4 ms·

This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power. They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart and becoming dangerous when you

This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power. They have an engineered lifespan and things start falling apart and becoming dangerous when you exceed that. Many should never have been extended. They've had to change safety tests and infrastructure tests so the order plans would pass inspection. This has always been my concern with nuclear. Yes we can make it safe, but the human greed factor is always the weak point. Regulations weakened, automated systems bypassed, skimping on design decisions, etc. This first link makes me absolutely furious. There's too much to quote from here, but here's just one excerpt. The post has numerous examples of very concerning issues. > When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed — up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43455859 > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. Many plant operators have sought licenses to extend the operating life of their plants past the original deadlines, even as experts have warned that aging plants come with heightened concerns about safety. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspection-weakening.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/17/climate/nrc-nuclear-inspe... > The nuclear industry is also pushing the NRC to cut down on safety inspections and rely instead on plants to police themselves. The NRC “is listening” to this advice, the Associated Press reported last month. “Annie Caputo, a former nuclear-energy lobbyist now serving as one of four board members appointed or reappointed by President Donald Trump, told an industry meeting this week that she was ‘open to self-assessments’ by nuclear plant operators, who are proposing that self-reporting by operators take the place of some NRC inspections.” https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-trump-also-letting-nuclear-plants-regulate-safety https://newrepublic.com/article/153465/its-not-just-pork-tru...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BeastMachine 3y ago
I've always wondered if being forced to live near the plants would change regulators minds. There are plants throughout the country, so if you want any say in safety regulations you'd have to live within 1km of the start of the safety zone.
- wpm 3y ago
  Probably wouldn't change anything because the regulators likely actually understand nuclear power plants and what the particular failures mean for the overall safety of a plant, at least far better than the average lay person does.
ChatGTP 3y ago
Unfortunate you’re downvoted, the greed and incompetence is basically what made Fukushima happen. Not the Tsunami alone
- hanniabu 3y ago
  People have difficulty facing reality when it doesn't fit their world view, it is what it is
outworlder 3y ago
> This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power. And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives were better. If we are firing up coal plants to make up for not building nuclear plants, we are much worse than even a _leaking_ nuclear power plant. Coal plants, depending on where their coal comes from, can't even be built near nuclear as they would set off radiation alarms. Coal emissions are particularly harmful and cause lots of deaths worldwide. Natural gas are much less so, but still not great. We need to remove the older nuclear power plants and replace them, for baseline power, with newer designs. They are far safer and will not meltdown no matter what fails. Newer reactor designs are usually not self-sustaining and require active management to keep them going (as opposed to intervening to stop them). The answer seems to be renewables everywhere, and newer reactors to keep up with baseline demand. > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. That is indeed the main problem. We have solved a lot of issues in half a century.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives were better. I believe we passed the point where solar with storage is better. It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". Solar has kept falling in price this year as well, while nuclear is always revealed to be more expensive every time a new study is made.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". The cost of storage isn't just the conversion losses. You also need the storage hardware, and for it to have enough capacity for an extended period of low generation. Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? No one seems to be able to answer this, and the closest I've seen is something like "keep all of the existing natural gas plants operational and use them to burn hydrogen instead, but only when renewable generation is low." Which is just preposterously expensive -- you'd have to maintain an entire redundant set of generating plants that you hardly ever use and that themselves cost almost as much as nuclear power plants do. But that is still less expensive than trying to build a week's worth of storage capacity using something like lithium batteries. And both of them have the problem that you have to choose in advance how much storage capacity to build, but if you build too much you've doubled your costs and if you build too little then people freeze to death.
kube-system 3y ago
Nuclear power can quickly hurt people or the environment if mistakes happen. Others types of power plants slowly hurt people or the environment even if mistakes don't happen.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  On the subject of "hurting people"... One can get a handle on the magnitude of this issue by looking at the cost per person killed. Typically, policy decisions on this are based on the statistical value of a human life, which is somewhere around $9M/life. If you use that value, then the extra "life value cost" from renewables is orders of magnitude below their direct cost. So it makes no sense to use a more expensive energy source than renewables just because you've been convinced renewables are too unsafe.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > So it makes no sense to use a more expensive energy source than renewables just because you've been convinced renewables are too unsafe. I agree. But it does make sense to use nuclear for other practical reasons. It works well for fulfilling base load. Renewables are great but transmission and storage is a bitch for those which are not dispatchable. Where nuclear shines is in replacing other base loads, like coal.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Nuclear is so much more expensive than renewables that even with issues of storage and transmission, nuclear still loses at base load. This is especially the case when one projects costs into the future, with nuclear having to compete against the renewable and storage technologies of 10, 20, 30 years hence.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        This can depend on the local market and natural resources available.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BeastMachine 3y ago

I've always wondered if being forced to live near the plants would change regulators minds. There are plants throughout the country, so if you want any say in safety regulations you'd have to live within 1km of the start of the safety zone.

wpm 3y ago
Probably wouldn't change anything because the regulators likely actually understand nuclear power plants and what the particular failures mean for the overall safety of a plant, at least far better than the average lay person does.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Unfortunate you’re downvoted, the greed and incompetence is basically what made Fukushima happen. Not the Tsunami alone

hanniabu 3y ago
People have difficulty facing reality when it doesn't fit their world view, it is what it is

outworlder 3y ago

> This is why many, including myself, are against nuclear power. And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives were better. If we are firing up coal plants to make up for not building nuclear plants, we are much worse than even a _leaking_ nuclear power plant. Coal plants, depending on where their coal comes from, can't even be built near nuclear as they would set off radiation alarms. Coal emissions are particularly harmful and cause lots of deaths worldwide. Natural gas are much less so, but still not great. We need to remove the older nuclear power plants and replace them, for baseline power, with newer designs. They are far safer and will not meltdown no matter what fails. Newer reactor designs are usually not self-sustaining and require active management to keep them going (as opposed to intervening to stop them). The answer seems to be renewables everywhere, and newer reactors to keep up with baseline demand. > The proposal comes as most of the nation’s nuclear power plants, which were designed and built in the 1960s or 1970s, are reaching the end of their original 40- to 50-year operating licenses. That is indeed the main problem. We have solved a lot of issues in half a century.

Kon5ole 3y ago
>And this stance would be perfectly fine if the alternatives were better. I believe we passed the point where solar with storage is better. It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". Solar has kept falling in price this year as well, while nuclear is always revealed to be more expensive every time a new study is made.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > It's certainly faster and easier to deploy, but now it's apparently also cheaper per produced Wh than nuclear even accounting for a mere 30% efficiency from the storage "detour". The cost of storage isn't just the conversion losses. You also need the storage hardware, and for it to have enough capacity for an extended period of low generation. Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? No one seems to be able to answer this, and the closest I've seen is something like "keep all of the existing natural gas plants operational and use them to burn hydrogen instead, but only when renewable generation is low." Which is just preposterously expensive -- you'd have to maintain an entire redundant set of generating plants that you hardly ever use and that themselves cost almost as much as nuclear power plants do. But that is still less expensive than trying to build a week's worth of storage capacity using something like lithium batteries. And both of them have the problem that you have to choose in advance how much storage capacity to build, but if you build too much you've doubled your costs and if you build too little then people freeze to death.

kube-system 3y ago

Nuclear power can quickly hurt people or the environment if mistakes happen. Others types of power plants slowly hurt people or the environment even if mistakes don't happen.

pfdietz 3y ago
On the subject of "hurting people"... One can get a handle on the magnitude of this issue by looking at the cost per person killed. Typically, policy decisions on this are based on the statistical value of a human life, which is somewhere around $9M/life. If you use that value, then the extra "life value cost" from renewables is orders of magnitude below their direct cost. So it makes no sense to use a more expensive energy source than renewables just because you've been convinced renewables are too unsafe.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > So it makes no sense to use a more expensive energy source than renewables just because you've been convinced renewables are too unsafe. I agree. But it does make sense to use nuclear for other practical reasons. It works well for fulfilling base load. Renewables are great but transmission and storage is a bitch for those which are not dispatchable. Where nuclear shines is in replacing other base loads, like coal.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Nuclear is so much more expensive than renewables that even with issues of storage and transmission, nuclear still loses at base load. This is especially the case when one projects costs into the future, with nuclear having to compete against the renewable and storage technologies of 10, 20, 30 years hence.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      This can depend on the local market and natural resources available.