On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 16:01 +1100, Kim Holburn wrote: > https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html > > Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs
I rest my case. I do take issue with this bit though: > > Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the > > level of a full or partial core-melt. These accidents are not the > > minor accidents that can be avoided with improved safety > > technology; they are rare events that are not even possible to > > model in a system as complex as a nuclear station, and arise from > > unforeseen pathways and unpredictable circumstances (such as the > > Fukushima accident). Fukushima was not unforeseen or unpredictable, it was an absolutely foregone conclusion that the site would sooner or later and probably sooner suffer the direct and/or indirect effects of seismic activity. For which there is no known upper limit on force or destructiveness. The designers failed to build in or retrofit obvious protections (like flood-proofing generators and batteries). The following article is just one voice, but it's not hard to find plenty of others, and I have so far not found any (other than the predictable apologists) who put significantly different views. I'd be happy to read any that others do find: https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/06/why-fukushima-was-preventable-pub-47361 That article also has a really interesting discussion of other reactors and their issues. What I dislike about it though is that it gives the impression that if only we do better, nuclear power will be safe. The problem with that sentiment is that the penalty for failure is so extreme. It just takes one mistake, anywhere in the millions of operations that go into designing, constructing, fuelling and running a nuclear reactor and disposing of its waste. Only some of those mistakes are predictable, or can be prevented, or can be built around, mitigated, or modelled. The mistake that blows everything to hell is always the one you didn't think of (or didn't deal with, which is what happened to Fukushima). This is especially true around nuclear waste disposal, where your plans have to work for hundreds of thousands of years - something no human plan in the history of human planning has ever done. When everyone is hip-deep in radioactive slag it really doesn't matter any more whether you shoulda, coulda or oughta have done something about it earlier. This is why I say that the only answer is not to do it. The benefits simply do not outweigh the risks. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer ([email protected]) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: 61A0 99A9 8823 3A75 871E 5D90 BADB B237 260C 9C58 Old fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
