171–180 of 398 posts
I believe the nuclear power industry largely started out as a way to justify world's largest nuclear warhead stockpile. I believe it was on a show from Netflix that discussed the history of nuclear power. It worked remarkably well.
Tesla sells patents for A.C. Polyphase System to George Westinghouse for $25,000 in cash, $50,000 in notes and a royalty of $2.50 per horsepower for each motor.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/timeline/1888-tesla-s...
Some tangential history regarding Westinghouse for fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics The economics might be different if we paid for the real cost of carbon-based energy, instead of imposing that cost on the world as an externality.
The total cost for storing and securing shit for 100.000 years is also 'externalized.' Both costs are more or less impossible to establish upfront.
The U.S. effectively estimates zero cost (without looking into the details); that certainly is a bad estimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Nuclear waste is stable So long as it's stored in stable geologic formations, or controlled by stable human institutions. Where "stable" is a period of time longer than human history in many cases. >does not migrate when handled properly in containment pools Which are dependent on active management and security indefinitely. This is challenging as the service life of the plant where the pool is located and revenue i…
I've got news for you if you expect guarantees about every possible risk you might face in life: We've had not one but several nuclear disasters in the past several decades and in each case the sky hasn't come crashing down. The risks from a nuclear plant disaster are localized and controllable. The risks from runaway climate change are global and uncontrollable. The planet is going to be fine. Whether human society…
Unless of course you're one of the people who lived in the nuclear exclusion zones created by Chernobyl and Fukushima, in which case, yes, everything you own and possess, very potentially including your long-term health, were destroyed in a matter of hours. Those residents can never go back for more than a quick temporary visit, and they can not take back their belongings because they've been irradiated. They will always be asking themselves if they got enough of a dose of radiation to cause early disease.
Call that localized and controllable all you want, and if you propose building these plants in areas with no nearby inhabitants for many sq miles, maybe it works OK. The current system, where we say "Don't worry, it's all perfectly safe, we double-pinkie-promise that we won't make the mistakes those guys in Ukraine or Japan made, and if you disagree you're an idiot who hates science" is just not going to fly.
This is not general alarmism about being unable to mitigate every risk in life. This is a comparative analysis of the potential risk profiles of fossil fuels and nuclear, and fossil fuels being much better because the cost of a catastrophic non-nuclear failure is much smaller than the cost of a catastrophic nuclear failure.
[1] https://pdf.inforuptcy.com/pacer/nysbke/273388/dockets/4/1-C...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it seems the real reason, as in all things, is economics The economics might be different if we paid for the real cost of carbon-based energy, instead of imposing that cost on the world as an externality.
While I don't disagree with your assessment of carbon-based energy, the same thing (externalising the cost of their downsides) happens with nuclear energy. So if anything, they're equally terrible in that regard.
That isn't true. There are externalities for both, but the externalities for carbon are far greater. The above statement is like saying: No houses are free to buy; therefore all houses are equally costly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> nuclear power is possibly the most attacked form of energy that exists, and that includes coal and petroleum, both of which are still heavily used despite any public outcry It's interesting that the fossil fuels do far more harm, but nuclear is what everyone fears. (In fairness, nuclear problems do far more harm locally to the plant.)
IEA says 6.5 million die per year from air pollution. WHO says it's 1 million deaths per year from specifically burning coal pollution. And it's roughly 1000 deaths per year from nuclear. Air pollution deaths are "normal operation" not catastrophic event. Whereas normal operation deaths for nuclear is essentially 0, where deaths happen as a result of catastrophe. So there is something of a lizard brain mentality goin…
My dad worked for Westinghouse in the late 70s at Hanford. This really feels like an end of an era.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earthquakes cause tsunamis.
The location of the plant, next to the ocean, placed it in greater danger from the tsunami. Had the plant been located up higher, above the centuries-old tsunami warning stones, then there maybe would have been a different outcome.