Really enjoyed this, it's great to see the reality put so plainly. Credible scientists have even argued our revised Chornobyl figures are overestimates.
I think it's courageous to be open about the risk of future accidents, especially knowing how anti-nuclear activists will warp the truth. In the spirit of candour perhaps we could state the risk numerically: e.g. 1 serious accident per X hundred years, with the loss of (<1) lives and displacement of 0 people. And use better terminology... "Nuclear meltdown" evokes ridiculous allusions to atomic weapons and the fictional China syndrome. Perhaps 'Reactor Fuel Melt' would be better, followed by an assessment of containment.
Thank you for another outstanding article on nuclear energy. I’m so glad you highlighted the negative health consequences of fossil fuels. Not enough people understand this.
enjoyed reading, just to add a note, however, well, what is the reason for re-think if instead could think properly in the first place and not regretting afterwards, the reason might be very powerful politics behind which has the authority to decide even if the thinking is correct but not have authority to make final decisions. Research centers not only think good but must have authority to make the final decisions. If the decisions comes from results of knowledge that is good but if it comes from decisions made from other powers like politics then there is room for regret.
nicely framed. In general I think your views are very well supported, but you're a little too dismissive about Chernobyl. While the Chernobyl disaster should never have happened, and it seems unlikely that anything quite like it would happen again, the accident spread a lot of radioisotopes across a large population. It's perhaps impossible to accurately measure long-term impacts on health from these low (but far above background) exposures, but there surely are some, and they could be substantial. Much less than death and injury from coal and oil, but not zero.
I broadly agree, but my concern is that people still focus on the 'what if' scenario when it comes to nuclear energy, when we know with some certainty that the alternatives are much worse. Instead of worrying about what might have happened or could happen (although, as we agree, it's highly unlikely that there would be another meltdown like Chornobyl), we should focus on reducing harm from those things that we know with certainty are causing immense damage. If there were perfect alternatives I'd advocate for them, but nothing is perfect. We have to choose options with minimal risk, and manage them well when things to go awry. Fearing worst-case but unlikely scenarios gets in the way of this, as some things are easier to fear than others.
Many thanks for the excellent talk on Tuesday evening. I think some people do still focus on the "what if" scenario. Their fear is the theoretical scope of disaster, however improbable, feels larger than with other fuel sources.
It seems well established that past serious incidents were in reality not harmful. But n = 3 is not a large sample size*, and "what if" those incidents were near misses? Were we ever a few coin tosses from something orders of magnitude more harmful, or not at all? Can we say with any degree of certainty?
On another note, I'm seeing a perception online that smaller = safer. Is there anything in that?
*this is strange sampling given eg. that France has had gone for however many decades without any notable incident, and people don't seem to think twice about that! In any case, this is the "what if" argument I think is the one we need to straw man.
You're correct, and your essay was on-target. I worry however that when you avoid mentioning hazards, albeit minor, modestly informed non-fanatics uneasy about nuclear energy who (correctly) recognize that the nuclear industry in the past made some unreasonable claims, will feel their exaggerated suspicions are justified.
This is really thorough and clear eyed. Something I looked up on the topic is the cost. Meltdowns are pretty expensive, equaling a risk of roughly $500 million per GW. However that assumes that Fukushima is just as likely today. Most or all reactors worldwide are now prepared for a 10,000 year tsunami
An interesting counterpoint to that is considering the uncounted future value of nuclear energy. It does sound like wind/solar and storage will have a higher than understood price at high penetrations due to transmission and backup costs. So 40 years into the future when a nuclear plant has paid off its initial costs it may then continue running at quite a bit less than renewable costs at that time. If nuclear runs at $30/MWh and the alternative system at $80/MWh then 1 GW of nuclear would be worth $10 billion at the time of extension if it runs for another 35 years
Really enjoyed this, it's great to see the reality put so plainly. Credible scientists have even argued our revised Chornobyl figures are overestimates.
I think it's courageous to be open about the risk of future accidents, especially knowing how anti-nuclear activists will warp the truth. In the spirit of candour perhaps we could state the risk numerically: e.g. 1 serious accident per X hundred years, with the loss of (<1) lives and displacement of 0 people. And use better terminology... "Nuclear meltdown" evokes ridiculous allusions to atomic weapons and the fictional China syndrome. Perhaps 'Reactor Fuel Melt' would be better, followed by an assessment of containment.
Thank you for another outstanding article on nuclear energy. I’m so glad you highlighted the negative health consequences of fossil fuels. Not enough people understand this.
I read this, then your article on nuclear waste. I'd ask that you read mine. Then answer a question: How much did they pay you to write your pieces??
https://1longtrain.substack.com/p/lets-try-this-again
enjoyed reading, just to add a note, however, well, what is the reason for re-think if instead could think properly in the first place and not regretting afterwards, the reason might be very powerful politics behind which has the authority to decide even if the thinking is correct but not have authority to make final decisions. Research centers not only think good but must have authority to make the final decisions. If the decisions comes from results of knowledge that is good but if it comes from decisions made from other powers like politics then there is room for regret.
We should switch from military tecnology for civil purposes to Dual Fluid Reactor: Not only no melt down, but even burning nuclear waste !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_fluid_reactor
or better:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Fluid-Reaktor
nicely framed. In general I think your views are very well supported, but you're a little too dismissive about Chernobyl. While the Chernobyl disaster should never have happened, and it seems unlikely that anything quite like it would happen again, the accident spread a lot of radioisotopes across a large population. It's perhaps impossible to accurately measure long-term impacts on health from these low (but far above background) exposures, but there surely are some, and they could be substantial. Much less than death and injury from coal and oil, but not zero.
I broadly agree, but my concern is that people still focus on the 'what if' scenario when it comes to nuclear energy, when we know with some certainty that the alternatives are much worse. Instead of worrying about what might have happened or could happen (although, as we agree, it's highly unlikely that there would be another meltdown like Chornobyl), we should focus on reducing harm from those things that we know with certainty are causing immense damage. If there were perfect alternatives I'd advocate for them, but nothing is perfect. We have to choose options with minimal risk, and manage them well when things to go awry. Fearing worst-case but unlikely scenarios gets in the way of this, as some things are easier to fear than others.
Many thanks for the excellent talk on Tuesday evening. I think some people do still focus on the "what if" scenario. Their fear is the theoretical scope of disaster, however improbable, feels larger than with other fuel sources.
It seems well established that past serious incidents were in reality not harmful. But n = 3 is not a large sample size*, and "what if" those incidents were near misses? Were we ever a few coin tosses from something orders of magnitude more harmful, or not at all? Can we say with any degree of certainty?
On another note, I'm seeing a perception online that smaller = safer. Is there anything in that?
*this is strange sampling given eg. that France has had gone for however many decades without any notable incident, and people don't seem to think twice about that! In any case, this is the "what if" argument I think is the one we need to straw man.
You're correct, and your essay was on-target. I worry however that when you avoid mentioning hazards, albeit minor, modestly informed non-fanatics uneasy about nuclear energy who (correctly) recognize that the nuclear industry in the past made some unreasonable claims, will feel their exaggerated suspicions are justified.
This is really thorough and clear eyed. Something I looked up on the topic is the cost. Meltdowns are pretty expensive, equaling a risk of roughly $500 million per GW. However that assumes that Fukushima is just as likely today. Most or all reactors worldwide are now prepared for a 10,000 year tsunami
An interesting counterpoint to that is considering the uncounted future value of nuclear energy. It does sound like wind/solar and storage will have a higher than understood price at high penetrations due to transmission and backup costs. So 40 years into the future when a nuclear plant has paid off its initial costs it may then continue running at quite a bit less than renewable costs at that time. If nuclear runs at $30/MWh and the alternative system at $80/MWh then 1 GW of nuclear would be worth $10 billion at the time of extension if it runs for another 35 years