7 ms·

I expect there will be a lot of comments defending nuclear power, and I agree, it has its place in moving humanity forward to a greener future. However! I beli

I expect there will be a lot of comments defending nuclear power, and I agree, it has its place in moving humanity forward to a greener future. However! I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. For example, the radioactive sources used in radiotherapy units, have been known to go missing due to negligent owners, with truly awful effects to those that discover them without realizing that they are. This short video sums it up pretty well: - The Samut Prakan Radiation Accident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxktLtVEH7U - The Goiania Incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhL0xQzPSy8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhL0xQzPSy8 Once the radioactive material is released from a safe container, the cleanup effort to discover and contain it is immense. And herein lies the problem, it only takes one or two events like this to cause an extreme amount of damage. And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. So widespread deployment of many radioactive sources really increases the complexity and cost of keeping track of them.

calyth2018 5y ago
While it's a neat point that you bring up about human nature and misplaced radioactive sources, is a portable nuke reactor something that's comparaable to radiotherapy units? If what they mean is a Small Modular Reactor, they should still be about 40 m^3, and a bit less likely to be left behind.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  And because of those incidents, there are new regulations and safeguards in-place to help avoid such events in the future.
  - dividedbyzero 5y ago
    But it'll be hard to limit these things to just a few that can be secured really well. There will be lots of potential for an energy source like this in remote or underdeveloped regions, and once you pepper the globe with reactors, good luck having everyone adhere to regulations, and not try too hard to circumvent those safeguards.
- caddywompus 5y ago
  Ah that is true. In that case the danger would be in the tracking and storage of fuel elements. Assuming re-fueling is required infrequently enough that a regulator organization could keep tabs on them. Although in that case the danger would be the tracking and safe storage of the fuel elements.
  - nielu 5y ago
    As far as i understand some of the small reactors are designed to be fueled only once in their lifetime - in the factory.
karaterobot 5y ago
> And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. That is true. Another weakness humans have is our inability to intuit large numbers and probabilities. For example, it's hard for people to really grok that, even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history[1], including not just the sources you mentioned, but disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, it would be far less than the number of people who die from pollution caused by fossil fuels every month[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_... [2] https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-...
- Retric 5y ago
  Deaths from such accidents alone is a poor metric of comparison. Marie Curie for example isn’t on that list.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    Apart from war, what are some other sources of deaths by this type of radiation?
    - Retric 5y ago
      If you mean radiation then it gets complicated, people for example, used to use X-Rays for shoe fittings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope I have yet to see an estimate for related deaths from such ignorance.
      - philwelch 5y ago
        We've already mitigated that problem by not doing that anymore.
minikites 5y ago
>I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. This is a very interesting point. A grid of mostly renewables backed by a handful of centralized nuclear plants sounds robust to my layman's thinking. Both of these things already require a more robust distribution grid than we have now in the USA, but it would serve us well to do that regardless. I think it would be nice if we could agree as a society that spending money on projects like this is invaluable to our worth as a nation. Is letting a few people be billionaires really that valuable to us as a society that it's worth puttering along and hoping future generations will pick up the tab? They have taken a disproportionate amount of wealth away from society and their taxes should reflect that. It's only going to get more expensive to fix problems like these and younger generations don't have the money.
stochtastic 5y ago
> However! I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. Off topic, but: I often feel that problems related to hard-to-manage waste could be ameliorated by thinking of temporary solutions as "entropy-reducing storage". Especially with recycling — which is currently not cost effective [0] but perhaps could be in the future — we ought to keep the nicely sorted waste separated, and avoid mixing it in with other landfill trash. At a minimum, there's no point in actively increasing the entropy of trash and byproducts. That way, today's landfills could become tomorrow's mines with a lower bar for economic viability. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
- caddywompus 5y ago
  Yes, I was really disheartened when I learned that my city only recycles a few types of plastic, and most of it just goes to the landfill. And now its being theorized that oil industries encouraged recycling as a solution, even knowing its deficiencies, so that plastics would be more readily accepted. Regarding nuclear waste disposal, this is the coolest solution I've seen so far: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50
panny 5y ago
>greener future CO2 causes the Earth to green. The future is only greener with more CO2. Of all the purported benefits of nuclear energy, this is not one of them.
reader_mode 5y ago
>Once the radioactive material is released from a safe container, the cleanup effort to discover and contain it is immense Larger than dealing with an oil tanker spil or gas line explosion ? The main problem with nuclear is potentially global consequences of an accident - small reactors don't have that and people are used to dealing with localised risks.
lallysingh 5y ago
The fuel here is in tiny containers (about that of a poppy seed https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu...). You'd have to crack many of them, and that's not likely from an accident. How what's the ratio of bananas to cracked TRISO particle for equivalent radiation? The reactors can't melt down, so you'd have to physically crack many of these particles and then distribute the results into the air.
- caddywompus 5y ago
  These are really interesting! It looks to me like the tiny containers and materials are meant to prevent unintended fission rather than shielding from radioactive decay. Still, I'd imagine identification and cleanup would be much easier with something like this.
philjohn 5y ago
There was also an incident with Soviet RTG's that were discarded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23kemyXcbXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23kemyXcbXo
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kova12 5y ago
You are not accounting for opportunity cost here. Yes, there were incidents, and people died, and there will be more. But there are also victims on the other end. People who died because they had to breathe coal. People who died because the power was down or too expensive to run AC or some hospital machine. When people are deprived from basic necessities, their life revolves around survival instead of moving humanity forward. How many Elon Musks have died or lived a life in which they could not realize their potential because of no access to power? If there was cheap and abundant power everywhere, you could get rid of the whole class of environmental and societal issues altogether, not only saving lives, but greatly improving life quality. Think of how many problems Internet brought up. And then how many it solved.

calyth2018 5y ago

While it's a neat point that you bring up about human nature and misplaced radioactive sources, is a portable nuke reactor something that's comparaable to radiotherapy units? If what they mean is a Small Modular Reactor, they should still be about 40 m^3, and a bit less likely to be left behind.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
And because of those incidents, there are new regulations and safeguards in-place to help avoid such events in the future.
- dividedbyzero 5y ago
  But it'll be hard to limit these things to just a few that can be secured really well. There will be lots of potential for an energy source like this in remote or underdeveloped regions, and once you pepper the globe with reactors, good luck having everyone adhere to regulations, and not try too hard to circumvent those safeguards.
caddywompus 5y ago
Ah that is true. In that case the danger would be in the tracking and storage of fuel elements. Assuming re-fueling is required infrequently enough that a regulator organization could keep tabs on them. Although in that case the danger would be the tracking and safe storage of the fuel elements.
- nielu 5y ago
  As far as i understand some of the small reactors are designed to be fueled only once in their lifetime - in the factory.

karaterobot 5y ago

> And its not a problem with the technology, its a problem with human beings. We're forgetful, lazy, and make mistakes. That is true. Another weakness humans have is our inability to intuit large numbers and probabilities. For example, it's hard for people to really grok that, even if you added up all the people who have died from nuclear and radiation accidents in all of history[1], including not just the sources you mentioned, but disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, it would be far less than the number of people who die from pollution caused by fossil fuels every month[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_... [2] https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 https://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-...

Retric 5y ago
Deaths from such accidents alone is a poor metric of comparison. Marie Curie for example isn’t on that list.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Apart from war, what are some other sources of deaths by this type of radiation?
  - Retric 5y ago
    If you mean radiation then it gets complicated, people for example, used to use X-Rays for shoe fittings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope I have yet to see an estimate for related deaths from such ignorance.
    - philwelch 5y ago
      We've already mitigated that problem by not doing that anymore.

minikites 5y ago

>I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. This is a very interesting point. A grid of mostly renewables backed by a handful of centralized nuclear plants sounds robust to my layman's thinking. Both of these things already require a more robust distribution grid than we have now in the USA, but it would serve us well to do that regardless. I think it would be nice if we could agree as a society that spending money on projects like this is invaluable to our worth as a nation. Is letting a few people be billionaires really that valuable to us as a society that it's worth puttering along and hoping future generations will pick up the tab? They have taken a disproportionate amount of wealth away from society and their taxes should reflect that. It's only going to get more expensive to fix problems like these and younger generations don't have the money.

stochtastic 5y ago

> However! I believe that the main benefit of central nuclear plants, is there ability to keep poisonous materials in a single location, so that it doesn't get lost. Off topic, but: I often feel that problems related to hard-to-manage waste could be ameliorated by thinking of temporary solutions as "entropy-reducing storage". Especially with recycling — which is currently not cost effective [0] but perhaps could be in the future — we ought to keep the nicely sorted waste separated, and avoid mixing it in with other landfill trash. At a minimum, there's no point in actively increasing the entropy of trash and byproducts. That way, today's landfills could become tomorrow's mines with a lower bar for economic viability. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...

caddywompus 5y ago
Yes, I was really disheartened when I learned that my city only recycles a few types of plastic, and most of it just goes to the landfill. And now its being theorized that oil industries encouraged recycling as a solution, even knowing its deficiencies, so that plastics would be more readily accepted. Regarding nuclear waste disposal, this is the coolest solution I've seen so far: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50

panny 5y ago

>greener future CO2 causes the Earth to green. The future is only greener with more CO2. Of all the purported benefits of nuclear energy, this is not one of them.

reader_mode 5y ago

>Once the radioactive material is released from a safe container, the cleanup effort to discover and contain it is immense Larger than dealing with an oil tanker spil or gas line explosion ? The main problem with nuclear is potentially global consequences of an accident - small reactors don't have that and people are used to dealing with localised risks.

lallysingh 5y ago

The fuel here is in tiny containers (about that of a poppy seed https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu...). You'd have to crack many of them, and that's not likely from an accident. How what's the ratio of bananas to cracked TRISO particle for equivalent radiation? The reactors can't melt down, so you'd have to physically crack many of these particles and then distribute the results into the air.

caddywompus 5y ago
These are really interesting! It looks to me like the tiny containers and materials are meant to prevent unintended fission rather than shielding from radioactive decay. Still, I'd imagine identification and cleanup would be much easier with something like this.

philjohn 5y ago

There was also an incident with Soviet RTG's that were discarded https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23kemyXcbXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23kemyXcbXo

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kova12 5y ago

You are not accounting for opportunity cost here. Yes, there were incidents, and people died, and there will be more. But there are also victims on the other end. People who died because they had to breathe coal. People who died because the power was down or too expensive to run AC or some hospital machine. When people are deprived from basic necessities, their life revolves around survival instead of moving humanity forward. How many Elon Musks have died or lived a life in which they could not realize their potential because of no access to power? If there was cheap and abundant power everywhere, you could get rid of the whole class of environmental and societal issues altogether, not only saving lives, but greatly improving life quality. Think of how many problems Internet brought up. And then how many it solved.