6 ms·

In what way? Stuff like backup generators are not just for show. They're supposed to work properly in an emergency. I fully accept that nuclear can be a very s

In what way? Stuff like backup generators are not just for show. They're supposed to work properly in an emergency. I fully accept that nuclear can be a very safe technology. This is only so when the rules are followed and the backup plans actually work, though. But nuclear is dead anyway, due to being economically and politically non-competitive.

willcipriano 3y ago
The economics are due to the politics. The current crop of politicians just love coal.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Due to politics, in the sense of not allowing the nuclear industry to build whatever it damned well wants and subject society to learning-by-meltdown is the result of politics.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    If you buy the global warming is going to kill us all theory, that appears to have been a grave error.
alerighi 3y ago
First, it doesn't say that the backup generator did not work. An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. If your car has an oil leak you keep driving it and repair it when you have time to do so. Second, the diesel generator is just one of many backup systems. To use it you have to have the (at least) two independent connections with the grid fail. Even if it does, you don't have one generator, but more than one. Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. And even in that context, considering that the containment had design flaws, the impact on the environment wasn't that huge. That is, nuclear power plants have multiple systems that can fail, as a complex machine. The fact that one system fails or has some issue doesn't necessary mean that the safety of the whole power plant is compromised.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. If oil runs out, then the generator will very much stop functioning, in an ugly and hard to fix manner. Something you very much don't want in an emergency. > It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. Sure, the thing making sure the reactor doesn't suffer catastrophic damage is not critical. Right. I also must have forgotten that disasters politely add themselves to the schedule with plenty warning time. > Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. Didn't quite work that way for Fukushima. > There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. Sure, it only took lots of people working around the clock to keep things contained (so it seems it wasn't something one could just ignore, it needed urgent work), and it cost a huge amount of $$$ to deal with it, and it destroyed those reactors, which is more $$$. That it didn't blow up Chernobyl style is absolutely a great thing, but it probably cost more than it ever made money, and that's not exactly something that encourages anyone to build more.
- crote 3y ago
  They found cracks in fuel oil lines. Last time I checked, generators need fuel to operate. In fact, the article even states: > the problem grew to a point where the diesel generator system did not work during testing. You have backups because things unexpectedly fail. It's the Swiss Cheese model: more than one system can fail at the same time so you should be able to handle multiple failures at once. Especially because failures often cause other failures to happen. Fukushima also had multiple grid connections. They had 13 emergency generators which could be cross-connected between reactors. They could also bring in mobile generators. It still wasn't enough, because they shared a huge unknown common failure mode. Fukushima is exactly the reason why ignoring defects on one of your two emergency generators for twenty years is such a big deal. When the potential impact is as large as it is with nuclear power, you simply cannot afford slacking off like this.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  I sure hope you don't make safety critical decisions. If you look at the history of failures in modern complex systems you almost always see that it happens as a series of unlikely events (or events that someone deemed impossible), that let to catastrophic failure. That's the whole point of multiple safety mechanisms, have backups in case one fails. If you start removing the backup mechanisms (e.g. through improper maintanance like it is the case here) you reduce the overall safety of the system. Does that mean certain catastrophic failure in case the system is needed? Probably not, but it increases the likelyhood of a chain of events that lead to it. The main news here is not that they had cracks in the pipes, the main news is that over the last 20 odd years the operator never bothered to do a proper fix instead opting for the (likely cheaper) quick fix.
pydry 3y ago
It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs & aircraft carriers: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-value-of-the-us-nuclear-power-complex-to-us-national-security/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/is... For countries that are facing an awkward geopolitical threat (e.g. Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Iran), it can help ensure that you're not too far off creating a bomb.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others. Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not see the plants being finished, and would likely see the project defunded or sabotaged in some way. For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors, unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might have.
  - pydry 3y ago
    The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most industries could never even dream of. It's just so expensive that that often isn't enough to make it viable. That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to brand itself as the New Green Jesus. >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are quite correct in this one specific fact. There's a revolving door between the military and the private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts required to construct nuclear reactors are quite specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to provide it.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back. Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation and it checks notes was one of the reasons Russia invaded them?
KennyBlanken 3y ago
It's dead because it's not economically viable. It never was. It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in nuclear propulsion and weaponry for well over half a century, and it has only gotten more expensive. Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Solar and wind are far cheaper, more easily distributed which makes them more resilient, have simpler construction, installation, maintenance, and repair chains, and none of the geopolitical and security headaches. The last hurdle is better long distance distribution (HVDC) to be able to better move power around and deploying more energy storage at all levels - grid, microgrid, and home.
- wpm 3y ago
  >Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Which famously, received no subsidies at all.
  - cycomanic 3y ago
    In comparison to nuclear, very little in fact. That said the combined nuclear/renewables subsidies pale in comparison to subsidies received by fossil fuels.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Moreover, subsidies have an economic argument for certain technologies. Specifically, if the technology has good experience effects, current deployment causes future costs to decline, a positive externality. So it makes sense to subsidize technologies that have good experience effects. Renewables have shown strong and sustained experience effects. Nuclear has not. So it would make sense to subsidize renewables more than nuclear.
  - jart 3y ago
    They're also such a blight on landscapes. I don't want to think about where my power comes from, any more than people want to think about where their meat comes from.
    - 3y ago

willcipriano 3y ago

The economics are due to the politics. The current crop of politicians just love coal.

pfdietz 3y ago
Due to politics, in the sense of not allowing the nuclear industry to build whatever it damned well wants and subject society to learning-by-meltdown is the result of politics.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  If you buy the global warming is going to kill us all theory, that appears to have been a grave error.

alerighi 3y ago

First, it doesn't say that the backup generator did not work. An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. If your car has an oil leak you keep driving it and repair it when you have time to do so. Second, the diesel generator is just one of many backup systems. To use it you have to have the (at least) two independent connections with the grid fail. Even if it does, you don't have one generator, but more than one. Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. And even in that context, considering that the containment had design flaws, the impact on the environment wasn't that huge. That is, nuclear power plants have multiple systems that can fail, as a complex machine. The fact that one system fails or has some issue doesn't necessary mean that the safety of the whole power plant is compromised.

dale_glass 3y ago
> An oil leak doesn't mean the system will not function. If oil runs out, then the generator will very much stop functioning, in an ugly and hard to fix manner. Something you very much don't want in an emergency. > It's something to pay attention and repair, but not something critical. Sure, the thing making sure the reactor doesn't suffer catastrophic damage is not critical. Right. I also must have forgotten that disasters politely add themselves to the schedule with plenty warning time. > Even if the generator fails, passive system will cool down the reactor for a couple of hours, enough for a mobile generator on a truck to arrive and be connected, without any damage. Didn't quite work that way for Fukushima. > There were only one case where generators and all external power supplies had failed, that is of course Fukushima. Even in that context, if the passive systems where not damaged by the tzunami, there wouldn't have been any release of radioactivity. Sure, it only took lots of people working around the clock to keep things contained (so it seems it wasn't something one could just ignore, it needed urgent work), and it cost a huge amount of $$$ to deal with it, and it destroyed those reactors, which is more $$$. That it didn't blow up Chernobyl style is absolutely a great thing, but it probably cost more than it ever made money, and that's not exactly something that encourages anyone to build more.
crote 3y ago
They found cracks in fuel oil lines. Last time I checked, generators need fuel to operate. In fact, the article even states: > the problem grew to a point where the diesel generator system did not work during testing. You have backups because things unexpectedly fail. It's the Swiss Cheese model: more than one system can fail at the same time so you should be able to handle multiple failures at once. Especially because failures often cause other failures to happen. Fukushima also had multiple grid connections. They had 13 emergency generators which could be cross-connected between reactors. They could also bring in mobile generators. It still wasn't enough, because they shared a huge unknown common failure mode. Fukushima is exactly the reason why ignoring defects on one of your two emergency generators for twenty years is such a big deal. When the potential impact is as large as it is with nuclear power, you simply cannot afford slacking off like this.
cycomanic 3y ago
I sure hope you don't make safety critical decisions. If you look at the history of failures in modern complex systems you almost always see that it happens as a series of unlikely events (or events that someone deemed impossible), that let to catastrophic failure. That's the whole point of multiple safety mechanisms, have backups in case one fails. If you start removing the backup mechanisms (e.g. through improper maintanance like it is the case here) you reduce the overall safety of the system. Does that mean certain catastrophic failure in case the system is needed? Probably not, but it increases the likelyhood of a chain of events that lead to it. The main news here is not that they had cracks in the pipes, the main news is that over the last 20 odd years the operator never bothered to do a proper fix instead opting for the (likely cheaper) quick fix.

pydry 3y ago

It's competitive politically. Civilian nuclear power shares a lot of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, subs & aircraft carriers: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/the-value-of-the-us-nuclear-power-complex-to-us-national-security/ https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/is... For countries that are facing an awkward geopolitical threat (e.g. Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Iran), it can help ensure that you're not too far off creating a bomb.

dale_glass 3y ago
In some countries, maybe. Doubtful in others. Eg, in the US it's highly likely that if one party tried to do a mass buildup of nuclear, the next one would do its best to sabotage it. The one deciding to build would not see the plants being finished, and would likely see the project defunded or sabotaged in some way. For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors, unrelated to whatever needs the population at large might have.
- pydry 3y ago
  The only thing that is sabotaging nuclear power in the US is cost. It has been given an economic leg up that most industries could never even dream of. It's just so expensive that that often isn't enough to make it viable. That is the reason for its (quite successful) attempts to brand itself as the New Green Jesus. >For the arsenal part, the military has its own reactors Yes, the military does have its own reactors. You are quite correct in this one specific fact. There's a revolving door between the military and the private sector for nuclear engineers and the industrial infrastructure they both rely upon is shared. The parts required to construct nuclear reactors are quite specific, you see, and you need specialized industry to provide it.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
There is a long way from commercial nuclear power to nuclear weaponry, other countries notice you trying to get from one to the other, and that puts a target on your back. Also, did you notice that Ukraine had nuclear power generation and it checks notes was one of the reasons Russia invaded them?

KennyBlanken 3y ago

It's dead because it's not economically viable. It never was. It's been enormously subsidized by the military's interest in nuclear propulsion and weaponry for well over half a century, and it has only gotten more expensive. Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Solar and wind are far cheaper, more easily distributed which makes them more resilient, have simpler construction, installation, maintenance, and repair chains, and none of the geopolitical and security headaches. The last hurdle is better long distance distribution (HVDC) to be able to better move power around and deploying more energy storage at all levels - grid, microgrid, and home.

wpm 3y ago
>Meanwhile, solar and wind have plunged in cost. Which famously, received no subsidies at all.
- cycomanic 3y ago
  In comparison to nuclear, very little in fact. That said the combined nuclear/renewables subsidies pale in comparison to subsidies received by fossil fuels.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Moreover, subsidies have an economic argument for certain technologies. Specifically, if the technology has good experience effects, current deployment causes future costs to decline, a positive externality. So it makes sense to subsidize technologies that have good experience effects. Renewables have shown strong and sustained experience effects. Nuclear has not. So it would make sense to subsidize renewables more than nuclear.
- jart 3y ago
  They're also such a blight on landscapes. I don't want to think about where my power comes from, any more than people want to think about where their meat comes from.
  - 3y ago