Nuclear Warming?

[narad]

So, I'm a dummy, and this will be dumb, but at some point, doesn't it become inevitable that whatever we extract power from will be dangerous? Like, if we're trying to extract the most energy from something, then that something must be full of energy, right? Even if your source of power wasn't full of "destructive" potential, as soon as you store it, you've compacted it back into something dangerous again, right? Or am I missing something here?

Without really understanding the details, it seems to me like you can't extract more and more power from something without some part of the process being more and more dangerous. Even if you made the most efficient solar and wind battery to ever exist - if that produced the same amount of power as a nuclear source, you're still jamming that all into a battery that now contains that same potential, aren't you?

Like how the added danger from electric car fires isn't that they're more likely to catch fire, but that they're more destructive when some inevitably do - which means any conversation about safety is talking about two distinct things -> rates of failure vs. damage when failure happens. I assume when people are talking about nuclear being safe or not, they're speaking about different things. "It's safe because rates of failure are extremely low", "yeah, but when it does fail, it's devastating, and you can never assume a 0 rate of failure".

I don't think so, as the damage from a catastrophic nuclear failure is massive, whereas the damage from a solar plant disaster couldn't possible be as harmful simply due to the nature of the energy sources. Distribution presumably also plays a part -- a single solar farm need not ever make as much power as a nuclear plant since the solar installations don't have the same need to be in a single concentrated facility.

 

[TedEH]

But then isn't the whole problem that solar plants don't actually generate enough to perform the role that a nuclear site would? Otherwise, why wouldn't that be the obvious answer?

 

[narad]

But then isn't the whole problem that solar plants don't actually generate enough to perform the role that a nuclear site would? Otherwise, why wouldn't that be the obvious answer?

Yea, that's probably true for all reasonably plausible scenarios. I'm not saying we shouldn't do nuclear, but I do think that widespread nuclear is prone to the same hubris that had previously created disasters --and ones that thankfully weren't as bad as they could have been. If we really treated nuclear power with due respect and build a "spared no expense" sort of approach to it, I'd be in favor of it. In reality though, you just know corners are going to be cut and we may open ourselves up to catastrophe. The more widespread that nuclear adoption, the more likely that becomes, and I just find that worrying.

 

[StevenC]

I don't think so, as the damage from a catastrophic nuclear failure is massive

This hasn't ever happened

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

It's important to note that nuclear energy has the potential for incredible destruction, but the destruction of power plants is always at the fault of improper design. Blaming nuclear energy for Chernobyl or Fukushima is looking in the wrong box. Chernobyl was the result of a failing political system, and Fukushima used an outdated safety mechanism resulting in its failure. Do we blame the car when a negligent owner ignores maintenance that keeps the brakes from failing? Quite simply it is our most prominent answer for clean, abundant fuel, but encompassing all this into bite sized chunks to help the public understand is incredibly daunting. I'd argue a lot of the fear is centered around misinformed environmentalist parties and oil companies that need to continue exploiting consumers for profit.

This was an excellent post and I agree with your points, but I think this part here is why folks push back on nuclear energy despite the advantages that it has.
To run with your example of the negligent car owner, the net outcome of that situation is that regardless of who's at fault, the brakes on the car fail and someone presumably gets hurt. When you're talking about a nuclear reactor, that someone is whole hell of a lot of people.

As an American, I look at the bit in bold and think ok; well, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, I think most of us are in agreement that the political situation in the US is in dire straits and one could argue shows signs of a failing system. Not fall-of-the-republic bad but give it another couple generations and I certainly wouldn't be shocked.
And outdated safety mechanisms? I've spent enough time in the workforce to realize that if people can get away with putting something off or cutting corners they will, almost without exception. Surely the best and brightest would be the ones working on such a reactor but the fact of the matter is that I, and many others, intrinsically just don't trust anything made by people because we all know people. If people are involved it can fail. Just look at the current state of US infrastructure.

I am very pro-nuclear, and I think a decisive majority of it's risks can be managed, but I certainly understand people's trepidation.