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.

 

[slippityslaps]

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.

Well out of all our energy production in the US, nuclear is the most heavily controlled in terms of safety. I think it's also important to recognize that we are still making advancements in reactors, so there is consistent progress in terms of safety and capability.

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.

I also sympathize with the apprehension, though I'd argue most of the apprehension is stemming from opinions that just aren't that valid anymore. Going back to my original post, nuclear energy can't really be bundled up in 150 characters or less in a way that is seductive enough to convince people to endorse it. I'm sure we all have interests that demand a certain level of attention to give a serious opinion on. I'm not condemning people who ask common questions, I'm simply pointing out that addressing those concerns requires legitimate dialogue. Nuclear energy proponents don't have an equivalent of "The sun is a free resource, so solar panels are a good thing."

I agree with you too, Fukushima can be pretty alarming. I think my point to it was a bit reductionist.

 

[Soya]

Aren't we past the point of being against nuclear energy? They've been in use for 70 years now.

 

[Alberto7]

Good points brought up about nuclear power regarding low risk vs high damage capacity. Then again, there are other things we have accepted that have similar risk/reward relationships, mainly in transportation. How often do planes go down? Practically never, but we fly SO many of them that it is statistically likely that you'll hear of an incident in the news every other week. Very high damage capacity per incident, too. Yet we do it mindlesaly, because we don't have much of a choice at the moment. Though I do understand that the impact of a catastrophic nuclear incident can be a lot more devastating, the comparison stands. We have historically accepted, repeatedly, all kinds of large risks endeavors just because the benefits were so incredibly high.

I mean, you have France as a great example. They run WELL over 70% of their total energy production on nuclear alone. They have operated over 60 nuclear reactors since the 60s, with 50-something still operative, and most of their incidents have been reactor shutdowns that cost millions of dollars, but with no actual public threats. It is true that they have had minor incidents that have created public concern, but their impact was overall quite limited. (I don't remember details here, so feel free to correct me.)

With that said, I'm surprised that what I consider to be the largest obstacle to nuclear hasn't been mentioned yet: cost. Nuclear power is, currently, UNBELIEVABLY expensive. The capital needed just to build a single powerplant is in the billions of dollars. It takes DECADES of operation to pay for itself. Then there's upkeep, which is also unbelievably expensive. Just decommissioning a nuclear powerplant alone can also take decades and cost in the several billions. The whole thing is just a ginormous endeavor that is difficult to justify to the public for larger countries, and is prohibitively expensive for smaller, less rich countries. Not to mention that it requires a labour force with a very specific skillset that isn't all too common.

There's quite a lot of research being done into different types of reactors to make them cheaper, more efficient, and easier to operate, but that still seems a long ways off. Last I read about recently are small modular reactors, which are exactly what it sounds like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
Then again, adopting and funding anything nuclear with public opinion as it is at the moment is gonna be next to impossible, sadly...

 

[Cannibalcricket]

Do you think the process would become safer if we remove the monitary gains from it? Seems like when there is money to be made corners get cut and saftey gets left behind. A not for profit nuclear power plant? Is that even viable? I know there is still human error to account for but is it possible to remove greed from the equation?

 

[Alberto7]

Do you think the process would become safer if we remove the monitary gains from it? Seems like when there is money to be made corners get cut and saftey gets left behind. A not for profit nuclear power plant? Is that even viable? I know there is still human error to account for but is it possible to remove greed from the equation?

Nuclear power is only viable right now as a long term investment. It requires IMMENSE capital. It takes time to pay for itself because it is so expensive to begin with. So unless you have someone that is willing to spend tens of billions that they'll never see back... doesn't sound viable to me.

 

[Rubbishplayer]

All of the harms mentioned here - environmental, health, sociological, political - are all symptoms of humankind's failure to grasp the principle of unintended consequences, supercharged by greed.

The reality is that we do know how to make nuclear power safe. The challenge is that we continue to try to do it on the (relative) cheap, so that it can be profitable. This points to the whole question of the economics of energy needing a complete rethink.

We need some more visionary thinking, along the lines of Nikola Tesla, along with the international political will to back it. But history tells us that things will need to get a whole lot worse before people wake up.

 

[TedEH]

We need some more visionary thinking, along the lines of Nikola Tesla

What? "We know how to do it safe" implies the science is solved. Tesla wasn't an economist or a politician as far as I'm aware. Tech visionaries aren't exactly renowned for political or economical precaution.

 

[Cannibalcricket]

Maybe all th

Nuclear power is only viable right now as a long term investment. It requires IMMENSE capital. It takes time to pay for itself because it is so expensive to begin with. So unless you have someone that is willing to spend tens of billions that they'll never see back... doesn't sound viable to me.

Maybe all those billionaires who say they want to do something to change things could put thier money where thier mouths are. Wishful thinking I know