6 ms·

Although generally safe these reactors aren't totally safe. I'm concerned lax physical security will allow miscreants to blow them up and spread nuclear materi

Although generally safe these reactors aren't totally safe. I'm concerned lax physical security will allow miscreants to blow them up and spread nuclear materials over a wide area. The ensuing panic would totally destroy any goodwill nuclear power has gained over the last 20 years or so. I'm also concerned these things will mostly be used by Big Tech for their A.I. data-centers playing the Good Samaritan with their claims of "Carbon Neutral Environmentally Friendly A.I."

bogzz 1mo ago
"Miscreants" conjures in my mind an image of little British boys with dirty feet in Industrial Revolution era attire.
- simonh 1mo ago
  Those cheeky chappies from Vodkaland with their Polonium water and Novichok perfume don't half get up to some jolly old japes!
unglaublich 1mo ago
Well, gas and oil plants are actively emitting pollutants that kill thousands. And nuclear still is the safest energy sort available.
- testing22321 1mo ago
  > And nuclear still is the safest energy sort available. Surely solar is orders of magnitude safer.
  - georgefrowny 1mo ago
    Solar and nuclear are comparable: 0.02 vs 0.03 deaths/TWh (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...) Depending on what kind of solar, it can have quite a high death/TWh ratio because people fall off roofs while installing them. As a ratio is far better now that so much new solar is ground level solar farms and not installed by amateurs or professionals who have a van, a ladder and watched a YouTube video that one time. Some older estimates based, I think, on generic roofing accident rates, were up to 0.44 deaths/TWh. Wind is more dangerous than nuclear (0.04), I guess also from falls and accidents during construction and maintenance. Edit: All are incredibly safe compared to the next worst, hydro (1.3, or 30 times worse than wind).
    - pfdietz 1mo ago
      The differences in deaths from (non-accident) nuclear and wind/solar are very small compared to the amount of energy produced. The effect of the statistical value of lives lost is tiny compared to direct differences in energy cost, and so shouldn't have any effect on which is chosen. This is not the case for coal, where the cost of lives can be substantial.
      - georgefrowny 1mo ago
        Yes, indeed all are far below the next one (hydro, 1.3, dam failures, I imagine). And brown coal is sitting pretty at 36+, i.e. ONE THOUSAND times worse than nuclear.
        pfdietz 1mo ago
        The cost for coal depends a lot on how the emissions are treated, and how deaths from CO2 are calculated. A general problem with the latter is these are global deaths, and foreign lives are valued far below domestic lives. Kind of horrible, but choices on spending illustrate this.
    - tcfhgj 1mo ago
      what about other risks such as the risk of large scale contamination of habitable areas?
      - ted_dunning 1mo ago
        Coal is particularly bad about large scale contamination. Nuclear has historically involved substantial contamination in processing plants (Hanford, Paducah, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats and so on). Solar, wind, and battery do not have comparable large scale contamination risks.
    - marshray 1mo ago
      The scam here is presenting average occupational accident rates as a measure of "safety" when the obvious risk of nuclear power is the rare large-scale events which render large areas of land uninhabitable for generations while producing few directly-attributable deaths.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bb88 1mo ago
    The potential for widespread radiation leakage from nuclear doesn't exist with wind or solar. I would think a terrorist would hit a nuclear power plant over any wind or solar farms. The Chernobyl exclusion zone will remain uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years.
    - robocat 1mo ago
      > uninhabitable Inhabitable: there are people living there off their own gardens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samosely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samosely However Undesirable to you or I. If refugees were allowed to live there, I wonder how many people would choose radiation over their current worse situations? The article mentions people moving from Donbas (perhaps less inhabitable): "Following the outbreak of the war in Donbas in 2014, refugees from that conflict settled in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone or nearby".
    - Mawr 1mo ago
      Now calculate what % of habitable land on Earth that exclusion zone takes up. Yeah, that's a lot of zeroes.
      - bb88 1mo ago
        When you can sell NYC on building a nuclear power plant on Manhattan, then I will agree with you.
  - PowerElectronix 1mo ago
    Only if you remember to reapply sunscreen every few hours.
- boplicity 1mo ago
  People are far more terrified of flying, in general, than they are of driving. However, driving is far, far more dangerous -- with flying commercial being one of the safest modes of travel.
fakedang 1mo ago
Regardless, better that they're the ones who spend the money for these reactors, and better that they use nuclear instead of coal or gas plants. One option is to also mandatorily lock the powerplants to the municipal grid, and provide rebates to data center operators via net metering instead of simply giving them cash back. But yes, the lax security and the laissez-faire don't give a shit attitude of the current admin far outweighs any of these benefits
naasking 1mo ago
> I'm also concerned these things will mostly be used by Big Tech for their A.I. data-centers Why is that a concern?
- xfil 1mo ago
  I'm also a bit confused by that criticism. If Big Tech wants to use a portion of their ginormous profits to create a much larger market for the commercialization of small reactors, it sounds like a net positive to me. The data center construction spree is basically, in part, a giant private stimulus program for our energy supply. Yeah it's messy in the short run, but considering how much of Big Tech's profits are arguably undeserved, I'll take it over other options if regulatory & legislative actions lack feasibility.
dathinab 1mo ago
> A.I. data-centers I wouldn't be so sure about that (in the US). Like usage in A.I. data-centers assumes that they get price competitive with low quality gas turbines run by state subventioniere natural gas... or the government actual enforces proper environmental protections so that they can't continue running gas turbines without proper filters (and this isn't even (mostly) about climate change, but air pollution harming people) and from how it currently looks both things seem unlikely :/
bb88 1mo ago
Terrorists are only one piece of the issue. Corporations and "Responsible Adults" have done more to harm nuclear power in this country than any terrorist act has. ConEd and Three Mile Island meltdown brought out a mass of normal people to chant "Hell No! We won't Glow!" Hanford in Washington State. San Onofre in So Cal. Santa Susana Meltdown. The reality is that everyone wants nuclear, but no one wants to live near a nuclear power plant.
- coryrc 1mo ago
  Hanford was nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.
  - bb88 1mo ago
    See "Responsible Adults" in quotes.
Mawr 1mo ago
> Although generally safe these reactors aren't totally safe. I have some seriously bad news about the safety of your totally-safe house against meteorites. Or for that matter, thermonuclear explosives detonated directly above its roof. Now tell me: Is Your Car Safe From Supermaneuverable Air-Defense Fighter Aircraft? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7YVxLLIuGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7YVxLLIuGM As a bonus, here's a channel with hundreds of commercial aircraft accidents in which thousands of people have died: https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot. Now enjoy traveling using the objectively safest mode of transport — commercial aviation.

bogzz 1mo ago

"Miscreants" conjures in my mind an image of little British boys with dirty feet in Industrial Revolution era attire.

simonh 1mo ago
Those cheeky chappies from Vodkaland with their Polonium water and Novichok perfume don't half get up to some jolly old japes!

unglaublich 1mo ago

Well, gas and oil plants are actively emitting pollutants that kill thousands. And nuclear still is the safest energy sort available.

testing22321 1mo ago
> And nuclear still is the safest energy sort available. Surely solar is orders of magnitude safer.
- georgefrowny 1mo ago
  Solar and nuclear are comparable: 0.02 vs 0.03 deaths/TWh (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...) Depending on what kind of solar, it can have quite a high death/TWh ratio because people fall off roofs while installing them. As a ratio is far better now that so much new solar is ground level solar farms and not installed by amateurs or professionals who have a van, a ladder and watched a YouTube video that one time. Some older estimates based, I think, on generic roofing accident rates, were up to 0.44 deaths/TWh. Wind is more dangerous than nuclear (0.04), I guess also from falls and accidents during construction and maintenance. Edit: All are incredibly safe compared to the next worst, hydro (1.3, or 30 times worse than wind).
  - pfdietz 1mo ago
    The differences in deaths from (non-accident) nuclear and wind/solar are very small compared to the amount of energy produced. The effect of the statistical value of lives lost is tiny compared to direct differences in energy cost, and so shouldn't have any effect on which is chosen. This is not the case for coal, where the cost of lives can be substantial.
    - georgefrowny 1mo ago
      Yes, indeed all are far below the next one (hydro, 1.3, dam failures, I imagine). And brown coal is sitting pretty at 36+, i.e. ONE THOUSAND times worse than nuclear.
      - pfdietz 1mo ago
        The cost for coal depends a lot on how the emissions are treated, and how deaths from CO2 are calculated. A general problem with the latter is these are global deaths, and foreign lives are valued far below domestic lives. Kind of horrible, but choices on spending illustrate this.
  - tcfhgj 1mo ago
    what about other risks such as the risk of large scale contamination of habitable areas?
    - ted_dunning 1mo ago
      Coal is particularly bad about large scale contamination. Nuclear has historically involved substantial contamination in processing plants (Hanford, Paducah, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats and so on). Solar, wind, and battery do not have comparable large scale contamination risks.
  - marshray 1mo ago
    The scam here is presenting average occupational accident rates as a measure of "safety" when the obvious risk of nuclear power is the rare large-scale events which render large areas of land uninhabitable for generations while producing few directly-attributable deaths.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
- bb88 1mo ago
  The potential for widespread radiation leakage from nuclear doesn't exist with wind or solar. I would think a terrorist would hit a nuclear power plant over any wind or solar farms. The Chernobyl exclusion zone will remain uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years.
  - robocat 1mo ago
    > uninhabitable Inhabitable: there are people living there off their own gardens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samosely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samosely However Undesirable to you or I. If refugees were allowed to live there, I wonder how many people would choose radiation over their current worse situations? The article mentions people moving from Donbas (perhaps less inhabitable): "Following the outbreak of the war in Donbas in 2014, refugees from that conflict settled in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone or nearby".
  - Mawr 1mo ago
    Now calculate what % of habitable land on Earth that exclusion zone takes up. Yeah, that's a lot of zeroes.
    - bb88 1mo ago
      When you can sell NYC on building a nuclear power plant on Manhattan, then I will agree with you.
- PowerElectronix 1mo ago
  Only if you remember to reapply sunscreen every few hours.
boplicity 1mo ago
People are far more terrified of flying, in general, than they are of driving. However, driving is far, far more dangerous -- with flying commercial being one of the safest modes of travel.

fakedang 1mo ago

Regardless, better that they're the ones who spend the money for these reactors, and better that they use nuclear instead of coal or gas plants. One option is to also mandatorily lock the powerplants to the municipal grid, and provide rebates to data center operators via net metering instead of simply giving them cash back. But yes, the lax security and the laissez-faire don't give a shit attitude of the current admin far outweighs any of these benefits

naasking 1mo ago

> I'm also concerned these things will mostly be used by Big Tech for their A.I. data-centers Why is that a concern?

xfil 1mo ago
I'm also a bit confused by that criticism. If Big Tech wants to use a portion of their ginormous profits to create a much larger market for the commercialization of small reactors, it sounds like a net positive to me. The data center construction spree is basically, in part, a giant private stimulus program for our energy supply. Yeah it's messy in the short run, but considering how much of Big Tech's profits are arguably undeserved, I'll take it over other options if regulatory & legislative actions lack feasibility.

dathinab 1mo ago

> A.I. data-centers I wouldn't be so sure about that (in the US). Like usage in A.I. data-centers assumes that they get price competitive with low quality gas turbines run by state subventioniere natural gas... or the government actual enforces proper environmental protections so that they can't continue running gas turbines without proper filters (and this isn't even (mostly) about climate change, but air pollution harming people) and from how it currently looks both things seem unlikely :/

bb88 1mo ago

Terrorists are only one piece of the issue. Corporations and "Responsible Adults" have done more to harm nuclear power in this country than any terrorist act has. ConEd and Three Mile Island meltdown brought out a mass of normal people to chant "Hell No! We won't Glow!" Hanford in Washington State. San Onofre in So Cal. Santa Susana Meltdown. The reality is that everyone wants nuclear, but no one wants to live near a nuclear power plant.

coryrc 1mo ago
Hanford was nuclear weapons, not nuclear power.
- bb88 1mo ago
  See "Responsible Adults" in quotes.

Mawr 1mo ago

> Although generally safe these reactors aren't totally safe. I have some seriously bad news about the safety of your totally-safe house against meteorites. Or for that matter, thermonuclear explosives detonated directly above its roof. Now tell me: Is Your Car Safe From Supermaneuverable Air-Defense Fighter Aircraft? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7YVxLLIuGM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7YVxLLIuGM As a bonus, here's a channel with hundreds of commercial aircraft accidents in which thousands of people have died: https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot https://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot. Now enjoy traveling using the objectively safest mode of transport — commercial aviation.