3 ms·

> The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience. This still sounds like an emotional response. We need to keep in mind that coal ba

> The episode lost trust with the engineering-friendly part of the audience. This still sounds like an emotional response. We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. The only difference is that the trash from nuclear is easy to handle and store. It seems like we implicitly still subscribe the the saying that "The solution to pollution is dilution" – we rather want to dilute our radioactive waste in the air than to put it is manageable containers or leaving it on construction sites.

Hackbraten 4y ago
> We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. I’ve heard that too. Are you sure that this comparison is taking into account radioactive waste at all, rather than just comparing direct emissions into the environment during normal operation?
- madsbuch 4y ago
  https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... it seems like these number include _everything_ also the "nuclear waste in a barrel" radiation emissions.
Arnt 4y ago
I don't think it's an emotional response… it's saying "even if nuclear can be done safely, I just don't trust <list of scandal participants> to do it".
- madsbuch 4y ago
  When you employ a worse form a energy generation than nuclear because of your response to said scandals then you are acting emotionally and not by the knowledge available.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Well, it's not my personal opinion, so I don't suppose I care that deeply… but I confess I'm curious. The insurance company that insured the building I live in sent a letter a couple of years ago, saying that after the string of water leak problems we've had, our insurance premiums would more than double. In effect judging our insurance risk by the number and cost of our past problems. I suspect you won't describe that judgment as emotional. But when people judge a power company by its past safety record, you describe that as emotional. Why? What's the difference? What makes one judgment emotional and the other not? What does "emotional" mean?
    - madsbuch 4y ago
      No, you are right. that in fact happened, and the insurance company set the new premium based on imperics not emotions. my point is, that the "insurance premiums" we have to pay now are significantly higher because we did not employ nuclear on a larger scale 50 years ago. to stay in analogy: you had the choice of choosing another piping system that would have decreased your insurance premiums, but didn't based on an motional response. what we forget to factor in is the enormous tax we have to pay now and the coming years due to the decision of not employing nuclear: infrastructure to manage higher water levels. climate migration issues, energy dependency issues, you name it. and that tax we have to pay due to an emotional response.
- angry_octet 4y ago
  The question is then, "Can these corruption/mismanagement prone entities be reformed to reduce the risk?" I don't think even a 10,000 person strong web of nuclear anti-corruption and safety organisations would be 1% as expensive as the additional costs due to buying more gas from Russia, let alone the climate impact costs. The problem is that these bodies are set up to have a commercial incentive to minimise costs and low probability of detecting poor procedure. I'm not sure if German culture can break the natural hierarchical tendencies (don't contradict superiors, don't report bad news), but probably better chance than in the US (where you'll lose your job and health insurance, and get blacklisted and possibly sued and criminally convicted, if you become a whistle blower).

Hackbraten 4y ago

> We need to keep in mind that coal based energy emits more radioactive matter at a larger scale then nuclear. I’ve heard that too. Are you sure that this comparison is taking into account radioactive waste at all, rather than just comparing direct emissions into the environment during normal operation?

madsbuch 4y ago
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... it seems like these number include _everything_ also the "nuclear waste in a barrel" radiation emissions.

Arnt 4y ago

I don't think it's an emotional response… it's saying "even if nuclear can be done safely, I just don't trust <list of scandal participants> to do it".

madsbuch 4y ago
When you employ a worse form a energy generation than nuclear because of your response to said scandals then you are acting emotionally and not by the knowledge available.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Well, it's not my personal opinion, so I don't suppose I care that deeply… but I confess I'm curious. The insurance company that insured the building I live in sent a letter a couple of years ago, saying that after the string of water leak problems we've had, our insurance premiums would more than double. In effect judging our insurance risk by the number and cost of our past problems. I suspect you won't describe that judgment as emotional. But when people judge a power company by its past safety record, you describe that as emotional. Why? What's the difference? What makes one judgment emotional and the other not? What does "emotional" mean?
  - madsbuch 4y ago
    No, you are right. that in fact happened, and the insurance company set the new premium based on imperics not emotions. my point is, that the "insurance premiums" we have to pay now are significantly higher because we did not employ nuclear on a larger scale 50 years ago. to stay in analogy: you had the choice of choosing another piping system that would have decreased your insurance premiums, but didn't based on an motional response. what we forget to factor in is the enormous tax we have to pay now and the coming years due to the decision of not employing nuclear: infrastructure to manage higher water levels. climate migration issues, energy dependency issues, you name it. and that tax we have to pay due to an emotional response.
angry_octet 4y ago
The question is then, "Can these corruption/mismanagement prone entities be reformed to reduce the risk?" I don't think even a 10,000 person strong web of nuclear anti-corruption and safety organisations would be 1% as expensive as the additional costs due to buying more gas from Russia, let alone the climate impact costs. The problem is that these bodies are set up to have a commercial incentive to minimise costs and low probability of detecting poor procedure. I'm not sure if German culture can break the natural hierarchical tendencies (don't contradict superiors, don't report bad news), but probably better chance than in the US (where you'll lose your job and health insurance, and get blacklisted and possibly sued and criminally convicted, if you become a whistle blower).