5 ms·

> We're not able to run any piece of gear without the occasional failure Seems like they could easily pressurize the pipes when idle to detect leaks

by nikau 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago
Next time you stub your toe, reflect that you could have moved your foot differently and not stubbed it. And yet nobody called for you to be delicensed from anything, even though you were just less competent (I mean, seriously, when that day comes you'll have just fucked up walking!) and did more damage to your own body than SC nuclear plant was ever likely to do to anyone.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  A large enough natural disaster in SC that took out the power grid and exposed the fact that the generators would fail if they were put to use, could cause a Chernobyl/Fukushima-class of disaster. A little bit worse than stubbing your toe, unless you commonly cause a hundred billion dollars in damage every time you kick your coffee table.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    You're imagining an act of god that does precisely so much damage that the difference between catastrophic failure and a non-event is this one cracked pipe. That was, please note, detected and fixed before failure. The odds of that happening are crazy low. And the downside of that risk coming to fruition is a 0-death to near-0-death crisis (which is much better than whatever this precise external shock will cause). Deal with the risk. Living is risky. The environmental disaster you posit is more dangerous than the nuclear scenario you envision as a result! The efforts to eliminate this risk have done far more damage so far even your hypothetical would cause.
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      > You're imagining an act of god that does precisely so much damage that the difference between catastrophic failure and a non-event is this one cracked pipe. That was, please note, detected and fixed before failure. Take the severe Forsmark incident in 2006 in Sweden. Many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. Thus loss of cooling became almost a certainty. That is why you test and do not accept half fixes to placate the operators profit margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J... > And the downside of that risk coming to fruition is a 0-death to near-0-death crisis (which is much better than whatever this precise external shock will cause). And a at least $200B bill to cleanup the mess in Fukushimas case. Lets remove the Price Anderson Act so they have to pay the true cost for their risk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
      - roenxi 3y ago
        > Lets remove the Price Anderson Act so they have to pay the true cost for their risk? Yeah. The costs and benefits should be born by the capital owner. The issue is that if you want to force them to pay for a cost externality that should be balanced out by considering the benefit eternalities. For nuclear power? if the world was fair they'd get a much bigger net subsidy. The risks of nuclear power going critical are far smaller than the benefits from not having to use coal for example. I forget what a life saved is worth in engineering terms. Something like 1 or 10 million per capita I think. $200 billion in cleanup only needs to save ~200-2,000 lives to be justified. > Many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. Things like pipes being cracked, for example? That is the issue here to me, this is part of a system of defences where it is anticipated that some of them won't be working. No one defence being broken should be a crisis. I'm cool with the idea that they should fix their pipe. I'm not cool with it being treated like a big deal without pretty solid evidence that the deal is big.
        Gwypaas 3y ago
        > The risks of nuclear power going critical are far smaller than the benefits from not having to use coal for example. That is a strawman argument. Coal has generally been uneconomical since the advent of combined cycle gas turbines where gas infrastructure exists. Today renewables are vastly undercutting both. Trying to frame it as a choice between nuclear and coal is only made because nuclear does not stack up against the real competition in 2023. > I forget what a life saved is worth in engineering terms. Something like 1 or 10 million per capita I think. $200 billion in cleanup only needs to save ~200-2,000 lives to be justified. Or we just build power generation without those third party risks. I do not understand why you are trying to frame a $200 billion cleanup bill as "nothing to see, move along sheeple!". > I'm cool with the idea that they should fix their pipe. I'm not cool with it being treated like a big deal without pretty solid evidence that the deal is big. Almost all nuclear accidents final hole in the Swiss cheese is some sort of loss of cooling. When the backup power fails due to negligent maintenance that is a big deal. Fukushima led to us building stockpiles of backup generators together with the necessary electric connections allowing us us to fly them in with helicopters and connect them if the primary ones fail. Saying that failure in the primary ones is "fine, nothing to see" is sticking your head in the sand.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Generally, stubbing one's toe includes zero risk of a catastrophic release of radioactive material that could poison land or water for dozens of years. Some things leave no room for error.
- nikau 3y ago
  Wasn't fukushima down to this exact scenario, backup generators were unavailable to keep coolant pumping?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

> We're not able to run any piece of gear without the occasional failure Seems like they could easily pressurize the pipes when idle to detect leaks

by nikau 3y ago

> We're not able to run any piece of gear without the occasional failure Seems like they could easily pressurize the pipes when idle to detect leaks

roenxi 3y ago

Next time you stub your toe, reflect that you could have moved your foot differently and not stubbed it. And yet nobody called for you to be delicensed from anything, even though you were just less competent (I mean, seriously, when that day comes you'll have just fucked up walking!) and did more damage to your own body than SC nuclear plant was ever likely to do to anyone.

lamontcg 3y ago
A large enough natural disaster in SC that took out the power grid and exposed the fact that the generators would fail if they were put to use, could cause a Chernobyl/Fukushima-class of disaster. A little bit worse than stubbing your toe, unless you commonly cause a hundred billion dollars in damage every time you kick your coffee table.
- roenxi 3y ago
  You're imagining an act of god that does precisely so much damage that the difference between catastrophic failure and a non-event is this one cracked pipe. That was, please note, detected and fixed before failure. The odds of that happening are crazy low. And the downside of that risk coming to fruition is a 0-death to near-0-death crisis (which is much better than whatever this precise external shock will cause). Deal with the risk. Living is risky. The environmental disaster you posit is more dangerous than the nuclear scenario you envision as a result! The efforts to eliminate this risk have done far more damage so far even your hypothetical would cause.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    > You're imagining an act of god that does precisely so much damage that the difference between catastrophic failure and a non-event is this one cracked pipe. That was, please note, detected and fixed before failure. Take the severe Forsmark incident in 2006 in Sweden. Many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. Thus loss of cooling became almost a certainty. That is why you test and do not accept half fixes to placate the operators profit margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#July_2006_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J... > And the downside of that risk coming to fruition is a 0-death to near-0-death crisis (which is much better than whatever this precise external shock will cause). And a at least $200B bill to cleanup the mess in Fukushimas case. Lets remove the Price Anderson Act so they have to pay the true cost for their risk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > Lets remove the Price Anderson Act so they have to pay the true cost for their risk? Yeah. The costs and benefits should be born by the capital owner. The issue is that if you want to force them to pay for a cost externality that should be balanced out by considering the benefit eternalities. For nuclear power? if the world was fair they'd get a much bigger net subsidy. The risks of nuclear power going critical are far smaller than the benefits from not having to use coal for example. I forget what a life saved is worth in engineering terms. Something like 1 or 10 million per capita I think. $200 billion in cleanup only needs to save ~200-2,000 lives to be justified. > Many of the "defense in depth" layers had been accidentally removed through freak occurrences and upgrades. Things like pipes being cracked, for example? That is the issue here to me, this is part of a system of defences where it is anticipated that some of them won't be working. No one defence being broken should be a crisis. I'm cool with the idea that they should fix their pipe. I'm not cool with it being treated like a big deal without pretty solid evidence that the deal is big.
      - Gwypaas 3y ago
        > The risks of nuclear power going critical are far smaller than the benefits from not having to use coal for example. That is a strawman argument. Coal has generally been uneconomical since the advent of combined cycle gas turbines where gas infrastructure exists. Today renewables are vastly undercutting both. Trying to frame it as a choice between nuclear and coal is only made because nuclear does not stack up against the real competition in 2023. > I forget what a life saved is worth in engineering terms. Something like 1 or 10 million per capita I think. $200 billion in cleanup only needs to save ~200-2,000 lives to be justified. Or we just build power generation without those third party risks. I do not understand why you are trying to frame a $200 billion cleanup bill as "nothing to see, move along sheeple!". > I'm cool with the idea that they should fix their pipe. I'm not cool with it being treated like a big deal without pretty solid evidence that the deal is big. Almost all nuclear accidents final hole in the Swiss cheese is some sort of loss of cooling. When the backup power fails due to negligent maintenance that is a big deal. Fukushima led to us building stockpiles of backup generators together with the necessary electric connections allowing us us to fly them in with helicopters and connect them if the primary ones fail. Saying that failure in the primary ones is "fine, nothing to see" is sticking your head in the sand.
shadowgovt 3y ago
Generally, stubbing one's toe includes zero risk of a catastrophic release of radioactive material that could poison land or water for dozens of years. Some things leave no room for error.
nikau 3y ago
Wasn't fukushima down to this exact scenario, backup generators were unavailable to keep coolant pumping?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]