7 ms·

> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident infor

> the evacuation was entirely based on subjective opinions and lacked scientific basis. This is not what experts say: at the time of the nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, and they estimated that the worst potential accident would have major effects up to Tokyo and require evacuation in a huge zone. "In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and has said that at one point Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone including Tokyo and would have to evacuate" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_reaction_to_Fukushima... ). Also: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people" (source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... ) This major disaster did not happen thanks to sheer luck (one of the parameters was wind, which blew most radionuclides towards the ocean). > issues with communication, hierarchy, and more The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident canot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may causes huge damage. > The report highlights human fallibility This is the cause of each and every industrial accident. > and the impact of illogical fear It seems "illogical" after the fact. Armchair-experts always "win" every war.. but are nowhere to find when things go awry. >> N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy > In what way personal opinions should be relevant This is pertinent because it shows that the Japanese Prime Minister did not use the Fukushima nuclear accident as a mean to fight against nuclear power. > we are talking about the same person who made the disaster According to you the Prime Minister was the culprit. Source? >> This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 > Your arguments are self-contradictory. You explain how the Fukushima problem is due to nuclear power, yet argue that dam-related fatalities are not the fault of dams. Nope. I argue that a dam is way more robust and also that it gives numerous early signs announcing a failure while a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context. > nuclear remains safer than dams This is highly disputed, even in Fukushima's case. http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Report-on-Fukushima-a-critical-appraisal1.pdf http://csrp.jp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2013-UNSCEAR-Repor... https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article https://apjjf.org/thierry-ribault/4761/article > The numbers show that nuclear is inherently safe, making the "safety of nuclear" discussion irrelevant. Past nuclear accidents (their effects are disputed) don't reveal the max potential damage caused by a nuclear major accident. >> most efficient ways > Diversification has always been the most efficient way to lower costs and improve competitiveness. True, however renewable sources may be sufficiently diverse. > because of ideological reasons No. Risk (accident, proliferation, waste...), dependancy towards uranium, cost... are not 'ideological' biases but facts. The 'ideology' hinting at neglecting them suffers from an event such as Fukushima's accident. > costs come from overregulation Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained thanks to accidents useless? > low investment Many nuclear projects (R&D, new reactors, refurbishing...) are running. > It's not intrinsically costly. The evolution of the production cost of various types of source is clear: https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri... > storage, which is currently expensive and requires further investment to become affordable. https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline > Moreover, 90% of the solar and battery supply chain is in China This is not intrinsic, many nations (even in Western Europe) did built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so. In most nuclearized Western nations there is no uranium to mine, and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. > I fully understand your ideology When there is no more argument you may indeed rant.

Herz 2y ago
> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and mentioned that Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone, including Tokyo, and would have to evacuate. Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? The scientific report I linked to comes from the independent committee in charge of the investigation. If you want to assert something, you should start there. I understand you may not have a completely scientific background, but what people say does not necessarily represent reality or have intrinsic worth. Talking about science is not the same as conducting science. Regarding your comment, the article you mentioned seems inaccurate. The original sources of the interviews are these: - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-consider... There is no mention of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Rather, it seems that idea came from Yukio Edano: "The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a 'demonic chain reaction' of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south." In contrast, the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones." This completely contradicts what you stated, proving that interviews or people's words should not be taken as truth without evidence. Apart from this way of clinging to quotes based on nothing. Evacuation remains a political issue, and not a nuclear one. > The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in the vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident cannot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may cause huge damage. A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death. If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is? > Nope. I argue that a dam is more robust and gives numerous early signs of failure, whereas a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context. Below I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures. > Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained from accidents useless? It's not useless, but often exaggerated and unscientific. The public and politicians fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion. The fear-to-real-danger ratio is much more exaggerated for nuclear technology than for any other modern technology. This inability to relate to other technologies has led to this misunderstanding. Page 171 Chapter 3.5: - https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125953 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1... - https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1.pdf https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1.... As the figure shows, fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources. This is simply statistics and the reality of the facts. "An accident at a Generation III nuclear power plant with the consequences shown in Figure 3.5-1 is a highly improbable event. The calculated frequency of such consequences corresponds to about 10^(-10) per reactor year, or once in ten billion years of operation per reactor. However, such a number of fatalities, even if based on very pessimistic assumptions, impacts public perception due to disaster (or risk) aversion." - https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk-report.pdf https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk... - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ > The evolution of the production cost of various types of sources is clear: [https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png](https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png) https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri... No, it's not clear at all. 1. This graph shows that hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables). 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies, where renewables fail miserably. 3. It ignores grid costs, overproduction costs, and backup costs, all necessary for renewable energy. 4. Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest. Page 9 note 1: - https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... - https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/SystemLCOE.pdf https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Syst... - https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ver=0 https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ve... > This is not intrinsic; many nations (even in Western Europe) have built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so. Having the equipment means nothing without the entire production chain, investments, know-how, and affordable labor. In fact, in the Chip industry, where this problem is much more real, and where Europeans build the equipment, however, in the event of a TMSC shutdown due to an invasion, it would be a disaster either way, with repercussions for decades. If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification? China controls the rare earths, cheap labor, and production chain. Changing these factors would exponentially increase costs, making solar panels safe but uneconomic. Not to mention the time it takes to make the transition. I support adoption, research, and development, but producing panels economically to decarbonize by 2050 is impossible in that scenario. - https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Solar-PV-Manufacturing-Aug-29.jpg https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/... - https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzgerald%20graphic.jpg?cb=255c185bb8c2a083e6fec63d14477bb8&w=1480&h= https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzger... > In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. False. "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... Besides, nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium: - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&us... The availability and quantity of uranium are not valid arguments.

Herz 2y ago

> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and mentioned that Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone, including Tokyo, and would have to evacuate. Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? The scientific report I linked to comes from the independent committee in charge of the investigation. If you want to assert something, you should start there. I understand you may not have a completely scientific background, but what people say does not necessarily represent reality or have intrinsic worth. Talking about science is not the same as conducting science. Regarding your comment, the article you mentioned seems inaccurate. The original sources of the interviews are these: - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-consider... There is no mention of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Rather, it seems that idea came from Yukio Edano: "The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a 'demonic chain reaction' of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south." In contrast, the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones." This completely contradicts what you stated, proving that interviews or people's words should not be taken as truth without evidence. Apart from this way of clinging to quotes based on nothing. Evacuation remains a political issue, and not a nuclear one. > The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in the vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident cannot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may cause huge damage. A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death. If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is? > Nope. I argue that a dam is more robust and gives numerous early signs of failure, whereas a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context. Below I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures. > Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained from accidents useless? It's not useless, but often exaggerated and unscientific. The public and politicians fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion. The fear-to-real-danger ratio is much more exaggerated for nuclear technology than for any other modern technology. This inability to relate to other technologies has led to this misunderstanding. Page 171 Chapter 3.5: - https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125953 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1... - https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1.pdf https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1.... As the figure shows, fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources. This is simply statistics and the reality of the facts. "An accident at a Generation III nuclear power plant with the consequences shown in Figure 3.5-1 is a highly improbable event. The calculated frequency of such consequences corresponds to about 10^(-10) per reactor year, or once in ten billion years of operation per reactor. However, such a number of fatalities, even if based on very pessimistic assumptions, impacts public perception due to disaster (or risk) aversion." - https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk-report.pdf https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk... - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ > The evolution of the production cost of various types of sources is clear: [https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png](https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png) https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri... No, it's not clear at all. 1. This graph shows that hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables). 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies, where renewables fail miserably. 3. It ignores grid costs, overproduction costs, and backup costs, all necessary for renewable energy. 4. Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest. Page 9 note 1: - https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... - https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/SystemLCOE.pdf https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Syst... - https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ver=0 https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ve... > This is not intrinsic; many nations (even in Western Europe) have built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so. Having the equipment means nothing without the entire production chain, investments, know-how, and affordable labor. In fact, in the Chip industry, where this problem is much more real, and where Europeans build the equipment, however, in the event of a TMSC shutdown due to an invasion, it would be a disaster either way, with repercussions for decades. If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification? China controls the rare earths, cheap labor, and production chain. Changing these factors would exponentially increase costs, making solar panels safe but uneconomic. Not to mention the time it takes to make the transition. I support adoption, research, and development, but producing panels economically to decarbonize by 2050 is impossible in that scenario. - https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Solar-PV-Manufacturing-Aug-29.jpg https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/... - https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzgerald%20graphic.jpg?cb=255c185bb8c2a083e6fec63d14477bb8&w=1480&h= https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzger... > In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. False. "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... Besides, nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium: - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&us... The availability and quantity of uranium are not valid arguments.