6 ms·

This is clean, until something goes catastrophically wrong. (Which eventually it will. The more reactors, the more chances for it to happen.)

pelagicAustral 1y ago
I'd say a reactor in inland Europe is far from the craziest place to put one. God forbid someone were to put one in the Pacific ring of fire... oh, wait...
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Why? Are you concerned that, like Lex Luthor in that worst-of-all Superman movies, someone will use nuclear reactors to somehow cause damage to continental plates? Actually, that's more of a stretch than the movie took.
mgaunard 1y ago
Meanwhile lignite mines (which Germany are re-opening) actively affect the health of everyone nearby, even when everything goes perfectly alright.
- pydry 1y ago
  The nuclear industry did say that this would happen but the reality was the exact opposite: >According to research institute Fraunhofer’s Energy Charts, the plant had a utilisation ratio of only 24% in 2024, half as much as ten years before, BR said. Also, the decommissioning of the nearby Isar 2 nuclear plant did not change the shrinking need for the coal plant, even though Bavaria’s government had repeatedly warned that implementing the nuclear phase-out as planned could make the use of more fossil power production capacity necessary. https://theprogressplaybook.com/2025/02/19/german-state-of-bavaria-retires-its-last-major-coal-plant/ https://theprogressplaybook.com/2025/02/19/german-state-of-b...
yellowapple 1y ago
Even accounting for the times things have gone “catastrophically wrong”, nuclear is many orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy than every other energy source except solar. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
- epistasis 1y ago
  Sure, in deaths per unit energy. But the real risk of nuclear is financial. The tail risk is huge for any producer on their own, which makes insurance extremely expensive, and which means that usually only nations bear the full financial risk of nuclear.
- ryao 1y ago
  Data reported by Forbes put the death rates for nuclear power in the US below all other sources of energy including solar: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... The death rates are wildly different than the ones at the site you linked. I wonder what the reason is for the discrepancy.
  - everforward 1y ago
    The death rates might be a difference in units; the Forbes article is using deaths per trillion kWh, the other might be deaths per thousand/million kWh. The difference in ranking might be down to how they model deaths from nuclear power accidents. One may be using the linear no threshold model, and the other may be using something else. We don't have an agreed upon model for how likely someone is to die as a result of exposure to X amount of radiation, which causes wide gaps in death estimates. E.g. Chernobyl non-acute radiation death estimates range from 4,000 to 16,000, with some outliers claiming over 60,000. That's a wild swing depending on which model you use.
- LinXitoW 1y ago
  These are death rates with the current saturation of plants. If we wanted to cover all of Europe, a much more densely populated area, with nuclear, the deaths (and other negative consequences) would be far greater, no?
sollewitt 1y ago
Pebble-bed reactors are incapable of catastrophic failure, and molten-salt reactors have negative feedback loops with increasing pressure. Nuclear doesn't have to mean the same designs that were used in the 60s.
- acidburnNSA 1y ago
  Both those design types were operational in the 1960s in the US but have been shut down due to lack of performance and industrial interest. New interest has started today, but let's not claim the new ones are some kind of new improved tech that evolved out of our workhorse water cooled/moderated plants.
exabrial 1y ago
You are incorrect fortunately. Western designs are safe, most Soviet-era ones are/were not. It's unfortunate that nuclear power still has this stigma, as it's like saying "all cars are unsafe" while comparing the crash test ratings of a modern sedan to a 1960's chevy bel aire.
- nilslindemann 1y ago
  Then why did Fukushima happen?
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Old, bad design - from the 1960s, in fact.
    - a3w 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor states that the 1960 reactors are most used, today. In the west. Contradicting that western reactors are safe, while eastern designs are not.
      - ryao 1y ago
        The Chernobyl plant had known construction defects that could impair safety. These things would prevent a western plant from starting operation, but did not stop the Soviet plant from beginning operation: https://inspectapedia.com/structure/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Disaster_Construction_Defects.php https://inspectapedia.com/structure/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Disast... They did not even have any automated safeties in place, because their philosophy was “faith in the worker” while the western philosophy is “humans are fallible”: https://www.eit.edu.au/engineering-failures-chernobyl-disaster/ https://www.eit.edu.au/engineering-failures-chernobyl-disast... They then ignored their own safety procedures when operating the plant, which ultimately is what caused the disaster. Saying that Soviet designs being in the same generation as western designs makes them equally safe/unsafe is quite wrong when you look at the details. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was one mistake after another. That said, the plant was designed by a country that shot down a civilian airliner that had strayed into their airspace due to a navigational error, when they knew it was a civilian airliner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 They had no regard for human life, so of course, they built things that are incredibly unsafe. There is no end of examples of them simply not caring about human life.
ainiriand 1y ago
What is a bit scary is that we cannot easily deal with the consequence of something really wrong... We have to real with it.

pelagicAustral 1y ago

I'd say a reactor in inland Europe is far from the craziest place to put one. God forbid someone were to put one in the Pacific ring of fire... oh, wait...

IAmBroom 1y ago
Why? Are you concerned that, like Lex Luthor in that worst-of-all Superman movies, someone will use nuclear reactors to somehow cause damage to continental plates? Actually, that's more of a stretch than the movie took.

mgaunard 1y ago

Meanwhile lignite mines (which Germany are re-opening) actively affect the health of everyone nearby, even when everything goes perfectly alright.

pydry 1y ago
The nuclear industry did say that this would happen but the reality was the exact opposite: >According to research institute Fraunhofer’s Energy Charts, the plant had a utilisation ratio of only 24% in 2024, half as much as ten years before, BR said. Also, the decommissioning of the nearby Isar 2 nuclear plant did not change the shrinking need for the coal plant, even though Bavaria’s government had repeatedly warned that implementing the nuclear phase-out as planned could make the use of more fossil power production capacity necessary. https://theprogressplaybook.com/2025/02/19/german-state-of-bavaria-retires-its-last-major-coal-plant/ https://theprogressplaybook.com/2025/02/19/german-state-of-b...

yellowapple 1y ago

Even accounting for the times things have gone “catastrophically wrong”, nuclear is many orders of magnitude safer per unit of energy than every other energy source except solar. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

epistasis 1y ago
Sure, in deaths per unit energy. But the real risk of nuclear is financial. The tail risk is huge for any producer on their own, which makes insurance extremely expensive, and which means that usually only nations bear the full financial risk of nuclear.
ryao 1y ago
Data reported by Forbes put the death rates for nuclear power in the US below all other sources of energy including solar: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... The death rates are wildly different than the ones at the site you linked. I wonder what the reason is for the discrepancy.
- everforward 1y ago
  The death rates might be a difference in units; the Forbes article is using deaths per trillion kWh, the other might be deaths per thousand/million kWh. The difference in ranking might be down to how they model deaths from nuclear power accidents. One may be using the linear no threshold model, and the other may be using something else. We don't have an agreed upon model for how likely someone is to die as a result of exposure to X amount of radiation, which causes wide gaps in death estimates. E.g. Chernobyl non-acute radiation death estimates range from 4,000 to 16,000, with some outliers claiming over 60,000. That's a wild swing depending on which model you use.
LinXitoW 1y ago
These are death rates with the current saturation of plants. If we wanted to cover all of Europe, a much more densely populated area, with nuclear, the deaths (and other negative consequences) would be far greater, no?

sollewitt 1y ago

Pebble-bed reactors are incapable of catastrophic failure, and molten-salt reactors have negative feedback loops with increasing pressure. Nuclear doesn't have to mean the same designs that were used in the 60s.

acidburnNSA 1y ago
Both those design types were operational in the 1960s in the US but have been shut down due to lack of performance and industrial interest. New interest has started today, but let's not claim the new ones are some kind of new improved tech that evolved out of our workhorse water cooled/moderated plants.

exabrial 1y ago

You are incorrect fortunately. Western designs are safe, most Soviet-era ones are/were not. It's unfortunate that nuclear power still has this stigma, as it's like saying "all cars are unsafe" while comparing the crash test ratings of a modern sedan to a 1960's chevy bel aire.

nilslindemann 1y ago
Then why did Fukushima happen?
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Old, bad design - from the 1960s, in fact.
  - a3w 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor states that the 1960 reactors are most used, today. In the west. Contradicting that western reactors are safe, while eastern designs are not.
    - ryao 1y ago
      The Chernobyl plant had known construction defects that could impair safety. These things would prevent a western plant from starting operation, but did not stop the Soviet plant from beginning operation: https://inspectapedia.com/structure/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Disaster_Construction_Defects.php https://inspectapedia.com/structure/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Disast... They did not even have any automated safeties in place, because their philosophy was “faith in the worker” while the western philosophy is “humans are fallible”: https://www.eit.edu.au/engineering-failures-chernobyl-disaster/ https://www.eit.edu.au/engineering-failures-chernobyl-disast... They then ignored their own safety procedures when operating the plant, which ultimately is what caused the disaster. Saying that Soviet designs being in the same generation as western designs makes them equally safe/unsafe is quite wrong when you look at the details. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was one mistake after another. That said, the plant was designed by a country that shot down a civilian airliner that had strayed into their airspace due to a navigational error, when they knew it was a civilian airliner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 They had no regard for human life, so of course, they built things that are incredibly unsafe. There is no end of examples of them simply not caring about human life.

ainiriand 1y ago

What is a bit scary is that we cannot easily deal with the consequence of something really wrong... We have to real with it.