4 ms·

How does it's cost to install and operate compare to gen 3/other nuclear tech? Safety is great, but nuclear is already safe enough (in the sense that, installin

How does it's cost to install and operate compare to gen 3/other nuclear tech? Safety is great, but nuclear is already safe enough (in the sense that, installing current and even last gen nuclear saves more lives through fossil fuel displacement than it can plausibly kill even in worst case disaster scenarios). Continuing to make nuclear safer, if it results in higher costs (and therefore reduced installs) is a bad tradeoff and has been for close to 50 years.

chasil 3y ago
It is said that most reactors in the U.S. only use 2% of the available power within the fuel, and the best designs top out at 30%. How is the fuel efficiency for this design? Walk-away safe is a major benefit, and is worth some sacrifice of efficiency.
- fbdab103 3y ago
  Is the uncaptured power completely gone during processing or does it remain embedded in the "nuclear waste"? It is not hard to imagine a future in which that waste gets mined to be put in a new reactor when the political/economic winds change.
einpoklum 3y ago
With due respect - that's a BS safety argument. Nuclear reactors must meet stringent safety standards, not with hand-wavy "but people die from fossil fuel pollution" rhetoric; and at the same time, fossil-fuel-fired plants must be made to emit a lot less, through filtering and other technological means.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  Safety is not a binary, safe/dangerous. How much risk we are willing to accept and what the trade-offs are isn't something that has a correct answer. it's a values question. My comment was assuming that society's apparent risk calculation was evident in how we treat everything other than nuclear. If your argument is that our safety regime on nuclear is correct and everything else is too dangerous and needs to be made safer, well I personally disagree but at least it's consistent and I have no problem with your opinion. It's a difference in values. The real problem I have is people who think that nuclear is a special flower and needs to be held to different standards than everything else. Which is how society is currently acting. And it's killing millions of people every year.
  - einpoklum 3y ago
    Nuclear is a special flower, in the sense that the worst-case malfunction scenario in many reactors is a chain reaction which leads to widespread dispersion of hazardously radioactive material, be it with or without a massive explosion. In other words, the "L_infinity norm" damage potential of nuclear is higher than coal, solar, wind, and perhaps even hydro (although dam breaches are quite lethal). It's also true that if you take the "L_1 norm", i.e. the expected damage, it may well be a regular flower and not special (perhaps even less-special than coal for example). But then it's a game of trust with the kinds of companies and state institutions which in many countries have proven as untrustworthy in preventing industrial / infrastructural accidents.

chasil 3y ago

It is said that most reactors in the U.S. only use 2% of the available power within the fuel, and the best designs top out at 30%. How is the fuel efficiency for this design? Walk-away safe is a major benefit, and is worth some sacrifice of efficiency.

fbdab103 3y ago
Is the uncaptured power completely gone during processing or does it remain embedded in the "nuclear waste"? It is not hard to imagine a future in which that waste gets mined to be put in a new reactor when the political/economic winds change.

einpoklum 3y ago

With due respect - that's a BS safety argument. Nuclear reactors must meet stringent safety standards, not with hand-wavy "but people die from fossil fuel pollution" rhetoric; and at the same time, fossil-fuel-fired plants must be made to emit a lot less, through filtering and other technological means.

MostlyStable 3y ago
Safety is not a binary, safe/dangerous. How much risk we are willing to accept and what the trade-offs are isn't something that has a correct answer. it's a values question. My comment was assuming that society's apparent risk calculation was evident in how we treat everything other than nuclear. If your argument is that our safety regime on nuclear is correct and everything else is too dangerous and needs to be made safer, well I personally disagree but at least it's consistent and I have no problem with your opinion. It's a difference in values. The real problem I have is people who think that nuclear is a special flower and needs to be held to different standards than everything else. Which is how society is currently acting. And it's killing millions of people every year.
- einpoklum 3y ago
  Nuclear is a special flower, in the sense that the worst-case malfunction scenario in many reactors is a chain reaction which leads to widespread dispersion of hazardously radioactive material, be it with or without a massive explosion. In other words, the "L_infinity norm" damage potential of nuclear is higher than coal, solar, wind, and perhaps even hydro (although dam breaches are quite lethal). It's also true that if you take the "L_1 norm", i.e. the expected damage, it may well be a regular flower and not special (perhaps even less-special than coal for example). But then it's a game of trust with the kinds of companies and state institutions which in many countries have proven as untrustworthy in preventing industrial / infrastructural accidents.