4 ms·

Nuclear power plants, which have been successfully used for decades, are “unrealistic” now?

pas 2y ago
there has been an unfortunate "phase shift" since 1970 in the nuclear energy industry/ecosystem, mostly because the risk engineering principle/mandate called ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), and of course reasonable does not mean profitable. (which makes sense, we want safe reactors not just "there was a safety budget, and we spent all of it" >>safe<< ones, right? sure, but the real world is stubbornly full of cost-benefit trade-offs, and apparently we crossed it somewhere during the 70s.) https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flo... "Nuclear followed the learning curve up until about 1970, when it inverted and costs started rising"
- eru 2y ago
  Nuclear is held to a much higher safety standard (eg in terms of deaths per Joule) than any other form of electricity production. And that includes photovoltaic! Nuclear is so safe--even fully factoring in the accident at Chernobyl--that people very occasionally falling off rooftops when installing solar panels is a bigger health hazard per Joule produced.
  - duckmysick 2y ago
    How much bigger of a health hazard is manufacturing/installing solar panels compared to nuclear? Let's say, per one terawatt-hour of produced energy, how many people die doing each?
    - lazide 2y ago
      First you’re going to need reliable worker safety data and population cancer rate data out of China (which makes almost all panels), which…. Good luck.
      - onethought 2y ago
        Is there a link between Solar production and Cancer? I mean there is a super obvious one with Nuclear.
        eru 2y ago
        What is that 'super obvious' link of cancer with nuclear power? There's lots of dangerous chemicals involved in both the production of solar panels (and semiconductor technology in general) and also in the production of nuclear fuel. And those have to be handled carefully and responsibly, to avoid causing problems like cancer. Note: I'm deliberately not talking about radiation, because it's basically not a factor. You can live right next to a nuclear power plant, or even work in one, and your radiation exposure will be indistinguishable from background levels. Working as an airplane flight attendant (or even at the top of a really tall building or on a mountain) is much more dangerous in that regard. According to https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses even just living in Denver exposes you to a lot more radiation, because of the altitude.
        onethought 2y ago
        Radiation destroys DNA and directly causes cancer. That's the super obvious link. Your deliberate avoidance doesn't change that fact. Because of this are a bunch of safety protocols in the extraction, transportation, storage and use of radio active materials and their waste products. 100% sure that all of the chemicals involved in Solar manufacture are less toxic to the human body than handling Plutonium. So, we can probably design enough protocols to make it safe to manufacture given we did it for far more toxic materials. > You can live right next to a nuclear power plant, or even work in one, and your radiation exposure will be indistinguishable from background levels. So they dug up and replaced all the surface soil around Fukushima for no reason?
        lazide 2y ago
        Don’t bet on that plutonium toxicity thing. For one, most reactors aren’t going to have any plutonium (or any other radioisotope) where anyone can touch it or interact with it in any way. Concentrated Hydroflouric acid, and even pure fluorine gas however? That can be an easy turn of a tap away at most semiconductor plants. And much worse. And if you know anything about Florine, ‘much worse’ should be pretty chilling. I’m honestly not sure if radiation poisoning (actually quite hard and rare to die from) is worse than dying from fluorine exposure (I’m sure it’s killed a lot more people than radiation), but fluorine is certainly going to be faster. Most fire departments are going to be a lot more concerned about a semiconductor plant than a nuclear one.
    - eru 2y ago
      You can check some numbers (and sources) at https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml
      - duckmysick 2y ago
        I don't see solar mentioned on this page. And according to data found in a sibling comment, they are practically similar (0.03 nuclear vs 0.02 solar). Maybe I read it wrong, but I don't see anything supporting the statement: "Nuclear is so safe--even fully factoring in the accident at Chernobyl--that people very occasionally falling off rooftops when installing solar panels is a bigger health hazard per Joule produced."
    - cgravill 2y ago
      Some comparisons of power generation by deaths here: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    No one has to evacuate a city when someone breaks a solar panel, though. Deaths aren’t the only parameter here. Nuclear safety events are rare, rarely fatal, but can be very large in impacted area.
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      Hydro dam failures can cause mass destruction and evacuations of entire cities. Nuclear is not unique in this aspect.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        I didn't say it was unique in this aspect; it's a difference between nuclear (and hydro) versus solar.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      That isn't entirely fair. 1) The risk of evacuations happening is tiny and I'm not even convinced it is still a factor. We've not yet seen a messy meltdown of any plant designed and built after Chernobyl in 1986 and designs have changed a lot since then. 2) We don't know what a large-scale solar disaster looks like yet, but they might happen. For example I recall the Wikipedia page for the Year Without Summer [0] - we know that sometimes nature puts things in the atmosphere that might hamper solar in a way that nuclear can be designed around. IE, we might find we now have a risk of our power stations just deciding to produce less one year because of a usually unrelated disaster. Or maybe even stop if there is enough volcanic ash. Plus renewable projects have had a more noticeable association with grid failures and mishaps than nuclear projects. We really don't have much experience with what mass solar failures (if they do exist, but they probably do) look like or how common they are. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
      - onethought 2y ago
        It's not fair to point out very real impacts of Nuclear failures. But it's fair to compare to hypothetical-yet-to-occur "Mass Solar failures". Solar relies on Light, just like life does. So you are kind of referring to mass extinction events. no?
L-four 2y ago
Nuclear power is too safe, rare events are scary. If there were more nuclear accidents people would accept it as normal and be all for nuclear power.
defrost 2y ago
Unrealistic in Australia for a solid report's worth of reasons that make them economically unfeasible. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/may/csiro-releases-2023-24-gencost-report https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/may/csiro-release... Meanwhile nuclear is feasible in China, South Korea, maybe in the UK (who are well into sunk cost on their next reactor already), and probably in the US.
stubish 2y ago
Nuclear power plants are unrealistic to build in short time frames, such as trying to meet agreed green energy targets. Part of the Nuclear proposal being put forward by Australian conservatives includes dropping out of the Paris Agreement and refocusing on a 2050 time frame (ie. past the politicians' retirement age)
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
My understanding is that I the time it takes to build a nuclear power plant, a helluva lotta solar power generation can be built and up and running and generating power. And in that time span as well, solar power will increase its efficiency. And then batteries, to store and deliver that power outside of generation hours, are a parallel to that. If a nuclear power plant could be built quickly and simply, the equation would be different. Unfortunately, from the limited amount that I've read, nuclear power plant projects often run over time and over budget, exacerbating the time scale issue I described above.
- numpad0 2y ago
  I don't think that's actually true. US Navy and their contracting shipyards had consistently built nuclear subs in 3 year strides for decades. One set of fuel lasts is good for 1/5th century, after that the sub needs to be cut up and refueled. It's not something that take years after years of permitting and change of plans and suspected acts of arson of unknown motivation if it's literally operated by US Army or Navy(but not NASA). Solar power is just amateures littering compared to that.

pas 2y ago

there has been an unfortunate "phase shift" since 1970 in the nuclear energy industry/ecosystem, mostly because the risk engineering principle/mandate called ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable), and of course reasonable does not mean profitable. (which makes sense, we want safe reactors not just "there was a safety budget, and we spent all of it" >>safe<< ones, right? sure, but the real world is stubbornly full of cost-benefit trade-offs, and apparently we crossed it somewhere during the 70s.) https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flo... "Nuclear followed the learning curve up until about 1970, when it inverted and costs started rising"

eru 2y ago
Nuclear is held to a much higher safety standard (eg in terms of deaths per Joule) than any other form of electricity production. And that includes photovoltaic! Nuclear is so safe--even fully factoring in the accident at Chernobyl--that people very occasionally falling off rooftops when installing solar panels is a bigger health hazard per Joule produced.
- duckmysick 2y ago
  How much bigger of a health hazard is manufacturing/installing solar panels compared to nuclear? Let's say, per one terawatt-hour of produced energy, how many people die doing each?
  - lazide 2y ago
    First you’re going to need reliable worker safety data and population cancer rate data out of China (which makes almost all panels), which…. Good luck.
    - onethought 2y ago
      Is there a link between Solar production and Cancer? I mean there is a super obvious one with Nuclear.
      - eru 2y ago
        What is that 'super obvious' link of cancer with nuclear power? There's lots of dangerous chemicals involved in both the production of solar panels (and semiconductor technology in general) and also in the production of nuclear fuel. And those have to be handled carefully and responsibly, to avoid causing problems like cancer. Note: I'm deliberately not talking about radiation, because it's basically not a factor. You can live right next to a nuclear power plant, or even work in one, and your radiation exposure will be indistinguishable from background levels. Working as an airplane flight attendant (or even at the top of a really tall building or on a mountain) is much more dangerous in that regard. According to https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses even just living in Denver exposes you to a lot more radiation, because of the altitude.
        onethought 2y ago
        Radiation destroys DNA and directly causes cancer. That's the super obvious link. Your deliberate avoidance doesn't change that fact. Because of this are a bunch of safety protocols in the extraction, transportation, storage and use of radio active materials and their waste products. 100% sure that all of the chemicals involved in Solar manufacture are less toxic to the human body than handling Plutonium. So, we can probably design enough protocols to make it safe to manufacture given we did it for far more toxic materials. > You can live right next to a nuclear power plant, or even work in one, and your radiation exposure will be indistinguishable from background levels. So they dug up and replaced all the surface soil around Fukushima for no reason?
        lazide 2y ago
        Don’t bet on that plutonium toxicity thing. For one, most reactors aren’t going to have any plutonium (or any other radioisotope) where anyone can touch it or interact with it in any way. Concentrated Hydroflouric acid, and even pure fluorine gas however? That can be an easy turn of a tap away at most semiconductor plants. And much worse. And if you know anything about Florine, ‘much worse’ should be pretty chilling. I’m honestly not sure if radiation poisoning (actually quite hard and rare to die from) is worse than dying from fluorine exposure (I’m sure it’s killed a lot more people than radiation), but fluorine is certainly going to be faster. Most fire departments are going to be a lot more concerned about a semiconductor plant than a nuclear one.
  - eru 2y ago
    You can check some numbers (and sources) at https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_168.shtml
    - duckmysick 2y ago
      I don't see solar mentioned on this page. And according to data found in a sibling comment, they are practically similar (0.03 nuclear vs 0.02 solar). Maybe I read it wrong, but I don't see anything supporting the statement: "Nuclear is so safe--even fully factoring in the accident at Chernobyl--that people very occasionally falling off rooftops when installing solar panels is a bigger health hazard per Joule produced."
  - cgravill 2y ago
    Some comparisons of power generation by deaths here: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  No one has to evacuate a city when someone breaks a solar panel, though. Deaths aren’t the only parameter here. Nuclear safety events are rare, rarely fatal, but can be very large in impacted area.
  - jiggawatts 2y ago
    Hydro dam failures can cause mass destruction and evacuations of entire cities. Nuclear is not unique in this aspect.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      I didn't say it was unique in this aspect; it's a difference between nuclear (and hydro) versus solar.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    That isn't entirely fair. 1) The risk of evacuations happening is tiny and I'm not even convinced it is still a factor. We've not yet seen a messy meltdown of any plant designed and built after Chernobyl in 1986 and designs have changed a lot since then. 2) We don't know what a large-scale solar disaster looks like yet, but they might happen. For example I recall the Wikipedia page for the Year Without Summer [0] - we know that sometimes nature puts things in the atmosphere that might hamper solar in a way that nuclear can be designed around. IE, we might find we now have a risk of our power stations just deciding to produce less one year because of a usually unrelated disaster. Or maybe even stop if there is enough volcanic ash. Plus renewable projects have had a more noticeable association with grid failures and mishaps than nuclear projects. We really don't have much experience with what mass solar failures (if they do exist, but they probably do) look like or how common they are. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
    - onethought 2y ago
      It's not fair to point out very real impacts of Nuclear failures. But it's fair to compare to hypothetical-yet-to-occur "Mass Solar failures". Solar relies on Light, just like life does. So you are kind of referring to mass extinction events. no?

L-four 2y ago

Nuclear power is too safe, rare events are scary. If there were more nuclear accidents people would accept it as normal and be all for nuclear power.

defrost 2y ago

Unrealistic in Australia for a solid report's worth of reasons that make them economically unfeasible. https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/may/csiro-releases-2023-24-gencost-report https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/news/2024/may/csiro-release... Meanwhile nuclear is feasible in China, South Korea, maybe in the UK (who are well into sunk cost on their next reactor already), and probably in the US.

stubish 2y ago

Nuclear power plants are unrealistic to build in short time frames, such as trying to meet agreed green energy targets. Part of the Nuclear proposal being put forward by Australian conservatives includes dropping out of the Paris Agreement and refocusing on a 2050 time frame (ie. past the politicians' retirement age)

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

My understanding is that I the time it takes to build a nuclear power plant, a helluva lotta solar power generation can be built and up and running and generating power. And in that time span as well, solar power will increase its efficiency. And then batteries, to store and deliver that power outside of generation hours, are a parallel to that. If a nuclear power plant could be built quickly and simply, the equation would be different. Unfortunately, from the limited amount that I've read, nuclear power plant projects often run over time and over budget, exacerbating the time scale issue I described above.

numpad0 2y ago
I don't think that's actually true. US Navy and their contracting shipyards had consistently built nuclear subs in 3 year strides for decades. One set of fuel lasts is good for 1/5th century, after that the sub needs to be cut up and refueled. It's not something that take years after years of permitting and change of plans and suspected acts of arson of unknown motivation if it's literally operated by US Army or Navy(but not NASA). Solar power is just amateures littering compared to that.