Safe Enough?
astralcodexten.substack.com
Safe Enough?
1–10 of 74 posts
Re: Safe Enough?
#2Your Book Review: Safe Enough?
Finalist #7 in the Book Review Contest
Re: Safe Enough?
#3Great, detailed and not fawning review of a topic too often discussed from ideological vantage points
Re: Safe Enough?
#4> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped
This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion disaster, once assessing the upside nuclear is still going to be a contender for the best possible form of energy.
As might have been predicted, Japan struggled for a few years then admitted that having electricity justifies taking some rational risks and is working to undo the damage caused by post-Fukushima overreaction.
The western powers are facing a serious energy crisis because as a body politic there was an insistence on choosing technology ideologically rather than using practical concerns. It is unfortunate that there was a decision make to test how much stress the margins of society can take rather than making a break for cheap energy in the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s.
Maybe renewables can do it now in the 20s, but the experience in places like Germany is that they are cheaper but also less effective at maintaining a comfortable society. And that 40 years delay was still foolish regardless.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-pm-call-dev...
Re: Safe Enough?
#5> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion dis…
It makes perfect sense in a world where in the end every single thing is condensed down to profit.
Re: Safe Enough?
#6> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion dis…
Nuclear costs a fortune under the regulatory regime it's operated with to date.
We genuinely don't know how much less it would cost to have nuclear power on an equal-safety-to-coal-power basis, because it's not been tried.
Re: Safe Enough?
#7> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion dis…
It's not a bias. It's just the scope of the book.
Re: Safe Enough?
#8> a slippage between tectonic plates so powerful that it moved Honshu, the main island of Japan, 2.4 meters to the east. The earthquake generated a tsunami 14 meters high
The definition of a black swan event.
And yet the conclusion is, unsurprisingly, indistinguishable from "nuclear is bad, be very very wary".
Imagine if any other tech had the same fear-mongering. We'd never have a single hydroelectric plant after Banqiao dam failure that killed anywhere from 25 000 to 240 000 and left 11 million people homeless.
Re: Safe Enough?
#9> Is it right to ignore the cost of the evacuation of Tokyo, merely because an unplanned flow of water saved us? What if we assume the maximum cost of a nuclear event is not $1 trillion for the Fukushima we lived, but $10 trillion for the Fukushima we escaped This continued focus on cost rather than cost-benefit must be some sort of cognitive bias because it makes no sense. Even if there is risk of a $10 trillion dis…
Nuclear costs a fortune under the regulatory regime it's operated with to date. We genuinely don't know how much less it would cost to have nuclear power on an equal-safety-to-coal-power basis, because it's not been tried.
Why would you equal-to-coal today? You need to equal wind, solar or at least gas safety.
Lately I'm reading a lot about lowering nuclear safety to improve costs. Imagine cars makers asking to get rid of ABS, airbags, safety belts... to make cheaper cars. Any sane person would raise a brow when hearing that, any industry should aim to be as safe as possible, not to cut costs on safety and assume some preventable deaths with a happy smile.
It's also a lie: in this report https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/nuclear-costs-i... , in the page 5 you can see that regulatory costs are minimal (and the source should be nuclear friendly enough) after adapting for the Fukushima "lesson".
Re: Safe Enough?
#10> a slippage between tectonic plates so powerful that it moved Honshu, the main island of Japan, 2.4 meters to the east. The earthquake generated a tsunami 14 meters high The definition of a black swan event. And yet the conclusion is, unsurprisingly, indistinguishable from "nuclear is bad, be very very wary". Imagine if any other tech had the same fear-mongering. We'd never have a single hydroelectric plant after Ba…
You can still build nuclear reactors, they are not banned. But you want to build them ignoring safety lessons.
The aeronautical industry is improving safety all the time, and accidents prompt new safety measures. They don't scoof accidents without analysis and adaptation, saying "if you want to fly you must accept that some 787-MAX are crashing down from time to time, but still safer than traveling by car, we did the math". No, they landed the plane and adapted.