4 ms·

There's a big push for nuclear now, I'm curious, is there a hypothetical series of events that even an reasonable nuclear advocate is concerned about? They are

There's a big push for nuclear now, I'm curious, is there a hypothetical series of events that even an reasonable nuclear advocate is concerned about? They are mostly not too worried about Fukushima water for example.

BurningFrog 3y ago
The Fukushima water issue is a good test case. Anyone informed knows it is harmless.
mikeyouse 3y ago
The water being discharged into the Ocean from Fukushima isn't problematic but the cleanup from the entire debacle there is going to take somewhere around a trillion dollars and last 30+ years. There's still a multi thousand acre exclusion zone... Up until a few years ago, there was a large nuke plant with a history safety incidents, owned and operated by a company implicated in several bribery scandals, directly upwind from NYC. Nuclear technology, operated by responsible operators in well-designed plants is extremely safe. Unfortunately we live in a world where Nuke plant operators literally bribe legislators for billion dollar bailouts and the companies responsible for operating our fleet are the worst profit-maximizing ghouls you can imagine. It's the essence of John Glenn's quote about the Apollo missions, "My life depended on 150,000 pieces of equipment, each bought from the lowest bidder." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-speaker-arrested-republican/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-... https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/holtec-under-criminal-investigation-eda-says-in-since-redacted-court-filing-1294345 https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/...
- houseatrielah 3y ago
  That plus sign(+) may be doing some heavy lifting if Chernobyl is any guide -- 20,000 years to go.
phil21 3y ago
I like to think I'm a reasonable advocate. I think the strongest anti-nuclear case is one of civilization collapse (fast or slowly) and instability - what happens when say, Russia, can no longer afford or has the capability to maintain these plants? Even shutting them down leaves huge massive problems for multiple generations. Then you have the waste storage issue which is largely a political issue. This needs to be solved before nuclear in the US can really be seen as realistic - imo.
rich_sasha 3y ago
Based on their operating record, I'm far more concerned about the risk of CO2 and other pollutants spewed out by fossil fuel plants. If we could swap all fossil fuels for nukes, I'd happily live next to one, even a 70s Russian one. Even if it goes horribly wrong, even if there's another Chernobyl event and I end up dying 10 years premature due to cancer, I'll be happy knowing the planet won't be a hot disaster in a 100 years time. And even then, my odds are good, even if it's a 70s Russian plant we're talking about. Chances are I'll live much longer, breathing healthier air. People say "why not renewables" but so far these only work with storage, which we haven't figured out yet. No major area in the world lives entirely off renewables with no fossil fuel backup or imports. Except maybe some very special cases that have very few people and very good hydro (Norway). But even Switzerland, with a favourable geography, doesn't run entirely on renewables, it is indeed nukes that fill the gap. Ironically of course, clean energy Norway is a major exporter of gas and oil...

BurningFrog 3y ago

The Fukushima water issue is a good test case. Anyone informed knows it is harmless.

mikeyouse 3y ago

The water being discharged into the Ocean from Fukushima isn't problematic but the cleanup from the entire debacle there is going to take somewhere around a trillion dollars and last 30+ years. There's still a multi thousand acre exclusion zone... Up until a few years ago, there was a large nuke plant with a history safety incidents, owned and operated by a company implicated in several bribery scandals, directly upwind from NYC. Nuclear technology, operated by responsible operators in well-designed plants is extremely safe. Unfortunately we live in a world where Nuke plant operators literally bribe legislators for billion dollar bailouts and the companies responsible for operating our fleet are the worst profit-maximizing ghouls you can imagine. It's the essence of John Glenn's quote about the Apollo missions, "My life depended on 150,000 pieces of equipment, each bought from the lowest bidder." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-speaker-arrested-republican/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/22/ohio-house-... https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/holtec-under-criminal-investigation-eda-says-in-since-redacted-court-filing-1294345 https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/06/24/...

houseatrielah 3y ago
That plus sign(+) may be doing some heavy lifting if Chernobyl is any guide -- 20,000 years to go.

phil21 3y ago

I like to think I'm a reasonable advocate. I think the strongest anti-nuclear case is one of civilization collapse (fast or slowly) and instability - what happens when say, Russia, can no longer afford or has the capability to maintain these plants? Even shutting them down leaves huge massive problems for multiple generations. Then you have the waste storage issue which is largely a political issue. This needs to be solved before nuclear in the US can really be seen as realistic - imo.

rich_sasha 3y ago

Based on their operating record, I'm far more concerned about the risk of CO2 and other pollutants spewed out by fossil fuel plants. If we could swap all fossil fuels for nukes, I'd happily live next to one, even a 70s Russian one. Even if it goes horribly wrong, even if there's another Chernobyl event and I end up dying 10 years premature due to cancer, I'll be happy knowing the planet won't be a hot disaster in a 100 years time. And even then, my odds are good, even if it's a 70s Russian plant we're talking about. Chances are I'll live much longer, breathing healthier air. People say "why not renewables" but so far these only work with storage, which we haven't figured out yet. No major area in the world lives entirely off renewables with no fossil fuel backup or imports. Except maybe some very special cases that have very few people and very good hydro (Norway). But even Switzerland, with a favourable geography, doesn't run entirely on renewables, it is indeed nukes that fill the gap. Ironically of course, clean energy Norway is a major exporter of gas and oil...