
Fukushima, Chernobyl, TMI Prove Why Nuclear Power Will Never Be Inherently Safe - mimixco
https://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/nuclear-power-will-never-be-inherently-safe
======
citilife
It should be:

"Why <insert power generation> Will Never Be Inherently Safe"

All power generating has some risk. The idea is to create a differential and
capture the differential. Inherently, generating power means capturing energy
differentials and typically the higher the TWh the more damage when a failure
to contain said energy creation occurs (think a nuclear plant, dam, wind
turbine, etc.)

Safety in nuclear power, as with other forms of energy generation, have more
to do with politics. Politics will lead to cutting or increasing costs and
safety guards being put (or not put) in place. Arguably, pollution due to coal
and natural gas is going to cause global warming and in turn many billions
will possibly die from starvation.

Is that "inherently safe?"

I don't think anyone disagrees that it will never be "inherently" safe, but it
may be "safer" or "cause less damage" long term to the general populous than
alternatives today.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I will eat a hat in front of everyone on HN at a pub if a utility scale solar
plant backed by utility scale lithium battery storage ever melts down,
requiring billions of dollars of remediation and making the surrounding land
uninhabitable for centuries.

As you said, safety is politics, and politics are people. People will be
greedy, they will cut corners, and without a rigid command structure and
severe penalties for safety violations (ie the US Navy and their nuclear
fleet), accidents will eventually occur. Solar is cheap to manufacture, easy
to ship, and does not require skilled labor to rack and install (besides
trained electricians for the interconnections).

As of a few minutes ago, California is generating 10GW of solar energy, 1.8GW
of wind, and only 2.1GW of nuclear [1] [2].

[1] [https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png](https://i.imgur.com/FHm1Ppw.png)

[2]
[https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=...](https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=US-
CA)

~~~
Aloha
Lithium batteries are at best a bridge technology - meaning something good
enough to get us until the next thing comes.

The issues with Lithium batteries is, a finite lifetime, a shortage of the
materials needed to make them, toxic byproducts of manufacture and recycling
or disposing of the the batteries when their finite life is used up.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Lithium batteries can be safely recycled (the DOE is funding a lithium
recycling research program at ANL in Illinois [1] to further improve materials
reclamation processes), and their cost will continue to come down rapidly as
manufacturing for them scales up (hundreds of GWs of battery manufacturing are
coming online over the next three years) for the millions of EVs that will be
sold each year as internal combustion vehicles are outlawed [2]. Lithium is an
abundant resource, is not constrained by geopolitics, and the use of cobalt (a
conflict mineral) is being phased out as research permits.

If they're a bridge, they're still a better bridge than nuclear. Tesla had the
Hornsdale Power Reserve installed (in Australia, from Nevada) in 90 days
(100MW/129MWh installation). It takes 10 years to build nuclear generators.
Maybe you reduce that time with streamlined reactor designs and regulatory
processes, but you're never going to approach the speed of renewables and
battery installs.

[1] [https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/doe-argonne-
lithium-i...](https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/doe-argonne-lithium-ion-
battery-recycling-research/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-
out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-
out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles)

~~~
keanzu
Australian residential customers are paying the highest electricity prices in
the world [1]

Any solution works if you have unlimited amounts of other people's money to
throw at the problem

[1] [https://www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-
highest-p...](https://www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-
power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a)

~~~
toomuchtodo
[https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/australian-homes-
are-...](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/australian-homes-are-turning-
to-solar-power-in-record-numbers/) (Australian homes are turning to solar
power in record numbers)

> A record amount of new solar capacity has been fitted to Australia’s
> households and businesses in the first three months of this year, an
> increase of 46% on the same period last year, according to the consultancy
> Green Energy Markets. And installations in Victoria have surged 90% after
> the state introduced an incentive scheme.

> It’s calculated that customers will save $600 million on their power bills
> over the next decade, thanks to the installations. And the scheme is
> bringing benefits in other areas, generating new jobs in the renewable
> energy sector.

Your link is paywalled, so I can't read the details, but rooftop solar is an
incredibly good financial proposition in the Australian energy markets due to
market dysfunctions. It seems like a useful scenario in which to subsidize
clean energy instead of very dirty coal generation currently in service
throughout most of Australia.

~~~
keanzu
The link wasn't paywalled when I first visited it but when I try to go back
now it is, must have hit a free limit I guess.

Incentive schemes are literally other people's money. The savings are
reminiscent of a store putting the price up 50% prior to a 33% off super sale.
Everything looks like a good deal when compared to inflated prices caused by
market dysfunction.

~~~
toomuchtodo
When you burn fossil fuels that’s literally someone else’s air they need to
survive (pollution from the burning of fossil fuels has a quantifiable impact
on the health and mortality of humans). It’s not hard to see why we prioritize
that over other people’s money and a more Libertarian outlook (“let the market
work itself out”) when that has so clearly failed in an epic fashion.

~~~
keanzu
A worst of both worlds result - very dirty coal generation currently in
service throughout most of Australia - and the highest residential prices in
the world.

------
dmschulman
No one is claiming nuclear is "inherently safe" (except for the author of the
Forbes opinion piece the article dissects). It is the safest form of energy
relative to its impact on the planet when compared to other methods of
generating power.

------
tehsauce
This article contains almost a dozen character attacks on the forbes author-
basically every time he is mentioned. Both authors seem to be far off from the
number of deaths and cancer rates estimated by the World Health Organization.

[https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounde...](https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/)

If you're going to claim that the entire nuclear industry is evil, and that
it's technology is fundamentally dangerous, maybe it would be good to compare
it to a competitor like fossil fuels. Their pollution can cause over a million
deaths per year.

[https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-
impacts/en/](https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/)

Comparing the two by casualties per unit of power generated, this makes
nuclear power appear something like 100 times safer. It's a simple calculation
and if anyone's interested I could add the numbers here.

------
negzero7
These are all old reactor designs with obvious flaws; moving to near-future
Gen IV designs are significantly safer.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Advantages_and_disadvantages)

------
dsfyu404ed
Large scale power generation is inherently unsafe. Making all those electrons
jiggle is going to require some serious stored energy and wherever there's
stored energy there's potential to release it all faster than intended.

------
yongjik
If the article's bias isn't clear enough from the title, this should:

> Before we delve into the article itself, note that the author of the [pro-
> nuclear] article, Michael Shellenberger, has a degree in cultural
> anthropology, not nuclear science or nuclear engineering, environmental
> science, or any other educational background related to the energy
> production methods and their impact on the environment, human lives, or the
> global economy.

And then,

> First, this puff piece for Forbes Magazine tries to discredit the assessment
> of noted pediatrician and children’s advocate Dr. Helen Caldicott, who
> projected close to 1 million people died due to the Chernobyl meltdown.

So who is this Dr. Helen Caldicott? From Wikipedia:

> Helen Mary Caldicott (born 7 August 1938) is an Australian physician,
> author, and anti-nuclear advocate who has founded several associations
> dedicated to opposing the use of nuclear power, depleted uranium munitions,
> nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation, and military action in
> general.

So they decry an anthropologist writing a pro-nuclear column (fair enough) ...
by quoting a physician (umm really?).

By the way, even if we accept their "one million deaths from Chernobyl" at
face value, let's put that in some context:

> A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the
> United States alone because of vehicle emissions. [1]

So, during the 33 years since Chernobyl, vehicular emissions caused somewhere
around 53k * 33 = 1.7 million deaths in the US only. Nuclear killed, let's be
generous, up to a million. Coal kills that much every year.

Well, maybe nuclear is too expensive. I'm OK with that argument. But I don't
buy that nuclear is too _dangerous_ , when its worst disasters kill less than
regular, non-accidental use of fossil fuels on the same year.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas)

~~~
keanzu
"maybe nuclear is too expensive" I think this is the key flaw that is nuclear
power's undoing. Even the Chinese government, who are apparently pro-nuclear,
have not broken ground on a new plant in China since late 2016. They are
finding that other forms of generation are cost competitive as the necessary
safety features drive the nuclear price up. If the Chinese dictatorship is
struggling to justify new plants on a cost basis then it doesn't look good for
the rest of the world.

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-
its-...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-
for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/)

------
partiallypro
Nothing is inherently safe. Nuclear power is our best hope for clean energy
and cleaning up the environment. Wind, solar and hydro can fill the gaps...but
without nuclear we'll never have a true clean solution.

------
ziddoap
Given all of the data presented here is true, does this change the current
conclusion that there are less deaths per TWh for nuclear? Or would the
inclusion of the increased cancer rates tip the scales?

~~~
crispyambulance

        > ...  deaths per TWh ...
    

The thing is we have not yet seen "worst case scenario" for a nuclear power
accident. As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, MUCH worse accidents are
possible.

We don't know what the actual death/TWh is for nuclear is yet because there
hasn't been "enough" TWh's.

~~~
yongjik
For comparison, the "worst case scenario" for fossil fuels is the planet
cooking up, crop failures, widespread famine, death of the oceanic ecosystem,
and the end of civilization as we know it. (Yes, that's the _worst case_
scenario, but since we're comparing worst cases...)

It boggles my mind that we are still burning oil while opposing nuclear
because "it's too dangerous."

~~~
crispyambulance
I'm not saying "it's too dangerous" at all.

I am saying that deaths/TWh is NOT a useful metric. It is a ridiculous
reductive way of looking at this that assumes a continuous random failure
rate.

The same applies for fossil fuels although, as you state, it isn't punctuated
with the possibility of an immediate catastrophe like a meltdown but something
else entirely-- irreversible climate damage.

------
new_guy
People never mention the Kyshtym Disaster (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster)
\- this barely scratches the surface)

Arguably that was the worst accident in history, hundreds of square miles are
still contaminated and off-limits. It was so bad the CIA helped keep it secret
from the Americans so as not to discourage their nuclear industry.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
If the neighbour's idiot kid poked his eye out with a spoon, I wouldn't tell
my kid about it either, I'd just have him eat soup properly.

~~~
intertextuality
How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility
meltdown? ...? It's measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the
third most serious recorded event.

I've known about chernobyl, tmi, fukushima, etc, but I was totally surprised
to read about this one.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>How can you even compare what you just said with an enormous nuclear facility
meltdown?

That's how an analogy works. You're comparing the difference between two pairs
of things that are not comparable.

> measured right behind fukushima and chernobyl, as the third most serious
> recorded event.

Trying to use a failure at a 1950s Russian nuclear facility as indicative of
nuclear safety today is like considering a medieval scaffolding failure as
indicative of modern construction safety.

~~~
intertextuality
It's an astoundingly unintelligent "analogy" at best. Discussing nuclear
meltdowns and what caused them is always relevant, whether or not it happened
today or 70 years ago.

 _Talking_ about it is still important, especially because like most things,
human bureaucracy and politics played into it. Having more intelligent designs
does not solve human stupidity, laziness, pride, etc.

And even if nuclear safety is much better today, the consequences of failing
are still grotesque. In the case of other meltdowns, the surrounding areas are
still affected, even today. Doesn't matter whether it melted down today or 100
years ago, those areas are still toxic.

I think nuclear is our only real solution moving forward, but we need to
honestly talk about the incidents that occurred, and fix the issues that went
wrong with it. You don't get that by covering things up.

