undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMoldoteck4d ago0 comments

Nuclear was safe even considering gen2 units which were not subject to all curent requirements. But the biggest impact is supply chain, not regulation.

"Of course it is. Malicious actors can kill millions with the amount of nuclear waste generated daily." - ah yes. And a meteor can kill the entire earth. What's the possibility?

Entire US interim storage of commercial waste costs merely 0.5bn/y until a final repository is built like in Finland. That's dirt cheap.

Nuclear is statistically safe as you said, even accounting with major incidents. Nuclear requires least mining, materials, land per kwh - can be proven too and has one of the lowest env impact per UNECE.

It's your choice to be antinuclear but the data is clear - have the world followed the french/swedish path - we'll not talk about climate change in it's current form. We also know what an antinuclear path leads to - both in Germany and even Denmark which still can't reach french emissions and started pissing off neighbors montelnews.com/news/0138d712-3afd-4590-883e-4b9221fd776a/norways-ruling-party-rejects-renewal-of-denmark-cables https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-pauses-plans-...

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Kon5ole4d ago· 1 in thread

>And a meteor can kill the entire earth. What's the possibility?

Both are a possibility but we can't make choices about the meteors. ;-)

Nuclear incidents due to negligence or malice are many orders of magnitude more likely, and get more likely the more waste we make and the longer we keep making it.

Europe was a bombed wasteland less than 100 years ago. Luckily that was before nuclear power plants.

Have a look at the situation in Sellafield, or the Asse II mine. Negligence has caused problems many times already.

Chernobyl is in the news recently due to drone strikes. Had it been a solar plant it wouldn't have been.

Anyway - the point is that the expensive security efforts and precautions are needed, not optional, and the historical safety record is no guarantee for future safety.

>We also know what an antinuclear path leads to

Not yet - we can hope that it leads to solar, batteries and synthesized fuels.

China has shown that it is possible, which was the last hurdle IMO. Now it's just a matter of doing it.

MoldoteckOP4d ago

Sellafield problems are due to weapons testing era.

Asse is an experimental facility without plans to extract the waste if experiment fails. Still, no public was or will be harmed since it's mostly LLW, 75% for medical and research sectors. It has nothing to do with proper deep geological repository like Onkalo. It costed 1bn to build and will cost 4bn to operate for a century with periodical topups. That's dirt cheap considering amount of power from nuclear in that period.

Nobody was affected by recent Chernobyl strikes. The tragedy there is of another kind- damaged outer dome which is expensive and equipment that was prepared to start corium cleanup was damaged, postponing the process.

Security efforts are not that expensive if compared to amount of power

China is still one of the worst global polluters and is expanding coal to use it to firm renewables. It also expands nuclear but nowhere near at the rate of France during Messmer or swedish BWR expansion. Synth fuel is nothing more than an expensive pipedream.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse