Nuclear power is too safe

Post by Schroedingersat » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 9:26 PM UTC

illiarian wrote: post #146

Schroedingersat wrote: post #132

Ah the old "it'd be cheap if you'd just let us try and kill you". If your business model requires hundreds of emergency workers to heroically dive on the grenade once every couple of years to stop the disaster getting orders of magnitude worse than merely destroying a country's economy for decades, then it's going to start getting very hard to find people to keep diving on the grenade.

Here's your reasoning: Every few years we throw people at the disaster that is dams. And still: Banqiao and Shimantan Dams failure with 240 000 dead, Machchu-2 Dam failure with 5000 dead etc. clearly show us how dangerous this technology is, and how we should never, ever use it again.

Post by illiarian » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 9:40 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #171

illiarian wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's your reasoning: Every few years we throw people at the disaster that is dams. And still: Banqiao and Shimantan Dams failure with 240 000 dead, Machchu-2 Dam failure with 5000 dead etc. clearly show us how dangerous this technology is, and how we should never, ever use it again.

Yeah, every single one of those people in Banqiao had to volunteer in order to stop it killing ten times more. Hiding behind victims of other disasters is absolutely disgusting.

Post by Schroedingersat » Fri, Mar 31, 2023, 10:33 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #137

A bit tangential, but this week I discovered an interesting tidbit about nuclear waste. We keep hearing that nuclear waste is an intractable problem, that the Yucca Mountain repository could never be approved, and there is no alternative, etc. What I learned this week is that in the US (and worldwide) more waste was produced by weapons programs than by the civilian reactors. Roughly speaking the civilian reactors hav…

Post by hollandays » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 12:24 AM UTC

illiarian wrote: post #144

bjornsing wrote: post #98

This conclusion (i.e. that nuclear power is too safe) could very well be correct. But I’d like to see it underpinned with more solid economic reasoning. For example, while few people die from nuclear accidents they tend to be enormously costly. It may not be rational to spend billions of dollars to prevent one death, but it may well be worth billions of dollars to prevent the Fukushima disaster.

> but it may well be worth billions of dollars to prevent the Fukushima disaster. Let's see about "Fukushima disaster". Built in 1982. In 2012 was hit by a 9.0–9.1 undersea megathrust earthquake (preceded by a 7.2 foreshock two days before, three 6 earthquakes on the same day, and hundreds of aftershocks in the next days) and immediately after by a 14-meter-hight tsunami. The earthquake exceeded plant tolerances (gro…

Post by credit_guy » Sat, Apr 01, 2023, 12:58 AM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #178

credit_guy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think they are not the same thing? Waste is more than spent nuclear fuel, that is true. But the long-lived waste that people worry about is either spent nuclear fuel, or processed spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear weapons are made with Plutonium-239, which is created by running a regular reactor that burns U-235 and U-238. U-238 can capture one neutron and become Pu-239, but that can capture one more neutron and…

Condescendingly describing something I already know isn't helping your point. Nor is continuing to pretend tritated water somehow magically only counts as waste when in a weapons facility. And the exact same thing happening in mox facilities (but at far greater volume) doesn't count why?