What's Wrong WIth The Nuclear Power?

[Devin]

38 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Fukushima is a testament for how safe the nuclear reactors are even for those  from 1970s.

There is no case for them exploding like bombs or like Chernobyl but merely a leakage of radioactive waste that too in 9.0 earthquake and Tsunami combined. Most places on the earth do not have this Problem.

It all boils down to how much you want to solve climate change and the length you go to deny the obvious solution that is lying dead in your face. 

How is catastrophic failure a testament for safety? Tsunamis are expected on the Japanese coast and they still didn't mitigate for it. Japan is possibly the most industrial conscious nation and they failed catastrophically, the failure mode happened to be much less devastating than Chernobyl, but that's like saying someone that caused a car accident is a safe driver because no one died in the accident, it was a completely foreseen vulnerability which they complacently dismissed.

We know how to have safe reactors, the issue is cultural in that risk taking to save money is inherent in decision making. We have the know how, but we lack the discipline to implement it.

Edited January 11 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

18 hours ago, Devin said:

Tsunamis are expected on the Japanese coast and they still didn't mitigate for it

It has been mitigated now. There are automatic passive cooling systems that switch off in the event of earthquakes. The reactor was made in the freking 60s and sanctioned in the 70s so the tech was not advanced engineering enough to take account of disasters.

Even Japan has been building more reactors even now. If they are so unsafe and they had their lessons they should have stopped building it but they only accelerated it. 

Even if a Tsunami/Quake happened in a wind farm or solar power plant, that would still kill people. But you would attribute that to the plant itself. It was a natural disaster. 

Also, realize that what you saw was not a "Nuclear Explosion". It's just some mixture of hydrogen gas filled with other gas that escaped that exploded. People expected a lot worse to happen which didn't even with an ancient nuclear reactor that too in a 9 magnitude earth quake with Tsunami combined. Modern nuclear reactors don't have that problem at all.

They are remarkably safe. Nothing of the sorts of Chernobyl happened in the worst possible circumstances. That goes on to show how safe they are. Which is why they are building even more. 

Even the Fukushima reactor was safe enough that no one was directly killed from it.

All of this is not to mention that nuclear waste disposal is so spectacularly easy. It can be done on site deep underground. It's too safe and too clean. 

Edited January 12 by Bobby_2021

[Devin]

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It has been mitigated now. There are automatic passive cooling systems that switch off in the event of earthquakes. The reactor was made in the freking 60s and sanctioned in the 70s so the tech was not advanced engineering enough to take account of disasters.

Even Japan has been building more reactors even now. If they are so unsafe and they had their lessons they should have stopped building it but they only accelerated it. 

Even if a Tsunami/Quake happened in a wind farm or solar power plant, that would still kill people. But you would attribute that to the plant itself. It was a natural disaster. 

Also, realize that what you saw was not a "Nuclear Explosion". It's just some mixture of hydrogen gas filled with other gas that escaped that exploded. People expected a lot worse to happen which didn't even with an ancient nuclear reactor that too in a 9 magnitude earth quake with Tsunami combined. Modern nuclear reactors don't have that problem at all.

They are remarkably safe. Nothing of the sorts of Chernobyl happened in the worst possible circumstances. That goes on to show how safe they are. Which is why they are building even more. 

Even the Fukushima reactor was safe enough that no one was directly killed from it.

All of this is not to mention that nuclear waste disposal is so spectacularly easy. It can be done on site deep underground. It's too safe and too clean. 

That's not true, the failure was from not having backup power, generators have been around since the 1800s. The radioactive release is the concern, Fukushima is uninhabitable for 100 years now, an area on a densely populated island just north of the most populated city in the world, you can't mark that as a beaming example of safety.

Edited January 12 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

17 hours ago, Devin said:

That's not true, the failure was from not having backup power, generators have been around since the 1800s

Modern reactors have passive cooling features without manual intervention. It's completely automated unlike the reactors built in the 60s.

So basically what happens is that when power gets turned off, and/or temperature of the liquid gets out of control there is a plug that melts automatically and the fluid drains into a emergency dump tanks to cool. (Almost like the electrical fuse that melts in high temperatures.)

There is no possibility of leakage nor having generator which are still vulnerable to failure and needs manual intervention.

Reactor design can compensate for all of these, completely automatically. 

You can criticize them for not having generators and if they did, for not using it when they needed it. But we don't even need that in modern reactors. There is nothing to be scared of. 

17 hours ago, Devin said:

The radioactive release is the concern, Fukushima is uninhabitable for 100 years now, an area on a densely populated island just north of the most populated city in the world, you can't mark that as a beaming example of safety.

Yes because that's the example of the worst that can happen in the worst possible scenarios, that too in the technology of the 70s and all that happened was a some radio active fuel leaked. Even that is mitigated for in current designs that you really couldn't do any better. 

Even with all this knowledge if you are still fear mongering against Nuclear energy, then you are effectively causing climate change. 

Edited January 13 by Bobby_2021

[Devin]

31 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Modern reactors have passive cooling features without manual intervention. It's completely automated unlike the reactors built in the 60s.

So basically what happens is that when power gets turned off, and/or temperature of the liquid gets out of control there is a plug that melts automatically and the fluid drains into a emergency dump tanks to cool. (Almost like the electrical fuse that melts in high temperatures.)

There is no possibility of leakage nor having generator which are still vulnerable to failure and needs manual intervention.

Reactor design can compensate for all of these, completely automatically. 

You can criticize them for not having generators and if they did, for not using it when they needed it. But we don't even need that in modern reactors. There is nothing to be scared of. 

Yes because that's the example of the worst that can happen in the worst possible scenarios and all that happened was a some radio active fuel leaked. Even that is mitigated for in current designs that you really couldn't do any better. 

Even with all this knowledge if you are still fear mongering against Nuclear energy, then you are effectively causing climate change. 

Again, I admit we have the know how and technology, the problem is that we also had the know how and technology before any of these disasters and they still happened. The problem is corners will always be cut, that was the problem in the disasters, not a lack of technology, it is a cultural thing. For example, you want to increase reactor production and cut costs, materials will be value engineered resulting in riskier reactors, even with your new technology new problems will be created, they will always try to find the line they can't cross, the way you find that is by crossing it though, they will cut materials and develop cheaper methods and protocols, a disaster will happen, you will say well yeah they knew about the risk and now we use passive coolers, that's tylenol for a broken leg, the fracture is the culture.

I support nuclear, I don't support a slapstick nuclear renaissance that would be required for nuclear to be the sole saving grace of the climate crisis. Rapid construction and implementation is not safe or reliable, rapid reactor construction and operation is a fairytale that ends as a horror show of glowing people.

Look at cars and airplanes, improvements in safety yet more deaths and accidents.

Edited January 13 by Devin

[Bobby_2021]

@Devin I understand your concern but we actually have the opposite problem. The reason for Nuclear energy projects taking so long is because of the over stringent standards, precautions and safety measures you have in place. Cutting costs is the last thing that you can possibly do. Because the government is too scared of messing it up that it hurts the development.

Lax authorities are not the problem. The problems is government trying too hard to make it safe. We should fasten up the paperwork and proceedings. People building this knows what they were doing.

Even without these standards the nuclear disasters were negligible in numbers. The standards for setting up the plants are hard to cut costs on. 

[Bobby_2021]

 

[bebotalk]

How many nuclear accidents have occurred in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, the UK or China?  Three Mile Island happened due to human error also.

Using Fukushima, which was a mix of human error, bad maintenance practices, and an earthquake/tsunami, cannot be used to discourage all nuclear power. One cannot use an exception to disprove a phenomenon. 

Much of the opposition to nuclear power is based on emotiveness more than logic. People are fearful of nuclear things given its radioactive power, which is understandable. But the reality is that for the very most part, it's safe. Anti-nuclear people miss the nuance in this case.