3 ms·

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 se

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.

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.