3 ms·

> budget overruns, delayed schedules and failed projects How the fk is that unique to nuclear powerplants? Also, did you take into account the same shit for co

by kaba0 3y ago

> budget overruns, delayed schedules and failed projects How the fk is that unique to nuclear powerplants? Also, did you take into account the same shit for coal plants as well, that are multiple orders more numerous?

uoaei 3y ago
I think people who are exasperated with blind nuclear activism also don't want coal. Yours is a strange kind of whataboutism that isn't even relevant. Issues with commissioning/decommissioning nuclear plants are unique in the magnitudes of sunk costs, both time and money, as well as the somehow still astonishing to many delays and hidden costs that somehow always catch us off guard and somehow are unique to each site and were somehow completely unpredictable that nonetheless somehow happen in every instance.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Yet look at French’s energy graphs vs that of Germany. Also, frankly, this is such a topic that the capitalist view makes no sense - there is no buyer/seller for green-ness (though it can be introduced into the system through laws like carbon taxes), these are costs that must be coughed up by governments, period. I still believe that a nuclear baseline and a renewable variable energy production on top is the cleanest, greenest solution that actually further our case. There is simply no competition on the efficiency of nuclear.
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Nuclear powerplants are far more complex and expensive than other plants, and thus there's a lot more things to go wrong.
- kaba0 3y ago
  And they produce orders of magnitude more energy than a similarly sized other plant, so the question is more like -- is a single nuclear plant statistically more likely to go wrong vs any one of 100 or 1000 "normal" plants?
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Are we discussing the building of them or operation of them? Due to the complexity of nuclear plants, any issues encountered during building are likely to drastically effect the costs and time required, whereas coal plants are a more mature technology that we already have a lot of experience with. NB. I'm not claiming that coal plants are a better choice (they're not), but that there's less risks involved with the financing and manufacture of them. If we're discussing the operation of already built plants, then I can't find any stats, though I'm sure there's been at least some explosions or fires in coal plants. I daresay that a coal plant explosion is a lot easier to deal with and resolve than a nuclear plant explosion considering the problems with toxic materials.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      But nuclear plants can’t explode, that’s just nonsense. There are 436 nuclear plants active on Earth and there was only two accidents in more than half a century, one with the older tech we already knew back than that it is bad design plus.. the whole soviet management of it, the other is a neverbeforeseen sized tsunami plus mismanagement.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        > But nuclear plants can’t explode, that’s just nonsense. I doubt your understanding of the phrase "can't explode". > There are 436 nuclear plants active on Earth and there was only two accidents in more than half a century, There have been more than two core meltdown incidents. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_e...

by kaba0 3y ago

uoaei 3y ago

I think people who are exasperated with blind nuclear activism also don't want coal. Yours is a strange kind of whataboutism that isn't even relevant. Issues with commissioning/decommissioning nuclear plants are unique in the magnitudes of sunk costs, both time and money, as well as the somehow still astonishing to many delays and hidden costs that somehow always catch us off guard and somehow are unique to each site and were somehow completely unpredictable that nonetheless somehow happen in every instance.

kaba0 3y ago
Yet look at French’s energy graphs vs that of Germany. Also, frankly, this is such a topic that the capitalist view makes no sense - there is no buyer/seller for green-ness (though it can be introduced into the system through laws like carbon taxes), these are costs that must be coughed up by governments, period. I still believe that a nuclear baseline and a renewable variable energy production on top is the cleanest, greenest solution that actually further our case. There is simply no competition on the efficiency of nuclear.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

Nuclear powerplants are far more complex and expensive than other plants, and thus there's a lot more things to go wrong.

kaba0 3y ago
And they produce orders of magnitude more energy than a similarly sized other plant, so the question is more like -- is a single nuclear plant statistically more likely to go wrong vs any one of 100 or 1000 "normal" plants?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Are we discussing the building of them or operation of them? Due to the complexity of nuclear plants, any issues encountered during building are likely to drastically effect the costs and time required, whereas coal plants are a more mature technology that we already have a lot of experience with. NB. I'm not claiming that coal plants are a better choice (they're not), but that there's less risks involved with the financing and manufacture of them. If we're discussing the operation of already built plants, then I can't find any stats, though I'm sure there's been at least some explosions or fires in coal plants. I daresay that a coal plant explosion is a lot easier to deal with and resolve than a nuclear plant explosion considering the problems with toxic materials.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    But nuclear plants can’t explode, that’s just nonsense. There are 436 nuclear plants active on Earth and there was only two accidents in more than half a century, one with the older tech we already knew back than that it is bad design plus.. the whole soviet management of it, the other is a neverbeforeseen sized tsunami plus mismanagement.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      > But nuclear plants can’t explode, that’s just nonsense. I doubt your understanding of the phrase "can't explode". > There are 436 nuclear plants active on Earth and there was only two accidents in more than half a century, There have been more than two core meltdown incidents. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_e...