, not so great otherwise) and wind (30% average load factor, risible cost efficiency, huge surface required, needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years). > maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, Tell me then, is that why Germany, after sinking dozens of billions over dozens of billions of euros in renewable, is still producing electricity with carbonation level closer to Bulgaria & Poland than France or Belgium, AND has to buy them electricity whenever there is no wind, and sell it at low price when there is too much wind? But yes, please, show me these numbers.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      > 30% average load factor Offshore is way better, up to .6 > risible cost efficiency This is not true, see the LCOE: > huge surface required Offshore solves this and also offers quasi-sanctuaries to our over-exploited seas. > needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years Moreover the are more and more efficiently recycled.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      France does not further reduces its emissions related to electricity production since 2002, when its newest nuclear reactor, Civaux-2, started. Germany nowadays reduces its emissions faster than France, while losing its industry at a way slower pace. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1999..latest&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
- natmaka 4y ago
  Hydro is apparently dangerous due to the Banqiao disaster, however at it "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era . Moreover all this came after a civil war and a violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source). Then a typhoon hit and many dams collapsed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#The_collapse_of_dams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#The_c... ) During decades predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, even when it unfolded people had days to react... but given such a context nobody was able to do so. One may wonder what an active nuclear reactor will become in such a context. Estimations of nuclear power disasters are highly disputed, and some claims are very high ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... ) Also: you compare nuclear to fossil fuels, neglecting renewables.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Didn’t the KMT intentionally blow one of their own dams in Henan to hinder the Japanese but kill a bunch of their own citizens at one point in the war? Ya, that is hard core.
Turing_Machine 4y ago
This is a common misconception. The longer the half-life, the less radioactive something is. By definition. Something with a half-life of "tens or hundreds of millenia" is not very radioactive. Something with a half-life of infinity is not radioactive at all. The really dangerous stuff tends to be isotopes like iodine-131 (half-life 8 days, accumulates in the thyroid gland), strontium-90 (half-life of about 29 years, accumulates in the bones).
- hoseja 4y ago
  There are actually only 21 isotopes with "tens or hundreds of millennia" half-life listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_nuclides_by_half-life#109_seconds_(gigaseconds) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_nuclides_b...
hackerlight 4y ago
> The (legitimate) concern is that even low frequency accidents are frequent enough on the timescale of human civlization that they could present semi-permanent damage to the biosphere. Any such concern, if legitimate, should at least be fleshed out with some basic assumptions and numbers. What is the (rough, estimate) probability distribution of the number of deaths that this will cause? Then we can compare it with the danger of fossil fuels. Otherwise we're left with hand-wavy expressions like "accidents" and "frequent enough". What are we to do with such statements?

shakow 4y ago

> could present semi-permanent damage to the biosphere. Burning coal, gas or oil present immediate, virtually permanent (at least on a human time scale) damages to the biosphere; hydro electric power already killed at least two more orders of magnitude people than even the most delirious casualty estimations of nuclear power accidents; and air pollution is estimated killing millions of people per year. At some point, people should start learning to count.

Krssst 4y ago
Pretty dark take (by all means feel free to correct me), but I am sometimes wondering if the fact that dam failures kill everybody and most of their families at once helps its public image since there's few remaining affected people that can spread awareness. (not saying that hydro is a bad choice; it looks to be the best when possible thanks to load following and ability to double as storage)
- zdragnar 4y ago
  They also produce a ton of methane by trapping a valley's worth of vegetation at the bottom of an artificial lake, and need dredging to stay functional, but who's really counting?
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    Please provide a citation showing that this is even remotely a significant problem in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, how much methane compared to one cow?
- VintageCool 4y ago
  The overwhelming majority of deaths from dam failures in living memory were the result of one disaster in China in 1975 which was suppressed by the communist government. It wasn't until 20 years later that Westerners started to learn about it.
  - shakow 4y ago
    Sure, there is this one outlier, but there are quite a few >100s deaths incidents in the West too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure
    - natmaka 4y ago
      Most of them were not hydro-electric dams, which are statistically more recent and in practice way more effectively monitored (people are permanently occupying most of the not-tiny-ones).
ramblenode 4y ago
And coal burning emits more radioactive pollution than nuclear power! All relevant points. I didn't mean to suggest that nuclear power is less safe than alternatives, just that the risk profile is different. The risks of nuclear power are in a long tail of infrequent but potentially large accidents so we can only understand its risks properly by looking at a long timeframe.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
People constantly raise the "coAl poLLuTiON!" argument and always do so with a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel, completely ignoring any renewables like solar, wind, or hydro. If you're accusing people of not learning to count, maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, and that's despite nearly a century of heavy government subsidization. It is, in fact, getting more expensive, while wind and solar get less expensive.
- shakow 4y ago
  > a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuel That's not a false choice, there is also hydro (unfortunately my country is more or less saturated there), solar (OK if you're a really sunny country and only need electricity during the day, not so great otherwise) and wind (30% average load factor, risible cost efficiency, huge surface required, needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years). > maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, Tell me then, is that why Germany, after sinking dozens of billions over dozens of billions of euros in renewable, is still producing electricity with carbonation level closer to Bulgaria & Poland than France or Belgium, AND has to buy them electricity whenever there is no wind, and sell it at low price when there is too much wind? But yes, please, show me these numbers.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    > 30% average load factor Offshore is way better, up to .6 > risible cost efficiency This is not true, see the LCOE: > huge surface required Offshore solves this and also offers quasi-sanctuaries to our over-exploited seas. > needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years Moreover the are more and more efficiently recycled.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    France does not further reduces its emissions related to electricity production since 2002, when its newest nuclear reactor, Civaux-2, started. Germany nowadays reduces its emissions faster than France, while losing its industry at a way slower pace. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&time=1999..latest&country=FRA~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
natmaka 4y ago
Hydro is apparently dangerous due to the Banqiao disaster, however at it "took place during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when most people were busy with the "revolution" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966. In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen. This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era . Moreover all this came after a civil war and a violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source). Then a typhoon hit and many dams collapsed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#The_collapse_of_dams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#The_c... ) During decades predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, even when it unfolded people had days to react... but given such a context nobody was able to do so. One may wonder what an active nuclear reactor will become in such a context. Estimations of nuclear power disasters are highly disputed, and some claims are very high ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... ) Also: you compare nuclear to fossil fuels, neglecting renewables.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Didn’t the KMT intentionally blow one of their own dams in Henan to hinder the Japanese but kill a bunch of their own citizens at one point in the war? Ya, that is hard core.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

This is a common misconception. The longer the half-life, the less radioactive something is. By definition. Something with a half-life of "tens or hundreds of millenia" is not very radioactive. Something with a half-life of infinity is not radioactive at all. The really dangerous stuff tends to be isotopes like iodine-131 (half-life 8 days, accumulates in the thyroid gland), strontium-90 (half-life of about 29 years, accumulates in the bones).

hoseja 4y ago
There are actually only 21 isotopes with "tens or hundreds of millennia" half-life listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_nuclides_by_half-life#109_seconds_(gigaseconds) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radioactive_nuclides_b...

hackerlight 4y ago

> The (legitimate) concern is that even low frequency accidents are frequent enough on the timescale of human civlization that they could present semi-permanent damage to the biosphere. Any such concern, if legitimate, should at least be fleshed out with some basic assumptions and numbers. What is the (rough, estimate) probability distribution of the number of deaths that this will cause? Then we can compare it with the danger of fossil fuels. Otherwise we're left with hand-wavy expressions like "accidents" and "frequent enough". What are we to do with such statements?