7 ms·

> It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl

> It isn't really fair to compare it against reactors built anywhere else It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected. Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. "net less of life" isn't really a good statistic because living things are also affected.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ziddoap 7y ago
>Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe. My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  Modern car is much safer than Model T, but it also is much faster, and number of cars is so huge, so number of deaths due to incidents rose to 1.25M per year + 20-50M injured or disabled. Yep, modern reactor is much safer than Chornobyl, but we have much more reactors now, so if we have 100x safer reactor but 400x more reactors, net safety is decreased by 4x.
- opo 7y ago
  >...This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. That is true, but even when Chernobyl was built, no western country would have licensed a commercial reactor without a containment dome. That combined with the RBMK reactor positive void coefficient meant Chernobyl was basically a disaster waiting to happen.
opo 7y ago
>...It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, A totalitarian regime built an unsafe reactor that would have been illegal to build anywhere else because it was a very dangerous design - yes I agree they were arrogant idiots. It's certainly not the only example of the Soviet Union not caring the environmental consequences of its actions. It doesn't say much about reactors in other countries. >...that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected. There are areas with very high radioactive background levels, but a couple hundred people live there full time and thousands of people work in the area. >...Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. Who said generating gigawatts of electricity is or will ever be "inherently safe"? Nothing is inherently safe - there are risks when doing anything. All you can do is compare the risks/rewards and try to choose the best alternative. Any other approach is not rational. When politicians pander to anti-science fears, it can have real consequences. For example, Germany abandoned nuclear power while keeping coal plants running even though the death tolls from burning coal are astronomical compared to nuclear. Coal plants will kill more people this year than nuclear has done over the last 100 years - and that includes the Chernobyl accident and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ziddoap 7y ago

>Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. I re-read the parent to your comment looking for the words "inherently safe" in vain. I don't think they are claiming it is inherently safe. My 2c on it is that yes, it is important to recognize the failures and lessons learned when moving forward. However, we don't bring up the Model T when discussing road safety today. This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. So, yes we need to think about Chernobyl. No, it isn't fair to directly compare Chernobyl to Gen IV plants.

v_lisivka 7y ago
Modern car is much safer than Model T, but it also is much faster, and number of cars is so huge, so number of deaths due to incidents rose to 1.25M per year + 20-50M injured or disabled. Yep, modern reactor is much safer than Chornobyl, but we have much more reactors now, so if we have 100x safer reactor but 400x more reactors, net safety is decreased by 4x.
opo 7y ago
>...This is similar in the sense that design, oversight, and general knowledge of nuclear is much more advanced today than when Chernobyl was built. That is true, but even when Chernobyl was built, no western country would have licensed a commercial reactor without a containment dome. That combined with the RBMK reactor positive void coefficient meant Chernobyl was basically a disaster waiting to happen.

opo 7y ago

>...It is fair when you're talking about human hubris and what it can lead to. Chernobyl (and other reactors like it) should've, could've, would've done x,y,z, but that disaster did occur, A totalitarian regime built an unsafe reactor that would have been illegal to build anywhere else because it was a very dangerous design - yes I agree they were arrogant idiots. It's certainly not the only example of the Soviet Union not caring the environmental consequences of its actions. It doesn't say much about reactors in other countries. >...that area is totally uninhabitable, and the people living near there still are affected. There are areas with very high radioactive background levels, but a couple hundred people live there full time and thousands of people work in the area. >...Just because it's better than other solutions doesn't mean it's -inherently safe-. Who said generating gigawatts of electricity is or will ever be "inherently safe"? Nothing is inherently safe - there are risks when doing anything. All you can do is compare the risks/rewards and try to choose the best alternative. Any other approach is not rational. When politicians pander to anti-science fears, it can have real consequences. For example, Germany abandoned nuclear power while keeping coal plants running even though the death tolls from burning coal are astronomical compared to nuclear. Coal plants will kill more people this year than nuclear has done over the last 100 years - and that includes the Chernobyl accident and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan!