401–410 of 666 posts
My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…
So let me get this straight: 1. It's a given that somehow, somewhere, a nuke is going to get away from humanity. I'm honestly optimistic that it'll just be a reactor problem, and that we -- humanity -- learn every time one happens. (Because engineers are a careful lot.) Then the environmental damage will be less than Fukushima. 2. Solar + A Storage Miracle (that much storage would be a certifiable wonder of the world…
Belgium for example has some old reactors. There are micro cracks appearing but because this is still not an issue they keep the oldest reactor open for another 10 years.
But what if there will be a point in time when Belgium doesn't have the funds to maintain this reactor?
I'm not really a utilitarian, but people freaking out over three relatively minor incidents with nuclear plants is a terrible justification for avoiding nuke power and accepting coal, with all of the side effects that mining, transporting, and burning that stuff entails.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what Fukushima taught us, is that profit-driven companies will always be looking for ways to cut costs. Nuclear, like oil, requires extremely tight regulation to keep the companies involved from cutting corners and creating unreasonable safety problems. Also, doesn't nuclear also still have a storage problem? Storing electricity is mostly a solved issue: batteries. We just need to do it cheaper and on a large…
I'd like to know why you think that is what Fukishima taught us? A giant earthquake AND a tsunami hits the plant and not a single person is killed... For me it reinforced the fact that nuclear energy is one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world in terms of safety.
This IS the worst problem with nuclear, a denial complex of the size of Jupiter.
Two workers Kazuhiko Kokubo and Yoshiki Terashima were killed directly by the tsunami, as other >15.000 japanese. At least 20 among the thousands of workers involved where injured by radiation, some where severely burned. Other died by sudden leukemia of course quickly tagged as "non related with Fukushima". 230.000 people can't still return to their homes and live in temporary refuges and are vulnerable to depression. Stress-related illnesses and other maladies had killed about 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture since the tsunami. I bet that living in a refuge for years takes a toll to your health.
> For me it reinforced the fact that nuclear energy is one of the most tightly regulated industries in the world in terms of safety.
The one-damned-single-page safety plan of fukushima was all except a good example of "a tighly regulated industry"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So let me get this straight: 1. It's a given that somehow, somewhere, a nuke is going to get away from humanity. I'm honestly optimistic that it'll just be a reactor problem, and that we -- humanity -- learn every time one happens. (Because engineers are a careful lot.) Then the environmental damage will be less than Fukushima. 2. Solar + A Storage Miracle (that much storage would be a certifiable wonder of the world…
I think what Fukushima taught us, is that profit-driven companies will always be looking for ways to cut costs. Nuclear, like oil, requires extremely tight regulation to keep the companies involved from cutting corners and creating unreasonable safety problems. Also, doesn't nuclear also still have a storage problem? Storing electricity is mostly a solved issue: batteries. We just need to do it cheaper and on a large…
Ok....
> We just need to do it cheaper and on a larger scale
So it's not at all a solved issue then!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…
It is interesting how you say that nuclear might be cheaper and at the same time accept an incident like fukushima every 30 years like you pay 1000 peanuts and that it alright again. Maybe you will allow a nuclear plant in your backyard but most people already have a problem with wind power. This has nothing to do with fear about the technology itself but about the decrease in property value in vicinity of the plant.…
Also, regardless of who pays, a Fukushima-event every few decades is several orders of magnitude cheaper than flood-securing New York City alone (and there are a lot more places in the world that will need flood securing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incredibly strict safety regulations are being applied to nuclear plants, because the public is a lot more worried about that. But someone who falls off a ladder installing a solar panel can die just as dead as someone who gets exposed to radiation, and megawatt for megawatt there are a lot more of the former than the latter.
If someone falls off a ladder, life goes on for the rest of us. If nuclear power plants have an accident like in Fukushima. then tens of thousands have lost their home for decades or forever and ten thousand workers will fight for three decades to clean up the mess under the worst possible circumstances with costs going into the hundred billion dollars. In middle Europe easily a few million people can be affected.
Sure. But again, compare the area of land rendered uninhabitable - and the homes and lives lost - per megawatt generated. If you consider "renewables" as a whole then the area rendered uninhabitable by hydroelectric dams - even assuming they function perfectly - is much larger than for nuclear disasters. If you consider solar plus actually existing battery technology then you need to talk about the area blighted by rare earth mining etc. (Yes uranium mining is also pretty harmful, but again we need to talk about impact per megawatt). If you're considering solar on its own then you're never going to be able to provide reliable baseline power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, there can be little doubt that a substantial fraction of the high cost of nuclear is down to almost the entire west being scared stiff of the stuff for thirty years. If we gave actual scientists and engineers a real mandate to come up with a pragmatic, realistic (ie accepting a small amount of risk as acceptable, perhaps something on the scale of a single Fukushima every 30 years, just like we accept a small a…
Indeed. Production and use of solar and wind cause more deaths for GW/H than current nuclear fission (which is responsible for around 19.5% of the US' energy generation [0]). The problem is that deaths from nuclear generation are concentrated in very short, dramatic events. I mean, if you're looking for the biggest killer (by at least an order of magnitude), it's fossil fuels: boringly due to the reduction in air qua…
Like, that there's still unsolved engineering problems with finding naterials that survive the corrosive environment within of molten salt reactors.
Like, that he didn't inckude waste storage at all.
Like, that he calculated prices for renewables based on buying the most expensive panels, but for nuclear, based on the lowest estimates.
In reality, the ROI level of renewables has already won against nuclear.
And then there's the problem that also plagued plants in Germany, massive corruption and bribing of investigators because it's cheaper than actually building safe plants. It's no coincidence that the only success story for nuclear is a country where all reactors are government-owned and don't have to turn a profit necessarily.
And this brings us to the last problem:
Most new CO2 will soon be produced in developing countries, with unstable governments and unreliable public systems.
And you want to give those governments nuclear reactors? Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc?
You only need nuclear power to get grasp upon unlimited solar energy from the orbital plants. Russia is building nuclear powered large spaceship engine right now.
My undergrad is in Physics and I took engineering classes in Rickover Hall. I was stationed on a nuclear ship. Even after deploying for the Fukushima disaster, I am a fan of nuclear power. But I have a hard time justifying new investment in an era where solar is competitively priced. The downside of solar is approximately 0 compared to the downside of a reactor accident. I'll even allow for the high, high likelihood…