[threeseed]

Sure that is a problem, now. But there is a lot of investment in energy storage solutions e.g. electric cars, molten sands, large scale batteries, smart grids.

People are very aware of the problems with wind/solar but that doesn't mean that we should continue to use fossil fuels or blindly pursue unpopular, problematic technologies like nuclear. The status quo is simply not an option.

[sjwright]

I can't see how anyone could describe nuclear power as 'problematic'. At best you could argue that the shitty reactor designs from the 1960s don't always endure outrageous levels of incompetence and systemic corruption.

Chernobyl was an onion of layered stupidity and incompetence. (Fun fact: eleven reactors of the same core design as Chernobyl are still operational today. Eleven. Today.)

In the case of Fukushima, it took a one-two punch of the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history and an absolutely catastrophic tsunami in order for TEPCO's incompetence to become a problem.

Though it may not seem it, you can make a statistical case for nuclear power being among the safest forms of electricity production per unit of energy. Burning fuels for power kills tens of thousands of people every year. Hydro dam failure has the blood of hundreds of thousands on its hands. Workers fall off wind turbines and rooftops -- rarely, but it's statistically significant compared to the unit output.

[rsync]

No, I would argue that the shitty reactor designs from the 1960s (and 1950s, actually) never endure even normal levels of competence and systemic corruption. Given a long enough time horizon, those bad designs will fail. They are designed to fail.

Going further, they are designed to fail in the face of "normal accidents"[1] which we can expect to happen. Every single one of the failures will have some kind of unique dramatic human-discerned narrative, just like the two you narrated above, but they will all have their failure in common.

I think we should be in favor of nuclear power in general. I think we should be marching in the streets in protest of the standard model of nuclear plant currently deployed around the world. Like you said, there's 11 more chernobyls out there just waiting for their own "normal accident".

[1] Normal Accidents, Charles Perrow, 1984 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

[sjwright]

> No, I would argue that the shitty reactor designs from the 1960s (and 1950s, actually) never endure even normal levels of competence and systemic corruption.

That is a statistically impossible assertion. Plenty of these shitty designs managed to endure normal levels of competence and systemic corruption for the entirety of their planned life span and have been decommissioned without catastrophe.

[thaumasiotes]

> In the case of Fukushima, it took a one-two punch of the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history and an absolutely catastrophic tsunami

How is this a one-two punch? It sounds like a one-punch to me; the tsunami wasn't visited upon Japan by a vengeful god. You might as well complain about the "one-two punch" of getting hit by both fingers when a guy with three missing fingers punches you.

[vpeters25]

It was an one-two punch because either one by itself unlikely would have produced the disaster: the earthquake not only produced the tsunami, it also sunk the coastline about 4 feet rendering tsunami barriers useless.

I read somewhere their tsunami barriers where just high enough to stop the tsunami but the coastline sinked. No engineer could have predicted that.

[thaumasiotes]

> It was an one-two punch because either one by itself unlikely would have produced the disaster

But that's what I'm saying! Tsunamis can't happen by themselves. They're caused by earthquakes (or volcanic eruptions, nuclear explosions, or other literally earth-shaking events). The odds of a record-breaking earthquake co-occurring with an extreme tsunami approach 100%. Similarly, it's not at all surprising for the coastline to sink in an earthquake.

[sjwright]

You're arguing over an analogy?

You do realise that two fists tend to be attached to one person, right? A one-two punch can (and often does) represent two attack vectors in quick succession originating from the same cause.

[thaumasiotes]

Seriously, saying "this plan required two different rare events to coincide before it failed" is very different from saying "this plan required a rare event to happen before it failed". The implications are not the same.

And while a boxer may want to hit his opponent with both hands, hitting with the left definitely doesn't cause hitting with the right. Most punches are not one-two punches. Tsunamis (or, as wikipedia would have it, "seismic sea waves") are generated by earthquakes, not by some mysterious root cause that might or might not also put off earthquakes.

[ams6110]

Earthquakes frequently do not cause tsunamis. Or the tsunami strikes an area where it does minimal damage. So yes, an earthquake WITH a tsunami that also happened to strike a nuclear reactor is a combination of rare probabilities.

[sjwright]

I think the intent of my original words is sufficiently clear. Aside from not liking my analogy, is there an underlying point you're trying to make?

[pessimizer]

I think the objection to your point was sufficiently clear. Your implication is that Fukushima was so safe that it took the simultaneous occurrence two statistically unlikely events to cause it to fail catastrophically i.e. unlikely x unlikely.

The objection was that this was actually a single unlikely event, because one was very likely to follow from the other i.e. describing someone squeezing a trigger as an independent event to the bullet leaving the barrel is incorrect.

Two independent unlikely events occurring at the same time is extremely unlikely. Unlikely events themselves are common.

[rory096]

> blindly pursue unpopular, problematic technologies like nuclear.

Why is it blind problematic pursuit? Because it's unpopular?

[crdoconnor]

I'll consider it non-problematic when the nuclear liability cap is eliminated and the private sector insures it fully. Without subsidies.

If it were so incredibly safe, there wouldn't be a need to give taxpayer support.

The real reason, of course, is that it isn't actually that safe, and private insurers aren't willing to take the risk without a liability cap that is pathetically low (a few hundred million).

And, if you got rid of this subsidy: no more nuclear plants.

[rhino369]

The problem is that the law can easily place blame for big huge accidents but can't doesn't put any blame on massively distributed harm. A lot of the dangers of traditional fossil fuel generation doesn't stick to energy companies. They increase the chance you get cancer or respiratory diseases, but there is never a direct link. You'll never know if global warming caused a forest wire that wipes out several towns.

But when a nuke plant goes belly up, you know it ruins the small town it is in.

But the liability cap is part of a government enforced insurance scheme. It's a super highly regulated industry. It's not like they can ruin your house and stiff you.

The law is set up so nuke plants don't abuse corporate liability shields and then go bankrupt in an accident without paying for it.

Some claim it is a form of subsidy, but the government is allowed to retroactively raise rates if it turns out the risk profile wasn't accurately measured. It's really not that different from unemployment insurance companies have to pay for.

The reason it isn't just covered by private insurance is because when plants were first built, it was just impossible to underwrite. It still maybe hard to underwrite.

Insurance works on the law of large numbers. But with a low probability, catastrophically highly loss, it's impossible to insure.

If you exclude Chernobyl (and you should since modern nuke plants can't have a core explosion) there aren't any confirmed or even estimated deaths in the commercial nuclear power field. Even a super conservative estimate (no threshold radiation) would yield under 200 people world wide.

Shit, iPhones kill people than that a year (texting while driving)

[crdoconnor]

>The problem is that the law can easily place blame for big huge accidents but can't doesn't put any blame on massively distributed harm. A lot of the dangers of traditional fossil fuel generation doesn't stick to energy companies.

Sure. They get this type of massive subsidy too.

They can both be consigned to the scrapheap of history if it were mandated that all new generation capacity had to come from renewable sources. This is, by the way, a very easily achievable goal given the last few years' plunge in the price of renewable energy.

>it was just impossible to underwrite. It still maybe hard to underwrite.

Which is why I'm still unconvinced about their relative safety.

As far as I'm concerned Merkel was right to adjust Germany's energy policy to favor renewables after Fukushima. There's just no point in taking the risk when the alternatives are there.

[13thLetter]

"The real reason, of course, is that it isn't actually that safe"

Perhaps you'd like to go into detail on why you think it isn't actually that safe, especially when compared with the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem it would be replacing.

[ghshephard]

They demonstrated why it's not safe. No private insurer is willing to take the risk. If it was safe, then someone would see the opportunity to profit by insuring nuclear plants -but anybody who looks at the technology realizes they could end up having to spend on the order of a trillion+ in the event of a major disaster, and so walk away unless they have their liability capped at some small number.

Their point is very good - as soon as private insurers feel comfortable insuring nuclear power plants, then we have some evidence that nuclear energy is becoming more safe.

[peteretep]

I think a few minutes of research would leave you amazed at the number of liability caps for all sorts of things you do...

[crdoconnor]

Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly.

And, like I said, I'll be convinced of nuclear power's true safety as soon as the industry puts its money where its mouth is and the liability cap becomes history.

After all, if it were as riskless as they tell us it is, they would be happy to see it go. Right?

[13thLetter]

"Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly."

The article makes the point that one small country which has invested extensively in the technology was able to fill its electricity generation needs on one specific day. Now, I'm not going to minimize that -- it's an impressive demonstration of what wind power can do under optimum conditions. But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

"And, like I said, I'll be convinced of nuclear power's true safety as soon as the industry puts its money where its mouth is and the liability cap becomes history. After all, if it were as riskless as they tell us it is, they would be happy to see it go. Right?"

Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap? If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns, I guarantee you that Hasbro would happily go along with it, and most likely fight to keep it once in place.

[crdoconnor]

>But it says absolutely nothing about the practical replacement of fossil fuels and nuclear worldwide, including in nations that aren't nearly as well situated to take advantage of wind energy as Denmark, or which aren't wealthy enough to build and subsidize expensive wind infrastructure.

Wind energy is the cheapest form of energy:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-powe...

If you think poorer countries that are too poor to build wind turbines or put up solar panels are instead going to take advantage of nuclear power you are smoking some pretty radioactive shit. The CapEx on a nuclear plant is staggering.

Cheap Chinese solar panels are getting extremely popular in the 3rd world as of the last 18 months, incidentally. Because the capex on a solar panel starts at around $200.

>Why would any industry, no matter how safe, turn down a government-provided liability cap?

They just have to say that it isn't necessary and that it can be taken away. I'm sure the environmental lobby and a few senators looking to score some points with their constituents can take care of the rest.

They are not willing to put their money where their mouth is but you are still willing to believe their protests at how safe their plants are, though. What does that say?

>If the government was willing to put a liability cap on Nerf guns

Except the government didn't put a liability cap on Nerf Guns and Hasbro didn't ask for one.

[davidgerard]

> Renewables are more than capable of substituting the fossil fuel energy generation ecosystem and the nuclear energy generation ecosystem. I think this article makes that point pretty clearly.

The fossil fuel energy system is huge. I don't have the numbers to hand, but AFAIK to stop pumping out carbon we're going to need nuclear as well, ASAP. That all present nuclear is problematic (e.g. insurance, as noted) doesn't change this.

[crdoconnor]

>I don't have the numbers to hand, but AFAIK to stop pumping out carbon we're going to need nuclear as well

It's completely feasible these days to mandate that all new generation capacity comes from renewable energy.

The fossil fuel energy system is huge, but as plants are decommissioned they don't have to be replaced by other fossil fuel plants.

What Denmark and Germany have achieved ought to be proof positive of this.

[peteretep]

As far as I'm aware the EU is the only jurisdiction without a liability cap for airlines. Presumably you think that's because planes are dangerously unsafe too?

[hueving]

Airlines have liability caps as well. Your argument is pointless. Liability caps are because of the potential size of the black swan events, not because they are frequent.

[crdoconnor]

Yes, all sorts of industries have hidden subsidies. Airlines feed at the public trough too.

The airline industry doesn't have a habit of trying to convince you that flying is 100% safe though.

[forrestthewoods]

Because the rest of our energy sector isn't also propped up by subsidies.

[ghshephard]

The Oil and Coal industry have massive subsidies, and not just the environmental externalities.

[crdoconnor]

Of course it is. This is just a subsidy that is very well hidden compared to the rest of them.

Unlike all of those renewables subsidies. They get a disproportionate amount of attention.

[seesomesense]

Because the sheeple are bleating.