[deleted]
Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
291–300 of 679 posts
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#292This is the year 2017 - This article deliberately skips over any consideration to Wind, Solar, etc. What kind of BULLSHIT excuse for journalism and scientific study is this? Who in the nuclear industry paid for this? I only read the first 3 paragraphs but I can already tell you this article is not worth your time. The article compares the statistics of energy sources, but all of the charts focus on fossil fuels. This…
Taleb would say all this statistics are bullshit, cause they ignore the long tails. I doubt a gas or coal power station can destroy a nation. A nuclear plant has the potential to do so.
Arguably gas and coal power stations are a huge part of what is not only destroying a nation but ids making the entire planet uninhabitable.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why is nuclear waste dangerous? because there is still loads of energy in it. I though it was because of γ-radiation and long half lives? Are those properties unique to matter with high energy potential?
I will try to explain it as best as I can. Radioactive material decays as particles are emitted. If it has a long half-life, that pretty much means that the energy is being released rather slowly. In other words, just don't go poking at it and you'll be fine. On the othe hand, stuff with a short half-life means that atoms are decaying rapidly. Particles are being knocked off with great rapidity. That stuff is much mo…
[Same here]
From what I remember, the energy released by γ-radiation is quite low. I'm still not convinced that just because something emits γ-radiation, short or long half life, it has an inherently meaningful energy potential. α- and β-radiation: sure. But γ? It's harmful to humans for very different reasons than fissile material is a useful energy source, isn't it?
Or am I completely misremembering this all?
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did Chernobyl? The reactor next door kept operating after the accident. A coal fly ash spill closed a river to fishing for weeks. Nuclear accident badness is massively overplayed by the media.
Are you seriously being that callous about Chernobyl? Several dozen people died from it. Many more statistically died from radiation exposure over the ensuing decades. Three hundred thousand people were forced to abandon their homes and relocate. Chernobyl was a huge fucking disaster that killed people and had a huge negative impact on many people's lives. You don't get to minimize that just because a nearby reactor…
It didn't"destroy a nation" though which was the point made they are responding to.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#295People are scared of nuclear energy for the same reason that they're scared of taking an airplane. Even though it's technically and statistically very safe, the perceived risk appears much greater. In particular in both cases when something goes wrong it tends to go extremely wrong and you're completely helpless to stop it. In contrast getting in a car accident or slowly suffocating in coal power plant emissions seem…
Some differences between the airplane analogy and the nuclear plant analogy: 1) When a plane fails catastrophically, the impact is limited to a smaller geographical area. 2) Pollution from the failure of a plane doesn't involve what is estimated to be a century-long endeavor to cleanup. 3) The toxicity from plane failures do not invade nearly every facet of life, making entire areas unlivable. I am not a proponent of…
I completely understand where you're coming from but you can't just take nuclear energy in a vacuum. Of course if the alternative was between nuclear power plants and the miracle energy drive which runs on dreams and produces terrawatts without any risks and any pollution then there's no question.
But that's not the world we live in. Today we have renewable energy, which is promising but not yet ready to be our sole source of energy. Then we have fossil energy which wrecks our climate at an alarming pace. Then we have nuclear which has its own set of problems but at least won't contribute to global warming.
Sure it's a tragedy that Pripyat and Fukushima are now unlivable and will remain so for a long, long time. But global warming will probably make entire continent-sized stretches of land effectively unlivable. That's what you should be pitting nuclear reactors against.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#296It's going to be politicized no matter what. Stop spanking humans for having human nature and lecturing them about being more rational. Politicians have to consider perception or they get voted out. It's just a technology that freaks people out on an emotional level and you can't stop that.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#297Not shown in the graph: Hydroelectric, which conjures up images of beautiful dams, rather than the hundreds of thousands of people who die at once when it fails.
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then we put the breeder reactors into abandoned mines. Breeders aren't the solution, they have waste products too, and those waste products are also radioactive.
The good news is breeder waste is a mix of very short half lives and very long half lives. The very short ones decay to safe levels quickly, and the very long ones have a low level of activity.
This. Conservation of energy/matter applies. If there's a lot of energy output and a fixed amount of input the duration must be small. You can visit the Chernobyl exclusion zone. You just can't spend a good chunk of your life there there.
I'd be totally for "Yucca Mountain OHV park"
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
The default alternative to using more nuclear energy is to use more fossil fuels. Maybe we'd like to use less energy, or switch to wind, solar or similar, but that isn't a viable option in the short term in a lot of cases. We know that using fossil fuels will kill a few people every day, eventually adding up to a large number, as well as causing widespread, low-grade damage to the environment. On the other hand, nucl…
It may not be rational under your belief system (and that's a totally valid position), but you should realize that most people see it differently. Many people are afraid of terrorism and plane crashes and sex crimes, but are still driving to work in a car.
Just because people "see it differently" doesn't mean that the statistics behind it are flawed…
Re: Out of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest
#300This is the year 2017 - This article deliberately skips over any consideration to Wind, Solar, etc. What kind of BULLSHIT excuse for journalism and scientific study is this? Who in the nuclear industry paid for this? I only read the first 3 paragraphs but I can already tell you this article is not worth your time. The article compares the statistics of energy sources, but all of the charts focus on fossil fuels. This…
Taleb would say all this statistics are bullshit, cause they ignore the long tails. I doubt a gas or coal power station can destroy a nation. A nuclear plant has the potential to do so.
I believe wind and solar are the best solutions for our future. But many concerns mentioned in this thread are becoming irrelevant in the face of emerging nuclear storage technology.
For example, the pebble bed reactor system eliminates the risk of a meltdown by no longer storing spent fuel in rods; it also makes the process for extracting fuel significantly more efficient. Presently we can only extract about 4% of energy contained in nuclear materials, with a PBR system the "pebbles" stay in circulation for longer, meaning we can extract more energy and pursue new designs that could ingratiate these systems into our cities without the catastrophic risks we face today.
The more people focus on this technology, the better it will get. But we can't improve if we don't try.