5 ms·

For all the scorn that creationists (justifiably) receive, scientific ignorance in the form of nuclear scaremongering has done and is doing far more damage.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
Is it really scaremongering? Fukushima was a close call. Considering the population density and the inherent risks (quakes) in Japan, I would say it's a wise decision. Who wants a population living under fear? Fission is a good source of energy, but nuclear plants are obviously less reliable than expected. That will be a thrust to research better alternatives, including better nuclear plant designs, why not?
- tobylane 14y ago
  Fukushima was a freak event in an old power station with inadequate sea defences. Simply building another 2m on top of the wall would have been enough until the station lost its licence due to age.
  - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
    Exactly. Had it been a gas plant or whatever, it wouldn't have mattered. But it was a nuclear plant, and in a nuclear plant any improbable event like that is a major f* up. That's the core issue.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > Had it been a gas plant or whatever ... it would have been doing damage constantly, just by operating, in the form of emitting carbon.
      - Navarr 14y ago
        let me just remind the jury that, despite nuclear power being cleaner, there is still this big nuclear waste problem I don't recall us ever solving.
        aidenn0 14y ago
        Reprocessing?
        tinco 14y ago
        We have solved it, governments just don't enforce it because storing used uranium is cheaper than recycling it.
        tobylane 14y ago
        The numbers I heard a while was something like after first use uranium is 95-97% power, can be reused down to 15-25%. I haven't heard anyone getting this far with it, or even predictions of how radioactive it would be then.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    Coulda shoulda woulda. I'd like to think the right managers and authorities will do the right thing in such situations. But empirically, they didn't. Perhaps it's a specific failing of the Japanese governance regime, and knowing their own affairs more than we do, they don't have sufficient confidence they can fix that failing before another 'freak' event occurs.
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  It's not that the plants are less reliable. The technology is great. It's the humans that aren't reliable.
  - hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
    If the humans operating the plants are not reliable, it means the plants are unreliable. You're running in circles with your argument.
    - bluedanieru 14y ago
      I don't think you know what circular reasoning is. Are you seriously suggesting that anything that isn't designed against every conceivable example of human incompetence, is a flawed design?
- AngryParsley 14y ago
  Don't forget that the Tohoku earthquake killed almost 20,000 people. The worst estimates for Fukushima predict it will cause 1,000 deaths. Median estimates predict a couple hundred deaths. Even though management was criminally bad, Fukushima still killed fewer people than the equivalent number of coal plants run for the same time. Fukushima ran for 40 years, so that's 25 deaths per year worst-case. According to the CATF[1], around 13,000 Americans die each year from fossil fuel power plant emissions. There are around 600 coal plants in the US, so that's just over 20 deaths per plant per year. What's worse is you need more than one coal plant to make up for a nuclear plant. Googling around tells me coal averages 300MW/plant and Fukushima had 4.7GW of capacity. You'd need 15 coal plants to make up for Fukushima. That's 300 deaths per year. So when the 5th largest earthquake ever recorded strikes, and causes a nuclear power plant to explode twice, and the cleanup is criminally mismanaged, it's still safer than burning fossil fuels. 1. http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/existing/ http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/existing/
  - danielharan 14y ago
    There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal. As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zones? Incomprehensibly stupid. Of course, the alternative to nuclear isn't just coal. Renewables and efficiency should be considered first. Safer than both coal and nuclear, they also create more jobs.
    - AngryParsley 14y ago
      Sorry, but you're wrong about the safety of renewables. The statistic you're looking for is called deaths per terawatt-hour. Nuclear wins by an order of magnitude: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawat... For the same amount of energy, renewables kill more people than nuclear. People fall off their roofs installing solar panels. Hydroelectric dams burst. Even windmills kill people. For the next few decades, fossil fuels are the only alternative to nuclear power. Wind and solar aren't baseload sources. Hydro is, but we've already put dams in most of the economically and environmentally feasible locations.
- cmelbye 14y ago
  The plant was built to withstand quakes. They handle quakes perfectly fine all the time (in Japan and other areas like California). It's the tsunami that caused problems.
  - lispm 14y ago
    The quake was far stronger than expected. It was still not very close to the reactor. Reactors cannot withstand such earthquakes. After the earthquake most of Japan's reactors are shutdown. After such an earthquake you need to inspect them, for example to find problems in pipes, pumps, and various other installations. What Fukushima showed was that a loss of power over a long period of time made problems. The power lines bringing outside electricity were destroyed. Roads were damaged. Other generators were not available. It's not clear that a similar situation could not happen caused by an extremely strong earthquake much nearer to a power plant.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

Is it really scaremongering? Fukushima was a close call. Considering the population density and the inherent risks (quakes) in Japan, I would say it's a wise decision. Who wants a population living under fear? Fission is a good source of energy, but nuclear plants are obviously less reliable than expected. That will be a thrust to research better alternatives, including better nuclear plant designs, why not?

tobylane 14y ago
Fukushima was a freak event in an old power station with inadequate sea defences. Simply building another 2m on top of the wall would have been enough until the station lost its licence due to age.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  Exactly. Had it been a gas plant or whatever, it wouldn't have mattered. But it was a nuclear plant, and in a nuclear plant any improbable event like that is a major f* up. That's the core issue.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > Had it been a gas plant or whatever ... it would have been doing damage constantly, just by operating, in the form of emitting carbon.
    - Navarr 14y ago
      let me just remind the jury that, despite nuclear power being cleaner, there is still this big nuclear waste problem I don't recall us ever solving.
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        Reprocessing?
      - tinco 14y ago
        We have solved it, governments just don't enforce it because storing used uranium is cheaper than recycling it.
        tobylane 14y ago
        The numbers I heard a while was something like after first use uranium is 95-97% power, can be reused down to 15-25%. I haven't heard anyone getting this far with it, or even predictions of how radioactive it would be then.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Coulda shoulda woulda. I'd like to think the right managers and authorities will do the right thing in such situations. But empirically, they didn't. Perhaps it's a specific failing of the Japanese governance regime, and knowing their own affairs more than we do, they don't have sufficient confidence they can fix that failing before another 'freak' event occurs.
bluedanieru 14y ago
It's not that the plants are less reliable. The technology is great. It's the humans that aren't reliable.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
  If the humans operating the plants are not reliable, it means the plants are unreliable. You're running in circles with your argument.
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    I don't think you know what circular reasoning is. Are you seriously suggesting that anything that isn't designed against every conceivable example of human incompetence, is a flawed design?
AngryParsley 14y ago
Don't forget that the Tohoku earthquake killed almost 20,000 people. The worst estimates for Fukushima predict it will cause 1,000 deaths. Median estimates predict a couple hundred deaths. Even though management was criminally bad, Fukushima still killed fewer people than the equivalent number of coal plants run for the same time. Fukushima ran for 40 years, so that's 25 deaths per year worst-case. According to the CATF[1], around 13,000 Americans die each year from fossil fuel power plant emissions. There are around 600 coal plants in the US, so that's just over 20 deaths per plant per year. What's worse is you need more than one coal plant to make up for a nuclear plant. Googling around tells me coal averages 300MW/plant and Fukushima had 4.7GW of capacity. You'd need 15 coal plants to make up for Fukushima. That's 300 deaths per year. So when the 5th largest earthquake ever recorded strikes, and causes a nuclear power plant to explode twice, and the cleanup is criminally mismanaged, it's still safer than burning fossil fuels. 1. http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/existing/ http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/existing/
- danielharan 14y ago
  There are more than 600 power plants in the US that use fossil fuels, the 600 is just for coal. As for the severity of the earthquake, it's far more important to consider proximity than absolute magnitude. A smaller one closer or right under could have been catastrophic. A few of us consider building plants in active tectonic zones to be the height of insanity. Building it right by the shore, in historical tsunami zones? Incomprehensibly stupid. Of course, the alternative to nuclear isn't just coal. Renewables and efficiency should be considered first. Safer than both coal and nuclear, they also create more jobs.
  - AngryParsley 14y ago
    Sorry, but you're wrong about the safety of renewables. The statistic you're looking for is called deaths per terawatt-hour. Nuclear wins by an order of magnitude: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawat... For the same amount of energy, renewables kill more people than nuclear. People fall off their roofs installing solar panels. Hydroelectric dams burst. Even windmills kill people. For the next few decades, fossil fuels are the only alternative to nuclear power. Wind and solar aren't baseload sources. Hydro is, but we've already put dams in most of the economically and environmentally feasible locations.
cmelbye 14y ago
The plant was built to withstand quakes. They handle quakes perfectly fine all the time (in Japan and other areas like California). It's the tsunami that caused problems.
- lispm 14y ago
  The quake was far stronger than expected. It was still not very close to the reactor. Reactors cannot withstand such earthquakes. After the earthquake most of Japan's reactors are shutdown. After such an earthquake you need to inspect them, for example to find problems in pipes, pumps, and various other installations. What Fukushima showed was that a loss of power over a long period of time made problems. The power lines bringing outside electricity were destroyed. Roads were damaged. Other generators were not available. It's not clear that a similar situation could not happen caused by an extremely strong earthquake much nearer to a power plant.