[oneshtein]

Nuclear power plants require international laws and international cooperation for insurance, because one serious incident, such as Chornobyl, can wipe a continent.

In Ukraine, profits from all nuclear plants will cover damages, caused by Chornobyl, in 1000-5000 years IF nothing more will happen to Chornobyl or other an other nuclear power plant in those years, which is unlikely.

[pqtyw]

Still, though, if nuclear continued growing at the same pace it was until the 80s we'd be in a massively better spot climate change wise.

Sure, these days its too expensive in relative terms but switching back to fossil fuels due to all the Chornobyl/Three Mile panic (but mainly likely because of the cost) might end up being one of the bigger mistakes in human history.

[close04]

We can make nuclear safe (enough) but after one big incident nobody wanted the political career suicide to push for this. So we are stuck with criticizing stone-age level nuclear power because we never took it further. The West never stopped doing something just because the USSR didn’t do it properly.

If we did the same with commercial air travel after the first disasters we’d still cross the oceans in boats. Car accidents kill 10-15 times more people every year worldwide than Chernobyl did but we don’t give up on cars either. Heck, smoking kills 7-8 times more people than cars every year (that’s 80-100 Chernobyls worth every year) and we still allow it.

The reasons are political not technically or financially insurmountable obstacles. We didn’t shut down nuclear in Europe for “green” reasons or because we can’t improve it, or because it kills too many people, but because enough Russian money went into politicians’ pockets to do this.

[oneshtein]

You arguments boils down to «it's OK to wipe a continent once in a while, because nuclear energy is the safest energy option per megawatt produced».

[dpassens]

No, the argument is that it didn't "wipe the continent" and in fact caused far less damage than other things we're totally fine with. I don't see GP saying that they want an incident like this to repeat, just that, if it did, the consequences would be far less severe than "wiping the continent".

[pqtyw]

> OK to wipe a continent

Why not exaggerate to the "entire planet" if we are going this way..

Regardless, in hindsight humanity could have prevented (at least to a significant extent) climate change if we doubled down on nuclear 40-50 years ago instead of stopping most expansion. What will be the cost of that?

[natmaka]

I doubt so: 416 industrial nuclear reactors are deployed in the world today. They produce 10% of the electricity, itself 20% of the final energy, so nuclear power produces at best 2% of the energy consumed.

Nuclear power would provide 10% of the energy, which would be far from sufficient since it is necessary to electrify uses (in order to reduce the quantity of fossil fuel burned) and therefore produce more electricity, if we could multiply the power of the fleet by 5, therefore building around 1500 new reactors and keeping the existing fleet active. Hoping for this before 2100 would be absurd.

[pqtyw]

Well, its way too late now. 80 reactors were launched between 1960 and 1970, 185 between 70s, 237 in the 80s, in the 90s it was barely 60.

Instead if it kept doubling every decade it would be well over 10%.

Of course electrification of transportation etc. should have starter much earlier.

Obviously none of that was economical compared to coal/gas/oil back then.

[natmaka]

> doubling every decade

Uranium deposits mined under the right conditions can supply the current stock for at best two centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium

To extend this beyond that, we must hope for a revolutionary production process (pursued in vain for decades: breeders...), the ability to exploit less promising uranium deposits, thus tolerating increased emissions and costs, or the discovery of a large deposit.

Hoping for such a discovery is risky because intensive prospecting began at the end of the Second World War (the quest for nuclear weapons), and the rapid and sharp rise in the price of uranium (a bubble) that occurred around 2007 triggered a massive investment in prospecting, the results of which (15%) are very inadequate.

Therefore, multiplying the stock by five would leave at best 40 years of uranium certainly available under current conditions, and would therefore be an inept investment (one needs to amortize the plant).

Moreover there are geostrategic considerations: many nations don't have any reserve not want to have to buy uranium (creating a dependency) or technical expertise.

[close04]

No, those are your words. The dumbed down, skewed, ragebaity, Fox News level strawman. The guaranteed way to drag down the conversation when you have nothing of value to say: pretend the other guy said something just as worthless and then fight that because it’s easier and you think you have a shot.

Your arguments have been shot down all over this thread. Do you need a win so bad?

[YawningAngel]

We have had several serious nuclear incidents and none have destroyed either a continent or the people on it

[Kon5ole]

That it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it couldn't happen in the future. We have never had a worst case event but we do know pretty well what the consequences of a worst case event could be.

The worst case consequences of Chernobyl were stopped because people literally risked their lives to prevent it. The fire was put out, the steam explosion was prevented, and countless lives were saved as a result.

Even so, many countries spent billions, over several decades, to minimize the consequences. As far as 2000 miles away, animals are still to this day fed special foods and managed to avoid prolonged grazing in contaminated areas.

Think about it for a second - over 2000 miles away, almost 40 years later, this still requires active management. Despite best efforts to handle the situation when it happened.

Now consider that every reactor carries it's own copy of the risks, and they only generate around 10 TWh of electricity per year.

That's just way too little electricity for such a risk. It makes no sense.

Meanwhile solar and storage is deployed at a rate equivalent to a new reactor every month as we speak. Faster, cheaper, and comparatively risk-free.

[natmaka]

Most Russian Roulette games have many 'clicks' before the 'bang'.

[0-_-0]

these were the bangs

[natmaka]

Maybe. Maybe not. Nobody knows for sure, however after each of these click/bang the "there will be no more problem!" thesis seems less and less prominently published.

[natmaka]

> Car accidents kill 10-15 times more people every year worldwide than Chernobyl did but we don’t give up on cars either. Heck, smoking

Avoiding car accident and not smoking is way, way easier than avoiding most effects of a major nuclear accident (fine dangerous and very durable dust disseminated on a vast geographical zone, thanks to wind and rain).

The total amount of victims of the Chernobyl accident is a matter of debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

[burnt-resistor]

No, we can't. I worked in the industry when there was strong, independent regulation and private engineering consultancies. These don't exist anymore. The NRC is stacked politically and it and EPRI lack the gray beards it once had and the engineering industry is a shadow of its former self. Dunning-Kruger ignorant proponents advocate for it without understanding the issues or the complications in this current situation that is a far different situation than 30 years ago that might've been reasonable when Duke Energy wanted a revival. Its time has passed because the economics of conventional alternatives make it moot.

[close04]

I meant “we” as humanity. You gave a very US-centric perspective at a time when the US finds it challenging to deal with many long solved issues. Why conflate not wanting, not caring, not wanting to pay for it, or just not being able right now with it being humanly impossible?

We didn’t get to making the calculations of economics to improve the tech because of the corruption and lack of education I was mentioning before. What we have is calculations based on 60 years old tech and risk analysis based on a 40 year old accident.

As I said in the previous comment, if you’d do the same for commercial flight you might find steam ships are a better deal.

[sillyfluke]

You would need to wait at least five years to make sure Europe will not go the way of the US due to the similar uptick of the same ideology now in power in the US, more if it's still a tiebreak in five years time.

Betting on a technology that has a catastrophic likelihood of low probability but high impact at a time when your scientific and regulatory institutions are crumbling is a high risk strategy. Unless you're arguing that modern nuclear tech is literally childproof and not susceptible to catastrophe under idiocratic regimes.

[burnt-resistor]

Your mind appears closed and you're not interested in having a normal conversation because you don't have any valid points. Best of luck to you.

I worked with Japanese and Germans in the field, so I guess you don't know what you're talking about and are projecting your biases. The owner of the company was a Jewish Moroccan expat who contributed greatly to the field. Please have a look inside yourself before confessing your issues.

[close04]

Rude and aggressive reply to an otherwise perfectly civil comment, “trust me bro, I’m an expert”, bringing up “arguments” but never actually stating any, and chatgpt-like random statements about Jewish-Moroccans from “the company”. Hallmarks of competence. Color me humbled...

[looofooo0]

What kind assumptions is this based on?

[justsomehnguy]

> can wipe a continent

Sorry, but no.

Chernobyl exclusion zone is less than a single area of the Agent Orange usage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chernobyl_radiation_map_1...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial-herbicide-spray-mi...

[aydyn]

Again, Chernobyl was not the worst case scenario. Everyone knows the story, some heroes sacrified their lives to prevent it.

[Integer]

You mean, everyone watched the TV story which has little basis in fact. Chernobyl was the worst case scenario - there's no way to build a reactor that would produce worse radiation effects when destroyed than to use a pile of graphite.

[aydyn]

Only about 20-40% of the radioactive contaminants were spread before the fire was put out by firefighters wearing no protection. On top of that only 1 reactor burned, but it shared facilities with another reactor.

So if the fire was not put out, it could have easily been 5x worse. There were 4 reactors total, so in the absolute worst case it could've been 10x worse.