Clear violation of Betteridge's law.
Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
71–80 of 619 posts
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#72Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…
Exactly, its a bit like discussing systemd in that way. I suspect small modular nuclear reactors will find their niche for islands etc., but renewables + batteries will win due to cost reasons.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#73Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…
This is the first time I have seen nuclear described as more expensive. My understanding was that it was several times cheaper than coal. I could be totally wrong of course.
You haven't read much from a particular mindset then.
They tend to evaluate nuclear waste storage as pretty much an eternal cost.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#74Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…
The problem with nuclear is that people are afraid of it. If we had spent the last 40 years trying to make it cheaper instead of trying to prevent accidents, it wouldn't be so expensive.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Planning for failure is a core activity in nuclear plant design. Modern plants could sustain pretty much any failure and no living area would be lost.
including an airliner flying into surface storage next to the plant?
I would not be surprised.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#76Do we stress about the risks nuclear power far out of proportion to how safe it is? Yes. Even accounting for the worst accidents, it kills a very low number of people per TWh. Do we ignore the risks of fossil fuels far out of proportion to how dangerous they are? Also yes. They kill an absurdly high number of people per TWh; by most estimates coal is several hundred times more dangerous than nuclear. Does that mean n…
This is the first time I have seen nuclear described as more expensive. My understanding was that it was several times cheaper than coal. I could be totally wrong of course.
That's because its a bit of a bait and switch. When people pull that out, it's about keeping existing plants running- extending them to run for 60+ years. That's pretty cheap, since the cost of fuel is tiny and you just need to pay for the ~1000 people onsite. The issue there is risk- you can't just open up all the valves to check how worn out they are, or if all the computers still have nice transistors and clean relays. You can do some basic stuff like looking for cracks, but the system is ancient. Who knows if that is okay or not.
Then, if you talk about new construction, the issue is cost but the conversation is entirely about risk. There's very, very little danger even for many decades. Cost is another matter. The best estimates are that nuclear costs as much as the most expensive other technologies to build, but the actual end figure has just gotten higher and higher over time. Manufacturing is not what it used to be and these huge plants have been outpaced by smaller plants and different technologies.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#77I can’t really reconcile people who genuinely, in their heart of hearts, believe we’re on the precipice of doom because of carbon emissions, and are at the same time strongly against nuclear power.
Can someone who feels this way chime in and help me understand? I’m genuinely curious how these two ideas fit together.
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does the answer always reply with coal and oil instead of Renewables and storage?
Because you cannot simply replace conventional rotational generators with inverters. The inertia of the turbomachinery smooths out fluctuations in the grid keeping it stable. Lots of details in [0]. So without lots of hydro or synchronous wind generation, there will always been a need for some kind of conventional generation to keep the grid stable. 0. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/10/25/grid-inertia...
[deleted]
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#79Radiation is good. Without it we would not have mutation and then there would be nothing for natural selection to operate on. Ergo, if you are against radiation you are against evolution. QED. Also, I have shares in companies that can build nuclear power stations in your neighborhood. Also, because I want to keep driving and heating my uninsulated suburban single-family house while I eat beef 3 times a week and I am…
In general, due to their more recent construction, suburban homes tend to be better than average at insulation when compared to other single family dwellings. That said, given the levels of snark I'm reading I would guess things like "single family dwelling", "family", or even property ownership itself would probably be pretty hot topics for you.
I was actually very ignorant to the not very new ideas that Leftists hold about "abolishing the family", even as far back as Marx (maybe even further). Very disturbing
Re: Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?
#80The attitude on risks of radiation have little to do with the economic and technological failures of nuclear power. With multiple schedule and cost failures it seems like fission nuclear is an exercise in what is possible, but not really practical compared to what is accessible via renewables + storage and it's far less constrained financial and technological foundations.
Also let's not forget the problem of burnt fuel storage. Burned nuclear fuel will stay radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Unless we plan to offload the cost of storage to future generations - which we actually do now - nuclear power is horribly unprofitable.
As far as I've heard, newer designs can reuse this spent fuel but there's no political will to go forward with it for some reason.