4 ms·

To me this article feels so wrong. I couldn't care less if nuclear power is a bit more expensive than its alternatives if it offered advantages over them. But t

by danbruc 13y ago

To me this article feels so wrong. I couldn't care less if nuclear power is a bit more expensive than its alternatives if it offered advantages over them. But there is a single point that makes nuclear power so unattractive - if something goes seriously wrong, you are really screwed.

camperman 13y ago
That depends on the design. Molten salt and pebble bed reactors for example cannot fail catastrophically - it's physically impossible for either of those designs to do so. But I agree with you on the economics. The alternative to not going nuclear energy is running out of oil or not being able to afford it. The initial expense is irrelevant in that light.
- welterde 13y ago
  You might want to read up on the AVR reactor (an pebble bed reactor). The reactor assembly is so radioactive that it will be stored for 60 years first, before they can safely dismantle it. And as for pebble bed reactors cannot fail catastrophically.. AVR almost did (water leaked into the He primary cooling cycle).
  - camperman 13y ago
    Damn - that's depressing. Thanks for the heads up. The safety report that I've now just read on the AVR says: "A safe operation at hot gas temperatures near to those suitable for process heat applications can currently not be guaranteed by pebble bed reactors, even if a gas tight containment is present."
- rfvtgb123 13y ago
  >Molten salt and pebble bed reactors Both failed miserably due to extreme safety problems with every design tried. Stop reiterating propaganda and read up on what actually happened.
TeMPOraL 13y ago
> But there is a single point that makes nuclear power so unattractive - if something goes seriously wrong, you are really screwed. No, that's exactly what the author tells you is not true: "And they [pro-nuclear crowd] are probably right that the risks of radiation have been historically overblown as “junk science” wormed its way into popular culture." Nuclear power is the safest power generation tech we have so far [0]. It's actually hydro that can screw you really hard when it fails (and your design sucked) [1]. [0] - http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties
- rfvtgb123 13y ago
  > exactly what the author tells you is not true Wow. What happened to critical thinking and scientific scrutiny? > It's actually hydro that can screw you really hard when it fails Seems like you forgot about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast... www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+children&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=orPCUZTFEqm44ATtkIGIBQ&biw=1350&bih=628&sei=qbPCUeHCBKmE4gTn7IG4DQ Take a good look at those childrens faces. As for [0]: A strong point at first glance, I will have to look further into it. The details to 1) where the data comes from 2) what gets counted a deaths from which technology will be very important. Also, think about this: Imagine there was a machine which was constantly running and with probability p=1/10^20 destroys earth, checked once a day, destroys earth. This machine might run for centuries without causing a single casualty. Is this machine not dangerous? Would you want it running even if there are better and cheaper alternatives without the risk?
walshemj 13y ago
Or if a coal spoil tip slips and wipes out a school lookup the aberfan disaster on wikipedia. And thats just one of many mining disasters (hundreds die every year in china for example) - which puts even Chernobyl into perspective.

by danbruc 13y ago

camperman 13y ago

That depends on the design. Molten salt and pebble bed reactors for example cannot fail catastrophically - it's physically impossible for either of those designs to do so. But I agree with you on the economics. The alternative to not going nuclear energy is running out of oil or not being able to afford it. The initial expense is irrelevant in that light.

welterde 13y ago
You might want to read up on the AVR reactor (an pebble bed reactor). The reactor assembly is so radioactive that it will be stored for 60 years first, before they can safely dismantle it. And as for pebble bed reactors cannot fail catastrophically.. AVR almost did (water leaked into the He primary cooling cycle).
- camperman 13y ago
  Damn - that's depressing. Thanks for the heads up. The safety report that I've now just read on the AVR says: "A safe operation at hot gas temperatures near to those suitable for process heat applications can currently not be guaranteed by pebble bed reactors, even if a gas tight containment is present."
rfvtgb123 13y ago
>Molten salt and pebble bed reactors Both failed miserably due to extreme safety problems with every design tried. Stop reiterating propaganda and read up on what actually happened.

TeMPOraL 13y ago

> But there is a single point that makes nuclear power so unattractive - if something goes seriously wrong, you are really screwed. No, that's exactly what the author tells you is not true: "And they [pro-nuclear crowd] are probably right that the risks of radiation have been historically overblown as “junk science” wormed its way into popular culture." Nuclear power is the safest power generation tech we have so far [0]. It's actually hydro that can screw you really hard when it fails (and your design sucked) [1]. [0] - http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties

rfvtgb123 13y ago
> exactly what the author tells you is not true Wow. What happened to critical thinking and scientific scrutiny? > It's actually hydro that can screw you really hard when it fails Seems like you forgot about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast... www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+children&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=orPCUZTFEqm44ATtkIGIBQ&biw=1350&bih=628&sei=qbPCUeHCBKmE4gTn7IG4DQ Take a good look at those childrens faces. As for [0]: A strong point at first glance, I will have to look further into it. The details to 1) where the data comes from 2) what gets counted a deaths from which technology will be very important. Also, think about this: Imagine there was a machine which was constantly running and with probability p=1/10^20 destroys earth, checked once a day, destroys earth. This machine might run for centuries without causing a single casualty. Is this machine not dangerous? Would you want it running even if there are better and cheaper alternatives without the risk?

walshemj 13y ago

Or if a coal spoil tip slips and wipes out a school lookup the aberfan disaster on wikipedia. And thats just one of many mining disasters (hundreds die every year in china for example) - which puts even Chernobyl into perspective.