4 ms·

There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to e

by llampx 3y ago

There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades.

Timon3 3y ago
But regulations are what makes nuclear energy supposedly safe. Faster build times aren't worth it if we risk nuclear meltdowns.
- fsflover 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias
  - Timon3 3y ago
    It's easy to posit yourself as taking the "necessary risks", but you haven't demonstrated that: - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis - unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      > - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 > - unsafe nuclear energy It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/File:Hypothetical_number_of_deaths_from_energy_production,_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/Fil... > - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change
      - Timon3 3y ago
        > This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes. > It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima) Is it a physical fact of life they are safer (as in, you can't to do anything wrong) or is it our regulations that make them so safe? The regulations you want to remove? > The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations Okay, did I say anything else?
        fsflover 3y ago
        > You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. > or is it our regulations that make them so safe? Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? > Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model. I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote: > There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades. Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.
locallost 3y ago
That's a favorite of mine because at the same time those same regulations are cited as the reason why the plants are incredibly safe.
- llampx 3y ago
  The changing regulations over time add to the complexity.
  - locallost 3y ago
    Here is an article [1] by the American Nuclear Society detailing all the improvements that happened since the incident at Three Mile Island happened. It does not list these as negative, but positive, since they improve safety. So the industry thinks safe is correct, but then some like to pretend that removing these would make things only cheaper, never less safe. It cannot be true. [1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3903/insights-from-the-three-mile-island-accidentpart-2-improvements/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-3903/insights-from-the-thre...

by llampx 3y ago

Timon3 3y ago

But regulations are what makes nuclear energy supposedly safe. Faster build times aren't worth it if we risk nuclear meltdowns.

fsflover 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-risk_bias
- Timon3 3y ago
  It's easy to posit yourself as taking the "necessary risks", but you haven't demonstrated that: - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis - unsafe nuclear energy is the only way for nuclear energy to fend off the climate crisis - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis Until you do that I will prefer the lower risk option.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    > - nuclear energy is the only way to fend off the climate crisis This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 > - unsafe nuclear energy It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/File:Hypothetical_number_of_deaths_from_energy_production,_OWID.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant#/media/Fil... > - the risk of unsafe nuclear energy is lower than the risk of the climate crisis The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > This is the only practically infinite source of CO2-free energy not relying on weather, geographical position or large area. Okay? You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Don't just throw around more attributes. > It is safer than almost all other sources (taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima) Is it a physical fact of life they are safer (as in, you can't to do anything wrong) or is it our regulations that make them so safe? The regulations you want to remove? > The climate catastrophe is considered obviously very dangerous by all scientific organizations Okay, did I say anything else?
      - fsflover 3y ago
        > You haven't shown that an energy source not relying on weather, geographical position or large area is necessary to solve the climate crisis. Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. > or is it our regulations that make them so safe? Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > Are you serious? Germamy can't abandon coal until 2030 because of that. Can you show me that renewables couldn't hit the same targets with enough investment? > Did you read my comment? Even Chernobyl's regulation were sufficient to be safe, according to my link. I suggest to stop producing more regulations and build on latest working model. I don't think you understand correctly. First off Chernobyl is in no way an argument in your favor, as it shows that nuclear energy isn't even safe with regulations. Yet you want to remove even more regulations which would increase dangers. Remember, GP wrote: > There was a very good article on HN about how nuclear reactors only seem to have gotten harder to plan and execute in Western countries since the 1980s due to ever-increasing regulations. Building a nuclear reactor doesn't have to take decades. Based on what you've said you either want to roll back to 1980s regulations, or before that. Both are unsafe.

locallost 3y ago

That's a favorite of mine because at the same time those same regulations are cited as the reason why the plants are incredibly safe.

llampx 3y ago
The changing regulations over time add to the complexity.
- locallost 3y ago
  Here is an article [1] by the American Nuclear Society detailing all the improvements that happened since the incident at Three Mile Island happened. It does not list these as negative, but positive, since they improve safety. So the industry thinks safe is correct, but then some like to pretend that removing these would make things only cheaper, never less safe. It cannot be true. [1] https://www.ans.org/news/article-3903/insights-from-the-three-mile-island-accidentpart-2-improvements/ https://www.ans.org/news/article-3903/insights-from-the-thre...