6 ms·

Chernobyl was a perfect storm of bad design, political corruption, and reckless behavior. No Western nuclear plant has ever run without a containment dome, has

by ttfkam 3y ago

Chernobyl was a perfect storm of bad design, political corruption, and reckless behavior. No Western nuclear plant has ever run without a containment dome, has excluded basic plant design info from its operators, or put in incentives to run a reckless spin down experiment while also cutting all cooling and raising all control rods. Three Mile Island was close to worst possible in a Western design, and those aspects that led to that accident were fixed 45 years ago. Worst case isn't a nuclear accident at this point; it's continued reliance on fossil fuels and the accelerating effects from warming the planet. Huge swaths of land near the equator that will be rendered uninhabitable for large scale human habitation due to extreme heat events. We have already seen 129 degrees in those areas with a real heat index (due to humidity) of 142. These areas are already at their absolute limit. That's your continent-wide Red Forest.

Zigurd 3y ago
Renewables capex already outstrips fossil fuels. Complete that transition and get all the power we need for less money, sooner, and you can buy private insurance at low rates to cover any risks.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  How well do solar and wind infrastructures handle tornados and hurricanes? Also, consistent wind resources are notably absent in the South/Southeast. There are no Hoover Dam-like sites available there. Do you honestly expect to tell tens of millions of people that they should just be content with a single hurricane knocking out their electricity grid for a month? That's not realistic. You cannot plan an electrical future on the hope that the weather is always pleasant and consistent. This is one of the reasons why fossil fuel dominance continues in those regions. Go ahead and draw a map of those places where hurricanes and tornados are most prevalent and their large scale adoption of solar and wind. They're not stupid. They're not just political. There are real concerns you are handwaving away because you (likely) like in a region that does not have these same concerns. What works for California will not work for Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska as-is. Baseball-size hail destroys huge solar arrays let alone softball-size [0]. Nuclear plants laugh at hail and would handle and have(!) weathered tornados and hurricanes just fine. Check the numbers. Even accounting for nuclear disasters outside the US like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the number of deaths attributed to nuclear power per unit of electricity is lower than any fossil fuel, lower than wind, and about equal to solar. Just imagine if we put the same R&D force behind nuclear that we've done for solar. You think solar's cheap? It wasn't ten years ago. It was intense investment that made it so. We have the same potential for nuclear. At the very least, we should be aggressively working toward fast neutron reactors so that we don't have spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for 100,000+ years. We can "burn" that "waste" and supply the entire current need for US electrical production for the next 150 years without mining a single new kilogram of uranium [1]. [0] https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/06/27/baseball-sized-hail-smashing-into-panels-at-150-mph-destroys-scottsbluff-solar-farm/ https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/06/27/baseball-sized-hail-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Renewable power sources have risks. Renewable power operators can buy insurance against those risks. Can nuclear plant operators buy insurance against nuclear risks? Or are taxpayers on the hook for that?
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      You seem to believe I am against renewable power. This is not so. This isn't anything against solar or wind. We need to be in this together against CO2-producing power generation. And yes, that should include nuclear for the reasons I gave earlier. I'm an not an insurance underwriter, but I am in favor of the grid staying up during and immediately after natural disasters. If advancements in solar can do that, sounds good, but so far, solar is susceptible to hail, tornados, and hurricanes whereas nuclear is not. So if my tax dollars help keep the lights on, the hospitals running, and the air conditioning flowing, so be it.
  - urinotherapist 3y ago
    > At the very least, we should be aggressively working toward fast neutron reactors so that we don't have spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for 100,000+ years. We can "burn" that "waste" and supply the entire current need for US electrical production for the next 150 years without mining a single new kilogram of uranium So, you propose to increase number of regulations and total cost of the nuclear energy, right?
    - ttfkam 3y ago
      I propose to solve the waste problem in the most constructive way I am aware of.

by ttfkam 3y ago

Zigurd 3y ago

Renewables capex already outstrips fossil fuels. Complete that transition and get all the power we need for less money, sooner, and you can buy private insurance at low rates to cover any risks.

ttfkam 3y ago
How well do solar and wind infrastructures handle tornados and hurricanes? Also, consistent wind resources are notably absent in the South/Southeast. There are no Hoover Dam-like sites available there. Do you honestly expect to tell tens of millions of people that they should just be content with a single hurricane knocking out their electricity grid for a month? That's not realistic. You cannot plan an electrical future on the hope that the weather is always pleasant and consistent. This is one of the reasons why fossil fuel dominance continues in those regions. Go ahead and draw a map of those places where hurricanes and tornados are most prevalent and their large scale adoption of solar and wind. They're not stupid. They're not just political. There are real concerns you are handwaving away because you (likely) like in a region that does not have these same concerns. What works for California will not work for Georgia, Florida, or Nebraska as-is. Baseball-size hail destroys huge solar arrays let alone softball-size [0]. Nuclear plants laugh at hail and would handle and have(!) weathered tornados and hurricanes just fine. Check the numbers. Even accounting for nuclear disasters outside the US like Chernobyl and Fukushima, the number of deaths attributed to nuclear power per unit of electricity is lower than any fossil fuel, lower than wind, and about equal to solar. Just imagine if we put the same R&D force behind nuclear that we've done for solar. You think solar's cheap? It wasn't ten years ago. It was intense investment that made it so. We have the same potential for nuclear. At the very least, we should be aggressively working toward fast neutron reactors so that we don't have spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for 100,000+ years. We can "burn" that "waste" and supply the entire current need for US electrical production for the next 150 years without mining a single new kilogram of uranium [1]. [0] https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/06/27/baseball-sized-hail-smashing-into-panels-at-150-mph-destroys-scottsbluff-solar-farm/ https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/06/27/baseball-sized-hail-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzQ3gFRj0Bc
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Renewable power sources have risks. Renewable power operators can buy insurance against those risks. Can nuclear plant operators buy insurance against nuclear risks? Or are taxpayers on the hook for that?
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    You seem to believe I am against renewable power. This is not so. This isn't anything against solar or wind. We need to be in this together against CO2-producing power generation. And yes, that should include nuclear for the reasons I gave earlier. I'm an not an insurance underwriter, but I am in favor of the grid staying up during and immediately after natural disasters. If advancements in solar can do that, sounds good, but so far, solar is susceptible to hail, tornados, and hurricanes whereas nuclear is not. So if my tax dollars help keep the lights on, the hospitals running, and the air conditioning flowing, so be it.
- urinotherapist 3y ago
  > At the very least, we should be aggressively working toward fast neutron reactors so that we don't have spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for 100,000+ years. We can "burn" that "waste" and supply the entire current need for US electrical production for the next 150 years without mining a single new kilogram of uranium So, you propose to increase number of regulations and total cost of the nuclear energy, right?
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    I propose to solve the waste problem in the most constructive way I am aware of.