3 ms·

This was a bad accident and a fascinating story. I would like to just remind everyone of safety context, where the WHO is currently estimating 7 million premat

This was a bad accident and a fascinating story. I would like to just remind everyone of safety context, where the WHO is currently estimating 7 million premature deaths per year from particulate emissions from fossil and biofuel combustion energy sources. Despite several high-profile and memorable nuclear accidents, nuclear fission remains among the safest and cleanest ways we know to make electricity. Plus it's low-carbon to boot. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Mindwipe 3y ago
The problem is - a) the British state has a very, very long track record of lying about domestic nuclear, so the public finds any safety claims hard to take seriously. b) the main issue with nuclear power in the UK is economic - the public have had to take on genuinely enormous liabilities in pensions and cleanup liabilities from every previous attempt, so do not take the cost projections for future sites at face value. And quite rationally so. But if we assume that liability overruns from the taxpayer were to happen at the same rate, the economic case for nuclear versus renewables on a small, windy, rainy island with a lot of tides disappears.
- pjc50 3y ago
  c) up until about 1990, nuclear reactors using U -> Pu cycles were a critical component of building nuclear weapons, and the designed intent of nuclear weapons was casualty figures in the hundreds of millions. This sat uneasily alongside a policy of "of course we don't intend to actually do that unless threatened". Every now and again people remember this when looking at Iran, Ukraine, Taiwan etc. d) the last UK agriculture impact of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster were lifted in 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228
- DrBazza 3y ago
  a) evidence? What the UK has a long long track record of, is CND and Greenpeace misrepresenting or outright lying to the general public about all aspects of nuclear power and often conflating it with nuclear weapons. I trust scientists over Doris, 63, from Derby, who doesn't like nuclear power 'for reasons'. b) All Western countries have an economic problem with nuclear power because the government has been involved since day one for obvious military reasons, limiting the ability to commercialise it and hence reduce costs. SpaceX launches cost 10% of government launches because they've been allowed to commercialise rockets.
  - scraptor 3y ago
    How about the events mentioned in TFA, where the government covered up the extent of the radiation leak from the fire in the nuclear plant of unsafe design operated despite repeated accidents, which would have resulted in catastrophic release of uranium dust if not for the individual decision by the the project lead to build filters into the chimneys despite ridicule from the rest of the team?
  - pjc50 3y ago
    It has been commercialised? What are EDF and Westinghouse? Even Rolls-Royce is touting the small modular reactor beloved of HN. The problem is that the UK government contracting out to privateish nuclear (state-owned EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group) still hasn't reduced costs. No, the cost advantage of SpaceX is that they're allowed to fail. This cannot apply to the nuclear industry.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    a) OP's article includes the observation that a report into a serious fire was suppressed for 30 years. Perhaps start your search for evidence with what has already been provided, and then broaden to include the whole history of the plant. b) it seems like the high costs are less a function of government inefficiency than the fact that reprocessing for weapon production is difficult and dangerous, which adds to the cost. Commercial endeavors don't have or want to produce plutonium, but if you think that private industry is somehow immune from the creation of negative externalities, corner-cutting, or cover-ups then I've got an incredible new cryptocurrency opportunity just for you.
qbasic_forever 3y ago
Something like windscale would never be built again either. It was an air cooled research reactor designed to make weapon fuel, not power generation or anything useful for civilian purposes. As they learned, air cooling at that scale was a terrible idea and never used again.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  Air-cooled reactor... that horrifies me. But it was built before they really knew what they were playing with.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    Not really, everyone knew this was dangerous. For the UK it was either "do this or don't make nuclear weapons"
bazoom42 3y ago
> 7 million premature deaths per year from particulate emissions from fossil and biofuel combustion energy sources. Does this include emissions from stuff like motor vehicles, kitchen stoves etc? Or just emissions from power plants which could reasonably be replaced with nuclear?
- acidburnNSA 3y ago
  3 million is indoor cook stoves on biofuel without ventilation. 4 is all ambient air pollution, mostly from fossil power plants but including cars. Car fossil can be reasonably replaced with nuclear through electric vehicles. Same with stoves.
  - bazoom42 3y ago
    Surely pollution from indoor stoves are irrelvant in a discussion about nuclear?
Gwypaas 3y ago
> I would like to just remind everyone of safety context, where the WHO is currently estimating 7 million premature deaths per year from particulate emissions from fossil and biofuel combustion energy sources. Great that the alternative in 2023 are renewables and not fossil fuel then!
- acidburnNSA 3y ago
  Biofuel is renewable and kills about 3 million of the 7 from particulates. Renewable is not the goal. Low carbon and clean are.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    Now you are being disingenuous. Everyone reputable separates "traditional biofuels", which include poorer people cooking over open wood fires, from modern biofuels. Traditional biofuels are being replaced with renewables at an incredible pace since it allows for distributed power generation, and a better life, globally. Modern biofuels are one alternative among others, including synthetic fuels, likely to be used for long-distance air travel and ocean-crossing commercial shipping. That is an incredibly tiny source of pollution today and one that we will very easily regulate to handle potential particle emissions in the future.
    - acidburnNSA 3y ago
      No need to insult. I think most people agree that low-carbon, long-term sustainable, clean are the goals, not renewability. It's widely accepted that some renewables like biofuel in general have both air pollution and climate challenges. Take a look at the IPCC's lifecycle CO2 assessments for proof.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        And we get 5-10x the people using electricity instead of burning either traditional biofuels or fossil fuels using renewables. What are we optimizing for here? Impact or through any means possible justifying nuclear?

Mindwipe 3y ago

The problem is - a) the British state has a very, very long track record of lying about domestic nuclear, so the public finds any safety claims hard to take seriously. b) the main issue with nuclear power in the UK is economic - the public have had to take on genuinely enormous liabilities in pensions and cleanup liabilities from every previous attempt, so do not take the cost projections for future sites at face value. And quite rationally so. But if we assume that liability overruns from the taxpayer were to happen at the same rate, the economic case for nuclear versus renewables on a small, windy, rainy island with a lot of tides disappears.

pjc50 3y ago
c) up until about 1990, nuclear reactors using U -> Pu cycles were a critical component of building nuclear weapons, and the designed intent of nuclear weapons was casualty figures in the hundreds of millions. This sat uneasily alongside a policy of "of course we don't intend to actually do that unless threatened". Every now and again people remember this when looking at Iran, Ukraine, Taiwan etc. d) the last UK agriculture impact of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster were lifted in 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228
DrBazza 3y ago
a) evidence? What the UK has a long long track record of, is CND and Greenpeace misrepresenting or outright lying to the general public about all aspects of nuclear power and often conflating it with nuclear weapons. I trust scientists over Doris, 63, from Derby, who doesn't like nuclear power 'for reasons'. b) All Western countries have an economic problem with nuclear power because the government has been involved since day one for obvious military reasons, limiting the ability to commercialise it and hence reduce costs. SpaceX launches cost 10% of government launches because they've been allowed to commercialise rockets.
- scraptor 3y ago
  How about the events mentioned in TFA, where the government covered up the extent of the radiation leak from the fire in the nuclear plant of unsafe design operated despite repeated accidents, which would have resulted in catastrophic release of uranium dust if not for the individual decision by the the project lead to build filters into the chimneys despite ridicule from the rest of the team?
- pjc50 3y ago
  It has been commercialised? What are EDF and Westinghouse? Even Rolls-Royce is touting the small modular reactor beloved of HN. The problem is that the UK government contracting out to privateish nuclear (state-owned EDF and China General Nuclear Power Group) still hasn't reduced costs. No, the cost advantage of SpaceX is that they're allowed to fail. This cannot apply to the nuclear industry.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  a) OP's article includes the observation that a report into a serious fire was suppressed for 30 years. Perhaps start your search for evidence with what has already been provided, and then broaden to include the whole history of the plant. b) it seems like the high costs are less a function of government inefficiency than the fact that reprocessing for weapon production is difficult and dangerous, which adds to the cost. Commercial endeavors don't have or want to produce plutonium, but if you think that private industry is somehow immune from the creation of negative externalities, corner-cutting, or cover-ups then I've got an incredible new cryptocurrency opportunity just for you.

qbasic_forever 3y ago

Something like windscale would never be built again either. It was an air cooled research reactor designed to make weapon fuel, not power generation or anything useful for civilian purposes. As they learned, air cooling at that scale was a terrible idea and never used again.

kayodelycaon 3y ago
Air-cooled reactor... that horrifies me. But it was built before they really knew what they were playing with.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Not really, everyone knew this was dangerous. For the UK it was either "do this or don't make nuclear weapons"

bazoom42 3y ago

> 7 million premature deaths per year from particulate emissions from fossil and biofuel combustion energy sources. Does this include emissions from stuff like motor vehicles, kitchen stoves etc? Or just emissions from power plants which could reasonably be replaced with nuclear?

acidburnNSA 3y ago
3 million is indoor cook stoves on biofuel without ventilation. 4 is all ambient air pollution, mostly from fossil power plants but including cars. Car fossil can be reasonably replaced with nuclear through electric vehicles. Same with stoves.
- bazoom42 3y ago
  Surely pollution from indoor stoves are irrelvant in a discussion about nuclear?

Gwypaas 3y ago

> I would like to just remind everyone of safety context, where the WHO is currently estimating 7 million premature deaths per year from particulate emissions from fossil and biofuel combustion energy sources. Great that the alternative in 2023 are renewables and not fossil fuel then!

acidburnNSA 3y ago
Biofuel is renewable and kills about 3 million of the 7 from particulates. Renewable is not the goal. Low carbon and clean are.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  Now you are being disingenuous. Everyone reputable separates "traditional biofuels", which include poorer people cooking over open wood fires, from modern biofuels. Traditional biofuels are being replaced with renewables at an incredible pace since it allows for distributed power generation, and a better life, globally. Modern biofuels are one alternative among others, including synthetic fuels, likely to be used for long-distance air travel and ocean-crossing commercial shipping. That is an incredibly tiny source of pollution today and one that we will very easily regulate to handle potential particle emissions in the future.
  - acidburnNSA 3y ago
    No need to insult. I think most people agree that low-carbon, long-term sustainable, clean are the goals, not renewability. It's widely accepted that some renewables like biofuel in general have both air pollution and climate challenges. Take a look at the IPCC's lifecycle CO2 assessments for proof.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      And we get 5-10x the people using electricity instead of burning either traditional biofuels or fossil fuels using renewables. What are we optimizing for here? Impact or through any means possible justifying nuclear?