[underlipton]

And when we build dozens more, to cover the capacity nuclear pushers assure us that actual green energy can't? Chernobyl happened. Fukushima happened. Three Mile Island (almost) happened. That's an incident on almost every continent with more than one large reactor. You absolutely suffer bravado, and it's not isolated by culture or geography; it's bravado that's baked into the widespread use of the technology itself. To lack bravado would be to accept that human civilization, in this stage of development, is incapable of responsibly utilizing nuclear power generation at-scale.

[sgarland]

Chernobyl happened because they didn’t have enough spare capacity in the grid to allow the more experienced day shift to do a spin down test, and instead of moving the test or ensuring the right people were on site overnight, they let the inexperienced night shift run the test. This, because management didn’t want to look bad, and they didn’t listen to the engineers.

Fukushima happened because their backup generators flooded and couldn’t provide emergency power to remove decay heat. They flooded because management didn’t listen to the engineers who spec’d a much higher (and more expensive) sea wall.

Three Mile Island can’t be blamed on management in the same way, but indirectly in that they allowed a culture of accepting defects to fester. Operators had so many inoperable or inaccurate alarms and meters that they were initially unaware of any problems, and then they didn’t trust / believe the readings they saw.

Nuclear power, when built and operated correctly, with strict procedural compliance, is incredibly safe. The U.S. Navy has over 7500 reactor-years of safe operation spanning over 75 years, with zero reactor accidents.

I am all for wind and solar where it’s feasible, but you simply cannot beat the density of nuclear fuel, nor its ability to provide 100% base load day in and day out. If you want sustainable green energy (and I do), it must involve nuclear power; fossil fuel plants cannot be replaced by anything else we currently know of.

[raxxorraxor]

Reactor accidents will happen with enough reactors. And Chernobyl and Fukushima show that the consequences can be quite severe. Fukushima had "luck" that there was a lot of water involved, which is a decent radiation absorber. We also know that radiation doesn't disperse homogenously, so it could just enrich the food chain at specific points, probably without us noticing.

And there have been incidents on nuclear subs as well.

This is not against using nuclear power, but you should not downplay the risks. Because if something happens, the consequences can be devastating. There is also the problem with nuclear waste, which isn't really solved either.

[underlipton]

>Nuclear power, when built and operated correctly, with strict procedural compliance, is incredibly safe. The U.S. Navy has over 7500 reactor-years of safe operation spanning over 75 years, with zero reactor accidents.

What this says to me is that it's unfeasible at-scale unless it's a nationalized venture administered by a workforce with literal military discipline.

[542354234235]

Cost vs benefit. Nuclear power has less deaths per kWh than any other source, including wind and solar. Flying is safer than driving by orders of magnitude, but a scary high profile plane crash effects people more than mundane everyday car crashes. Saying to stop using a lower risk option because you are personally more scared of it isn’t exactly a compelling argument.

[KerrAvon]

what? how do you measure deaths per kWh for solar power and get anything above background noise?

[savingsPossible]

People fall installing the panels

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy