So.... your argument is that we should stop building nuclear plants using 50 year old designs? I think that problem is already well solved.
New nuclear plants would actually fare far better against these unprecedented natural disasters.
Edit: the problem is this, nuclear power is being put up to a far higher standard than any other power source because of irrational fears. There is risk in any activity, especially providing electrical power. People die from dams failing, from refinery explosions, etc. The question should be whether we can build nuclear plants that are at least as safe as competing power sources, and the answer, even in the wake of Fukushima, seems to be a resounding yes.
"the problem is this, nuclear power is being put up to a far higher standard than any other power source because of irrational fears"
That's probably correct. The question is, why? Perhaps it's because it is so much more difficult to understand. When a dam breaks or when parts of an oil refinery explode, the result may be catastrophic but at least we can understand what is happening, on an intuitive level. When something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor, it is so far removed from anything in our everyday world that it's difficult to understand on that same intuitive level. If something is on fire then we can see and hear it and we can use our experiences of other things being on fire to understand it. If something is radioactive then neither of the above apply.
So perhaps there is something about nuclear that makes it uniquely frightening (even if those fears are irrational). Unless everyone studies nuclear physics, those fears aren't likely to go away any time soon.
The basic reason is unfamiliarity. Unfamiliarity breeds fear and fear breeds irrationality.
Is it worse to die of radiation poisoning than, say, in an automobile fire? Both can be horrific ways to die, but most people today are likely to be more afraid of the former.
>So.... your argument is that we should stop building nuclear plants using 50 year old designs? I think that problem is already well solved.
No. My argument was that the reasoning in Monbiot's article was bad.
>New nuclear plants would actually fare far better against these unprecedented natural disasters.
Glad to hear it.
I have a lot of faith in the power of modern design. People can do some amazing things.
> Edit: the problem is this, nuclear power is being put up to a far higher standard than any other power source because of irrational fears.
Yes, thats true.
But it is also held to a higher standard, because the contents of a reactor (eg plutonium) are extremely toxic, in a way that no other power source is.
The worst case scenario is thus very bad.
>There is risk in any activity, especially providing electrical power. People die from dams failing, from refinery explosions, etc. The question should be whether we can build nuclear plants that are at least as safe as competing power sources, and the answer, even in the wake of Fukushima, seems to be a resounding yes.
However, if out-of-control events had happened just slightly differently, the answer would have been a resounding 'No'.
And that's my problem with this sort of reasoning.
Whether the answer was a resounding 'Yes' or 'No' seems to depend on whether there was (for example) another explosion, in an out of control situation, that had already had several explosions.
This is just like the shuttle scenario.
Most of the safeguards, which were never designed to be defeated, have been defeated.
That there was no release does not mean there was a margin for error.
We nearly - from an engineering point of view - had a level 7 event, in a highly populated, first world country.
I am arguing that anyone that derives solace from this situation is being foolish.
I am not arguing the merits of nuclear power. (I think fission should probably play a large role in our medium term energy provision).
Comments
So.... your argument is that we should stop building nuclear plants using 50 year old designs? I think that problem is already well solved.
New nuclear plants would actually fare far better against these unprecedented natural disasters.
Edit: the problem is this, nuclear power is being put up to a far higher standard than any other power source because of irrational fears. There is risk in any activity, especially providing electrical power. People die from dams failing, from refinery explosions, etc. The question should be whether we can build nuclear plants that are at least as safe as competing power sources, and the answer, even in the wake of Fukushima, seems to be a resounding yes.
"the problem is this, nuclear power is being put up to a far higher standard than any other power source because of irrational fears"
That's probably correct. The question is, why? Perhaps it's because it is so much more difficult to understand. When a dam breaks or when parts of an oil refinery explode, the result may be catastrophic but at least we can understand what is happening, on an intuitive level. When something goes wrong with a nuclear reactor, it is so far removed from anything in our everyday world that it's difficult to understand on that same intuitive level. If something is on fire then we can see and hear it and we can use our experiences of other things being on fire to understand it. If something is radioactive then neither of the above apply.
So perhaps there is something about nuclear that makes it uniquely frightening (even if those fears are irrational). Unless everyone studies nuclear physics, those fears aren't likely to go away any time soon.
The basic reason is unfamiliarity. Unfamiliarity breeds fear and fear breeds irrationality.
Is it worse to die of radiation poisoning than, say, in an automobile fire? Both can be horrific ways to die, but most people today are likely to be more afraid of the former.
>So.... your argument is that we should stop building nuclear plants using 50 year old designs? I think that problem is already well solved.
No. My argument was that the reasoning in Monbiot's article was bad.
>New nuclear plants would actually fare far better against these unprecedented natural disasters.
Glad to hear it. I have a lot of faith in the power of modern design. People can do some amazing things.
> Edit: the problem is this, nuclear power is being put up to a far higher standard than any other power source because of irrational fears.
Yes, thats true. But it is also held to a higher standard, because the contents of a reactor (eg plutonium) are extremely toxic, in a way that no other power source is. The worst case scenario is thus very bad.
>There is risk in any activity, especially providing electrical power. People die from dams failing, from refinery explosions, etc. The question should be whether we can build nuclear plants that are at least as safe as competing power sources, and the answer, even in the wake of Fukushima, seems to be a resounding yes.
However, if out-of-control events had happened just slightly differently, the answer would have been a resounding 'No'.
And that's my problem with this sort of reasoning. Whether the answer was a resounding 'Yes' or 'No' seems to depend on whether there was (for example) another explosion, in an out of control situation, that had already had several explosions.
This is just like the shuttle scenario. Most of the safeguards, which were never designed to be defeated, have been defeated. That there was no release does not mean there was a margin for error.
We nearly - from an engineering point of view - had a level 7 event, in a highly populated, first world country. I am arguing that anyone that derives solace from this situation is being foolish.
I am not arguing the merits of nuclear power. (I think fission should probably play a large role in our medium term energy provision).