4 ms·

> if we held nuclear to a similar safety standard to the airline, coal or solar industry it'd probably be cheaper No it would be much more expensive. Chernobyl

> if we held nuclear to a similar safety standard to the airline, coal or solar industry it'd probably be cheaper No it would be much more expensive. Chernobyl and Fukushima are estimated to cost over 1000 billion usd each, and your suggestion would cause similar accidents every 4-6 years.

roenxi 3y ago
You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident where the workers had to dig a big trench to clear out contaminated material, then filled the trench in with local soil ... that was naturally higher in radiation than the stuff removed. I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 when Fukushima & friends were designed. And it seems quite likely that this 1 trillion figure is not actually an amount of money that got spent. But what I'd really like to know is what exactly were the consequences if we just ignored the situation? Because with coal we more or less ignored the pollution from 1800 -> 2023 and that turned out well [0] for everyone involved for centuries. Is this money actually worth spending? What is it buying? The nuclear debate seems to be largely detached from what actually happens as routine. Lots of people just don't exercise and that is bad for all sorts of health outcomes - there is a level of risk that people ignore in favour of more comfort. These arguments are like 1800s peasants deciding to kill off the industrial revolution because they were worried about global warming. I don't think people are looking at the multiple orders of magnitude improvement in fuel energy density and thinking logically about what the upside is. It might be high enough that a trillion every couple of years is chump change. And, when I hear "trillion", we note that the US wasted that much in Afghanistan. It isn't like these sums are prohibitive - Japan is slowly restarting their nuclear programs as they work out that energy is required to live a comfortable life. [0] Like, really well. As in, any attempt to deal with the pollution would have left the whole world a lot worse off. Our entire lifestyle in the present is built on the back of infrastructure built while ignoring pollution in the industrial revolution and follow up era.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident Here is just one of many actually documented stories about nuclear contamination, none of them are particularly funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident >I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 The problem isn't plant design. The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous and humans are often very sloppy, ignorant and greedy. This problem remains even if a plant would be entirely fault tolerant. >But what I'd really like to know is what exactly were the consequences if we just ignored the situation? If we ignored Chernobyl and nobody sacrificed their lives to stop the fire, my understanding is that it would still be burning and Europe would be mostly a uninhabitable hellhole today, with millions dead, immense numbers of birth defects and and a large percentage of the population would get cancers before age 30. Since it was stopped relatively quickly we have only had to deal with sanitation for 40+ years, in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. If the fallout areas were untreated, food from those areas would be classified as carcinogenic for decades. Some might think that Wyoming is far away, but a Chernobyl accident in Wyoming could devastate agriculture in Kansas, California, Canada - this can't be ignored. Surely it would be better for Wyoming to build hydrogen plants, photovoltaic panels and such. It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up in arms about it and never hear the end of it. I'm not saying no risk, but I am saying negligible. Plenty of nasty stuff out there, and one more heap doesn't need serious attention. > If we ignored Chernobyl ... (1) Ok, so put the fire out. That isn't a half-trillion dollars in costs though. Where is this trillion dollars coming from, and what is it protecting against? (2) Everything causes cancer. Including, famously, a suit to have Starbucks coffee in California labelled as carcinogenic [0]. And coal dust causes cancer, which we've put up with for literal centuries. What are the actual risks are here? Carcinogens aren't a rare thing, a lot of people already die of cancer, because we're surrounded by them. A few more in exchange for the sort of upside nuclear promises is, observing the actual state of things, a good trade. So what are the real numbers you're talking? At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. Probably nat gas too. (3) Nobody is building plants like Chernobyl in this century. That design was from last century. (4) Bonus points, where are you getting this from? Because a lot of the scary post-Chernobyl modelling was done on a Linear-No-Threshold model that is a good case study in people applying excessive safety to nuclear, assuming that it is much more hazardous than we have any evidence for. > It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk. Nuclear would be cheaper if it was held to sane safety standards that are comparable to what we're putting up with literally right now. I've lived next to coal plants. That is worse for my health than if I had been living in Fukushima when the plant melted down. Nobody in my town was particularly worried about the risk though because that would be remarkably stupid. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-cancer-california-798750 https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-canc...
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> suggestion would cause similar accidents every 4-6 years That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. Both of those events made future incidents significantly less likely. Also Chernobyl was totally avoidable and only happened because of extreme incompetence prevalent in the USSR.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. A speculation for sure but I think it's realistic given the premise. Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants, same standards as coal power for storing the waste? If anything my speculation is optimistic!
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants Not really though.

roenxi 3y ago

You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident where the workers had to dig a big trench to clear out contaminated material, then filled the trench in with local soil ... that was naturally higher in radiation than the stuff removed. I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 when Fukushima & friends were designed. And it seems quite likely that this 1 trillion figure is not actually an amount of money that got spent. But what I'd really like to know is what exactly were the consequences if we just ignored the situation? Because with coal we more or less ignored the pollution from 1800 -> 2023 and that turned out well [0] for everyone involved for centuries. Is this money actually worth spending? What is it buying? The nuclear debate seems to be largely detached from what actually happens as routine. Lots of people just don't exercise and that is bad for all sorts of health outcomes - there is a level of risk that people ignore in favour of more comfort. These arguments are like 1800s peasants deciding to kill off the industrial revolution because they were worried about global warming. I don't think people are looking at the multiple orders of magnitude improvement in fuel energy density and thinking logically about what the upside is. It might be high enough that a trillion every couple of years is chump change. And, when I hear "trillion", we note that the US wasted that much in Afghanistan. It isn't like these sums are prohibitive - Japan is slowly restarting their nuclear programs as they work out that energy is required to live a comfortable life. [0] Like, really well. As in, any attempt to deal with the pollution would have left the whole world a lot worse off. Our entire lifestyle in the present is built on the back of infrastructure built while ignoring pollution in the industrial revolution and follow up era.

Kon5ole 3y ago
>You might have heard the funny story about a nuclear contamination incident Here is just one of many actually documented stories about nuclear contamination, none of them are particularly funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident >I'm not entirely happy with the premise that nobody has learned anything about plant design since 1970 The problem isn't plant design. The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous and humans are often very sloppy, ignorant and greedy. This problem remains even if a plant would be entirely fault tolerant. >But what I'd really like to know is what exactly were the consequences if we just ignored the situation? If we ignored Chernobyl and nobody sacrificed their lives to stop the fire, my understanding is that it would still be burning and Europe would be mostly a uninhabitable hellhole today, with millions dead, immense numbers of birth defects and and a large percentage of the population would get cancers before age 30. Since it was stopped relatively quickly we have only had to deal with sanitation for 40+ years, in areas as remote as Lapland and Bavaria. If the fallout areas were untreated, food from those areas would be classified as carcinogenic for decades. Some might think that Wyoming is far away, but a Chernobyl accident in Wyoming could devastate agriculture in Kansas, California, Canada - this can't be ignored. Surely it would be better for Wyoming to build hydrogen plants, photovoltaic panels and such. It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Much to get through. So, You've linked one of worlds worst nuclear disasters there. Nothing to do with nuclear power though, and it certainly didn't cause anywhere near a trillion dollars in damage. > The problem is that the fuel and waste from any nuclear plant is very dangerous It isn't that dangerous. We've been at this for 50 years. If anything interesting had happened regarding waste we'd have the regressives up in arms about it and never hear the end of it. I'm not saying no risk, but I am saying negligible. Plenty of nasty stuff out there, and one more heap doesn't need serious attention. > If we ignored Chernobyl ... (1) Ok, so put the fire out. That isn't a half-trillion dollars in costs though. Where is this trillion dollars coming from, and what is it protecting against? (2) Everything causes cancer. Including, famously, a suit to have Starbucks coffee in California labelled as carcinogenic [0]. And coal dust causes cancer, which we've put up with for literal centuries. What are the actual risks are here? Carcinogens aren't a rare thing, a lot of people already die of cancer, because we're surrounded by them. A few more in exchange for the sort of upside nuclear promises is, observing the actual state of things, a good trade. So what are the real numbers you're talking? At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. Probably nat gas too. (3) Nobody is building plants like Chernobyl in this century. That design was from last century. (4) Bonus points, where are you getting this from? Because a lot of the scary post-Chernobyl modelling was done on a Linear-No-Threshold model that is a good case study in people applying excessive safety to nuclear, assuming that it is much more hazardous than we have any evidence for. > It will deliver as stable energy as nuclear but cheaper and with comparably no risk. Nuclear would be cheaper if it was held to sane safety standards that are comparable to what we're putting up with literally right now. I've lived next to coal plants. That is worse for my health than if I had been living in Fukushima when the plant melted down. Nobody in my town was particularly worried about the risk though because that would be remarkably stupid. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-cancer-california-798750 https://www.newsweek.com/heres-why-everything-gives-you-canc...

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> suggestion would cause similar accidents every 4-6 years That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. Both of those events made future incidents significantly less likely. Also Chernobyl was totally avoidable and only happened because of extreme incompetence prevalent in the USSR.

Kon5ole 3y ago
>That seems like somewhat absurd speculation. A speculation for sure but I think it's realistic given the premise. Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants, same standards as coal power for storing the waste? If anything my speculation is optimistic!
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > Same safety standards as the Boeing 737 Max for nuclear power plants Not really though.