
Prevented mortality from historical and projected nuclear power (2013) - Melchizedek
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html
======
hanniabu
I see this argument made again and again. Just because one is "worse" by
selective parameters doesn't mean that the other option is any good either.
Can we build safe nuclear power plants? Yes. Does money, greed, pride, and
stupidity triumph in the end? Yes. And then you end up with safety precautions
and risks being hand-waved just as what is happening in the US where most of
the nuclear power plants are operating beyond their designed life span.

Why are we ignoring the fact that this geographic location is unusable now? I
don't see anybody rushing to get in line to walk into the Fukushima plant or
to move back to Chernobyl. There's more damage than immediate death. That
environment is lost. It contaminates ground water, soil, the wildlife, the
air. You're willfully ignoring the reality and taking the hopeful ideals.

~~~
falcolas
Animals and plant life are thriving in the fallout zone of Chernobyl. It's
only unusable by humans, and even then not all humans; there is a community
that lives in the fallout zone, not to mention tourism.

[https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/](https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/)

Also, money and greed does not always win out. See: the Onagawa nuclear
reactor which is closer to the epicenter than Fukishima, and which was
properly managed and is still running.

~~~
patrickhogan1
It is a cognitive bias to believe the worst thing that has happened in the
past is the worst that will happen in the future. Chernobyl occurred in an era
with less people globally, less people locally, worse sensing technology/less
transparent politics to more accurately gauge worldwide impact, and smaller
nuclear reactors. Chernobyl proves the black swan risk could have been far
graver - making Kiev and large parts of Ukraine uninhabitable. Most people are
logical to choose a risk they can understand (solar, carbon, etc.) vs a
complicated risk they can’t (nuclear). Which may be 1000x worse.

The nuclear argument gets weaker by the year considering rapid advancements in
renewables and the decades+ period of time it takes to build a new nuclear
reactor. We have the safest nuclear reactor available. The sun.

~~~
jdietrich
The soviet nuclear industry was very close to the worst-case scenario -
inherently unsafe reactors being operated by badly trained personnel and
overseen by a corrupt and secretive agency that barely deserves the title of
"regulator". The Chernobyl disaster could have been far worse if it weren't
for the extraordinary bravery of the liquidators, but there's just no way that
such a catastrophically dangerous reactor could be built in 2019.

The RBMK reactors at Chernobyl were based on a design from the the early 1950s
and were crude even by the standards of the time. The reactor design is
inherently unsafe for several reasons, which was compounded by inadequate
monitoring and containment systems. Safe operation of the reactor was hindered
by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the flawed nature of the reactor
design; the emergency response was similarly hindered by a deliberate and
systematic cover-up of the scale of the disaster.

Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019
Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair. We've learned so many lessons and
changed our safety culture so profoundly in in the intervening period. If we
are allowed to keep developing and building nuclear reactors, we'll keep
building safer and more efficient reactors.

~~~
blub
"Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019
Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair"

That's a pretty interesting metaphor, because while the newer car is indeed
much safer, there are many types of accidents where the driver will be killed
no matter what car they're driving. Perhaps they'll still have all the body
parts attached in the Honda though ;)

One of my favorite books is "Normal accidents" by Perrow, where atomic plants
are the perfect example of high-risk systems which invite system accidents.

Their dedicated chapter is comically horrific. e.g.:

"In 1978 a worker changing a light bulb in a control panel at the Rancho Secco
1 reactor in Clay Station, California, dropped the bulb. It created a short
circuit in some sensors and controls. Fortunately, the reactor scram controls
were not among those affected, and the reactor automatically scrammed. But the
loss of some sensors meant the operators could not determine the condition of
the plant, and there was a rapid cooling of the core. [...] did not in this
case damage the core. But this is probably only because the plant had been
operating at full power for less than three years. A spokesman for the NRC
said: “If it had been 10 to 15 full power years, instead of two to three,
which it was, that vessel might have cracked.” A cracked vessel would result
in a loss of coolant and a meltdown; no emergency system would be available to
cool the core."

~~~
jacques_chester
I like _Normal Accidents_ as well and I think it should be more widely read.

Perrow's thesis was that systems needed three characteristics to generate
normal accidents: to be very complex (beyond any single human's detailed
comprehension), to be tightly coupled (meaning that the system can change its
behaviour quickly) and to have catastrophic potential.

Pressurised water designs are inherently complex and coupled because the
necessity to circulate fluid at all times without failure, making them complex
(lots of moving parts and failure modes) and coupled (failures can rapidly
propagate their effects). They also produce plentiful radioactive byproducts.

A counterargument is that non-PWR designs in Gen-III+ and Gen-IV actually
address some or all of these characteristics. Many of them are much simpler,
reducing complexity. Many of them are design to operate passively, reducing
complexity and coupling. And some of them reduce radioactive byproducts.

------
perfunctory
When discussing the safety of nuclear power most comments seem to focus on the
number of deaths. While death count is tragic in itself, it doesn't capture
the full extent of human drama.

Consider this

Fukushima

"the nuclear accident was responsible for 154,000 being evacuated"

"In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation,
decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen
($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate."

Chernobyl

"In 2005, the total cost over 30 years for Belarus alone was estimated at
US$235 billion; about $301 billion in today's dollars given inflation rates."

"between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine is still related to
Chernobyl"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa..).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

~~~
gnode
I think it's important to avoid treating the history of nuclear power as
expectation for its future use. Nuclear power has evolved, much like fossil
fuel power has evolved.

When we consider future use of fossil fuels, we do not think of the Great Smog
of London which acutely killed 4000 people in a few days, plus around 6000 in
the following months. Cognitive biases prevent us from being as forgiving with
nuclear power, despite the evolution of its safety.

~~~
cm2187
Or more recent industrial accidents like the Bhopal disaster (3000 deads).
It's only one of a very long list:

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

------
october_sky
My wife and I started watching HBO's new mini-series "Chernobyl", and she's
now terrified of nuclear power plants despite my reassurances. I'll have to
show this to her, but based on this anecdote, I suspect more voters who see
this TV show will also be biased against nuclear power.

Anyone else hear friends/family talking about this show as "terrifying" or
"concerning"?

~~~
erentz
Not to underplay the seriousness of the event or heroism of all those involved
in the aftermath, but the show does make it look scarier than it deserves. For
me part of this is simply down to the Russian equipment - it just looks
scarier seeing those guys in those green rubbery looking suits like something
out of an alien movie, vs when you see guys at Fukushima in plain white
protective gear.

It's worth pointing out that the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl has no
comparison in the west. Not to mention they had no (none!) containment
building on those things. The design of the RBMK was in part because it's
simpler to build. It's a kind of evolution of the very early reactor "piles"
used during the lead up to and through the Manhattan project. The pressure
vessels used in western reactors are difficult to produce. (We apparently no
longer have any iron works left in the US that could produce them, the last
one closed down some time ago.) On top of being simpler to build the RBMK
style reactor also has (IIRC) the benefit (for Russia) that it can be used to
produce the right kind of plutonium for nuclear weapons. Something that in the
west was done in dedicated military reactors because civilian designed light
water reactors suck for that task.

~~~
repolfx
The thing about the iron works is actually one of the main problems with
scaling up nuclear power. Modern designs are very safe yes, but, building them
requires steelworking ability that apparently only exists in (yes!) Russia and
Japan. There is a multi-decade backlog of orders for the necessary metal, and
learning how to work steel in the necessary way is ... not trivial. So it's
not even like we could build tons of reactors if we wanted to, designs or no
designs.

------
zepearl
Wikipedia has many lists about nuclear accidents - the "mother" of all those
articles might be this one:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_nuclear_disasters_and_radioactive_incidents)

It points to other sub-lists and some of them have links to sub-sub-articles
that explain what happened in a specific case, for example this one:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents)

Unluckily not all lists have always a link available to the detailed article,
so for example in the case of the SL-1 accident (
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1) )
you'll find the link to the details only in this other list:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents)

Reading about the details has always been very interesting for me as I love
everything involving cause/effect.

------
vbuwivbiu
False-dichotomy. There are plenty of ways to generate energy and the more
diverse, less centralized they are, the more robust the system is.

Wow since the Chernobyl series HN has suddenly had an uptick in pro-nuclear
posts.

~~~
erentz
I think it started before the Chernobyl series. There have been a lot of
increasingly serious climate change reports over the past year, and when you
start looking into what can be done, you have to take another neutral look at
nuclear power. And when you look at it neutrally in the face of the
alternatives you quickly get converted.

------
PeterStuer
Sadly humans have proven multiple times that they are not capable of handling
the responsibilities that come with nuclear power. It should be a no-go path,
and existing nuclear should be phased out immediately and fast.

On top of that the neo-liberal market economy is a compounding risk,
ultimately absolving all responsibilities or even rewarding companies for
failing to protect the public.

~~~
bargl
I couldn't disagree more.

We have proven that we aren't capable of handling the responsibility that
comes with handling coal/gas. And unless you live in a shack in the woods
you're a contributor.

Nuclear is the only energy source where we have a 100% plan for the byproduct
of energy. While I agree we really need to come up with an alternative.
Nuclear may be the only short term stopgap that gets us off of CO2 producing
plants in the short term so we can get to a long term.

No nuclear planet has sent our entire planet on a crash course with climate
change... Every energy source that powers our lives has a trade off and a
byproduct. We all need to admit that, accept it and then make a plan to live
in harmony with as much of the earth as we can.

~~~
hanniabu
All it takes is a decent natural disaster and you have a nuclear catastrophe.
With global warming, this risk of an unusual or unplanned/unlikely event for
that geographic region increases.

~~~
bargl
Devastating natural disaster. Fukishima handled the earthquake fine it was
when (i believe) their generators were washed away that the problem started.

I would never advocate for a nuclear power plant on the side of an active
volcano. _at all_.

You put the right technology in the right spot.

Also, I'm really hoping to see thorium get more time in the sun because it
doesn't go critical and cause a catastrophe. They melt down but don't explode
(from what I've been able to find).

~~~
hanniabu
Yes, thorium plus smaller reactors would be nice. A few years ago I saw work
being done on reactors the size of a car that are much safer because the fuel
is only the size of a tennis ball and much easier to control as well as
contain if anything were to go wrong. The issue I see with this approach
though is that if there's too many then maintenance and monitoring becomes
difficult.

------
beecat
Comparing 'Apples' that are killing us to 'Oranges' that will kill us.

