4 ms·

It was always pretty costly, even 60 years ago and it hasn't come down much, that is why the cost argument is not trivial, especially with other sources being s

It was always pretty costly, even 60 years ago and it hasn't come down much, that is why the cost argument is not trivial, especially with other sources being so cheap these days. And not to forget: some things are freakishly dangerous. For example, spent fuel rods provide deadly amounts of radiation in basically no time to people around them.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> And not to forget: some things are freakishly dangerous. For example, spent fuel rods provide deadly amounts of radiation in basically no time to people around them. You know what's deadly in a nuclear plant? The industrial machinery, the heavy plates of metal, the rotating devices at high speed, the trucks crossing the plant to ship heavy stuff, the dears crossing in front of the cars of the night shift workers. All of this kill and maim workers from time to time, like in every factory in the world. But you don't care about them. You just care about fantasies of fluorescent green stuff killing people with deadly invisible radiation, even though it barely ever happened in the real world (and it's not fluorescent green either).
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  There are lots of work related safety issues in nuclear power plants that are addressed as a matter of course, but heavy machinery isn't necessarily specific to nuclear power. And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. No, it doesn't glow at all. Water under irradiation do glow (Cherenkov effect), but the rods themselves don't glow. > But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you? They aren't. They would be very deadly if they were out of water with people around, but it doesn't happen under any circumstances, so the risk you're talking about doesn't exist. It is as nonsensical as saying wind turbines are deadly because “if you got hit by a rotating wing you'd be cut in half”.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. Even when transported after storage in water they do emit copious quantities of radiation, hence the rather cumbersome transport "cases". You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. Btw., people die from wind turbine blades in accidents (when they break, for example). Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the dangers and the many things done to contain radiation related risks (instead of just shouting how it is all a non-issue).
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. True, but it's a thousand time less luminous, and actually it's still not the rod that glows. > You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. In fact, I studied nuclear engineering before deciding to do computer science. There I met a bunch of good friend who works a several place of the nuclear supply chain, and also my wife who's now working at the plant 8km away from were we now live. So I'm very, very familiar with nuclear stuff. > Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the danger Fortunately, nobody works “in a reactor”, as it would be indeed by dangerous (300°C and 155bar isn't compatible with human life, without even talking about the radiation levels ;).
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with (but I was expecting you to go for some sort of sophism there and on the rods glowing. It is also not the water that glows as such btw.). But I take your point that you never worked in the field.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with Granted, the pressure and temperature are technology dependent, but it's never human suitable conditions in any case. And that's no sophism, the problem with your reasoning is that you call something “deadly” where it is in fact never in contact of a human in the first place, and could never be. > It is also not the water that glows as such What do you think glows? It's literally water molecules that glows from de-exitation. > take your point that you never worked in the field. Sure, but neither did you, and your vision of nuclear is much less based on reality than it should to have a discussion on the topic.

littlestymaar 3y ago

> And not to forget: some things are freakishly dangerous. For example, spent fuel rods provide deadly amounts of radiation in basically no time to people around them. You know what's deadly in a nuclear plant? The industrial machinery, the heavy plates of metal, the rotating devices at high speed, the trucks crossing the plant to ship heavy stuff, the dears crossing in front of the cars of the night shift workers. All of this kill and maim workers from time to time, like in every factory in the world. But you don't care about them. You just care about fantasies of fluorescent green stuff killing people with deadly invisible radiation, even though it barely ever happened in the real world (and it's not fluorescent green either).

RandomLensman 3y ago
There are lots of work related safety issues in nuclear power plants that are addressed as a matter of course, but heavy machinery isn't necessarily specific to nuclear power. And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you?
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. No, it doesn't glow at all. Water under irradiation do glow (Cherenkov effect), but the rods themselves don't glow. > But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you? They aren't. They would be very deadly if they were out of water with people around, but it doesn't happen under any circumstances, so the risk you're talking about doesn't exist. It is as nonsensical as saying wind turbines are deadly because “if you got hit by a rotating wing you'd be cut in half”.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. Even when transported after storage in water they do emit copious quantities of radiation, hence the rather cumbersome transport "cases". You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. Btw., people die from wind turbine blades in accidents (when they break, for example). Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the dangers and the many things done to contain radiation related risks (instead of just shouting how it is all a non-issue).
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. True, but it's a thousand time less luminous, and actually it's still not the rod that glows. > You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. In fact, I studied nuclear engineering before deciding to do computer science. There I met a bunch of good friend who works a several place of the nuclear supply chain, and also my wife who's now working at the plant 8km away from were we now live. So I'm very, very familiar with nuclear stuff. > Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the danger Fortunately, nobody works “in a reactor”, as it would be indeed by dangerous (300°C and 155bar isn't compatible with human life, without even talking about the radiation levels ;).
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with (but I was expecting you to go for some sort of sophism there and on the rods glowing. It is also not the water that glows as such btw.). But I take your point that you never worked in the field.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with Granted, the pressure and temperature are technology dependent, but it's never human suitable conditions in any case. And that's no sophism, the problem with your reasoning is that you call something “deadly” where it is in fact never in contact of a human in the first place, and could never be. > It is also not the water that glows as such What do you think glows? It's literally water molecules that glows from de-exitation. > take your point that you never worked in the field. Sure, but neither did you, and your vision of nuclear is much less based on reality than it should to have a discussion on the topic.