# Is the fear related to nuclear energy rational? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978 "2014-08-30T17:56:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/81 "2014-09-02T13:52:19Z")
\ So, what are the risks involved with _ **moving** _ spent fuel rods from the nuclear plant to the final storage facility? Do we trust Joe Trucker not to fall asleep on Colorado’s I-70 and run his semi off a cliff? Do we even have a final storage facility yet? Just how rational is it to keep making waste that’s toxic for many many times the entire written history of human kind? When y’all are done arguing about accidents, maybe intent can be addressed. Just how hard would it be for 1,000 people with 1,000 machine guns to attack a nuclear plant and _ **try** _ to make a total mess? \ Do well regulated State militias have the 2nd Amendment right to own and possess nuclear weapons? Disclosure: I’m in favor of using nuclear power as an alternate to fossil fuels. However, I think our future has to be with solar energy. I also believe that someday we will be able to harness enough solar radiation to supply all our needs, just a matter of discovering the technology to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/82 "2014-09-02T14:46:34Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > So, what are the risks involved with _ **moving** _ spent fuel rods from the nuclear plant to the final storage facility? Again, compared with the risks of everything else, rather low. Keep in mind that rather little nuclear waste is high-level stuff - most is low-level. Mostly it is stored on-site, another situation which needs to be compared with the risks of moving it to a central location. > [@](#): > > Do we trust Joe Trucker not to fall asleep on Colorado’s I-70 and run his semi off a cliff? No, we don’t just trust anything. The stainless steel casks that are used weigh fifty tons and are made out of stainless steel. They have been in a couple of accidents, and have never ruptured or released any radiation. Of course, they have been tested by things like ramming them with a locomotive at 100 mph and dropping them onto steel spikes and burning them in fires at 800 degrees and so forth. > [@](#): > > Do we even have a final storage facility yet? We did - Yucca Mountain - but that moron Harry Reid opposed it, and that clown in the Oval Office would rather waste a half billion on Solyndra rather than invest in proven technology. > [@](#): > > Just how rational is it to keep making waste that’s toxic for many many times the entire written history of human kind? [We are going to do th](http://www.science20.com/science_20/hazardous_waste_solar_panels-103265)at no matter what. > [@](#): > > When y’all are done arguing about accidents, maybe intent can be addressed. Just how hard would it be for 1,000 people with 1,000 machine guns to attack a nuclear plant and _ **try** _ to make a total mess? It’s not going to be any [picnic,](http://www.nrc.gov/security/faq-security-assess-nuc-pwr-plants.html) even if nobody notices a thousand armed men coming thru the entrance gate. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/83 "2014-09-02T15:21:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The stainless steel casks that are used weigh fifty tons and are made out of stainless steel. > > We did - Yucca Mountain - but that moron Harry Reid opposed it Er … 50 tons just for the container … weight limits on most Interstates is 34 tons gross. Special permits can be issued with a variety of restrictions, like 10 mph max speed, detours around certain bridges, double lane widths. [scratches head] The elected Senator from Nevada opposed storing nuclear waste in Nevada … why does this make HIM a moron, or are you calling the voters in Nevada morons for not wanting the nuclear waste? However, if your point is that all these problems have solutions, them I’m agreeing with you. As I remember, the Yucca Mountain site was pretty much the best, and it has failed. Now if the best option can’t get approval … no option will get approval … that means we’re going to storage the waste on-site forevermore. How many 50 tons boxes did you say? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/84 "2014-09-02T15:25:17Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Such events are certain. I cannot imagine why you say they are not likely. They are as certain as the movement of geological plates. Who faces the consequences is also certain: it will be local people whose homes are utterly destroyed and lives are ruined without compensation. My point wasn’t that they never occur, but that in any given place (even Japan), they’re extremely unlikely over any reasonable time frame that a power station might be operational. Again, the insurance analogy is a good one- you insure for situations you expect, with a certain degree of cushion. You don’t insure (or build) for situations that are extremely unlikely during the time frame in question at the location in question. For a point of reference, in the past 1000 or so years, there have been _ **4** _ magnitude 8.0 or greater earthquakes in the region, including the 2011 Tohoku one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/85 "2014-09-02T15:33:11Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Er … 50 tons just for the container … weight limits on most Interstates is 34 tons gross. Special permits can be issued with a variety of restrictions, like 10 mph max speed, detours around certain bridges, double lane widths. So? > [@](#): > > [A shipper must use NRC-approved highway routes for transport of spent nuclear fuel](http://www.nrc.gov/materials/transportation/shipping.html). > [@](#): > > [scratches head] The elected Senator from Nevada opposed storing nuclear waste in Nevada … why does this make HIM a moron… Because we need a spot to store the stuff, and all the relevant safety considerations were addressed many times over. As you say - > [@](#): > > As I remember, the Yucca Mountain site was pretty much the best And yet the moron in question would rather blame global warming on the Koch brothers than actually do anything useful. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/86 "2014-09-02T16:39:01Z")
> [@bump](#): > > For a point of reference, in the past 1000 or so years, there have been _ **4** _ magnitude 8.0 or greater earthquakes in the region, including the 2011 Tohoku one. This is what I mean by such events are _certain_ and you mean they are unlikely. On the Pacific Rim there have been 4 9.0 to 9.5 earthquakes during my lifetime. They generate enormous tsunami waves of up to 125 feet in 1896, and a landslide tsunami has, within my lifetime, generated a wave of 1500 feet. This does not count volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes or other shit I can’t think of now. These events happen regularly on the planet called earth. The idea that there is no adequate alternative is also a load of hooey. Far more renewable power is built every year than nuclear power, and that will increase. For Germany and Denmark, they will be replacing all their nuclear power in the coming years with wind and solar. Do the laws of physics work differently in Europe? No. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/87 "2014-09-02T16:41:55Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Again, the insurance analogy is a good one- you insure for situations you expect, with a certain degree of cushion. You don’t insure (or build) for situations that are extremely unlikely during the time frame in question at the location in question. The insurance analogy is an excellent one. No insurance company in the world will take on the risk of issuing an all-risk policy to a nuclear plant with limits sufficient to compensate all the people in a 30 mile exclusion zone. Not a one. Not even Lloyds of London. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/88 "2014-09-02T17:04:58Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > This is what I mean by such events are _certain_ and you mean they are unlikely. On the Pacific Rim there have been 4 9.0 to 9.5 earthquakes during my lifetime. They generate enormous tsunami waves of up to 125 feet in 1896, and a landslide tsunami has, within my lifetime, generated a wave of 1500 feet. This does not count volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes or other shit I can’t think of now. > > These events happen regularly on the planet called earth. And even taking this into account, nuclear power is far less risky and safer to human life and the environment than the present-day alternatives. > [@](#): > > The idea that there is no adequate alternative is also a load of hooey. Far more renewable power is built every year than nuclear power, and that will increase. For Germany and Denmark, they will be replacing all their nuclear power in the coming years with wind and solar. Do the laws of physics work differently in Europe? No. If so, (and you haven’t provided a cite), sounds great. I applaud this. This isn’t possible everywhere. And it won’t happen overnight. In the mean time, nuclear power is a safer and less risky option then the present-day alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/89 "2014-09-02T17:05:58Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > The insurance analogy is an excellent one. No insurance company in the world will take on the risk of issuing an all-risk policy to a nuclear plant with limits sufficient to compensate all the people in a 30 mile exclusion zone. Not a one. Not even Lloyds of London. Cite, please, or are you just making this up? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/90 "2014-09-02T17:07:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > For Germany and Denmark, they will be replacing all their nuclear power in the coming years with wind and solar. Do the laws of physics work differently in Europe? No. [Neither do the laws](http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21594336-germanys-new-super-minister-energy-and-economy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly) [of economics](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html). And as has been pointed out several times, solar energy is not only more expensive, it also [pollutes](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html). And of course, if greenhouse gas emissions are a concern, [Germany’s record is not reassuring](http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/greenhouse-gas-emissions-rise-again-slightly-in). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/91 "2014-09-02T17:12:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Cite, please, or are you just making this up? > [@](#): > > The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires all licensees for nuclear power plants to show proof that they have the primary and secondary insurance coverage mandated by the Price-Anderson Act. Licensees obtain their primary insurance for third-party liability through American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), and ANI manages the secondary insurance program also. Licensees also sign an agreement with NRC to keep the insurance in effect. American Nuclear Insurers also has a contractual agreement with each of the licensees to collect the retrospective premiums if these payments become necessary. A certified copy of this agreement, which is called a bond for payment of retrospective premiums, is provided to NRC as proof of secondary insurance. It obligates the licensee to pay the retrospective premiums to ANI if required. > > American Nuclear Insurers is a pool comprised of some 60 investor-owned stock insurance companies, including the major ones. About half the pool’s total liability capacity comes from foreign sources such as Lloyd’s of London. [Cite](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Liability-for-Nuclear-Damage/). Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/92 "2014-09-02T17:23:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [Cite](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Liability-for-Nuclear-Damage/). > > Regards, > Shodan **The Second Stone** , you’re gaining an unfortunate reputation of making things up and presenting it as evidence. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/93 "2014-09-02T17:53:00Z")
These are not all risk policies with adequate limits that would cover nearby homes and clean up efforts. I specified all risk because it has no limitations on cause. Shodan’s quote: > [@](#): > > Liability is limited by both international conventions and by national legislation, so that beyond the limit (normally covered by insurance) the state can accept responsibility as insurer of last resort, as in all other aspects of industrial society. The citation in question begins to show the limits of the coverage, try to make a claim under a policy and you will be left like the people of Fukushima. To make an analogy, you have $30,000 per person and $60,000 limits on your auto insurance. While texting you careen onto a crowded sidewalk and kill three people and terribly maim five others, including paralysis. You can have billion dollar coverage for nuclear accidents, but that isn’t going to be enough, now is it? Nor are risks like terrorism being covered at all. The public is left holding the bag, not the owners, not the insurers. The citizens of Chernobyl and Fukushima will be getting cents on the dollar. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/94 "2014-09-02T17:59:13Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You can have billion dollar coverage for nuclear accidents, but that isn’t going to be enough, now is it? Nor are risks like terrorism being covered at all. The public is left holding the bag, not the owners, not the insurers. The citizens of Chernobyl and Fukushima will be getting cents on the dollar. Compared to the death and destruction caused by coal plants, Chernobyl and Fukushima are, unfortunately, tiny blips. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/95 "2014-09-02T18:09:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > **The Second Stone** , you’re gaining an unfortunate reputation of making things up and presenting it as evidence. > **[Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act)** > > The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially compensate the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general publ... Is a better description of just how limited insurance is with both coverage and limits. And of course virtually all the cost of nuclear power is subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers. [http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press\_release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/nuclear-power-subsidies-report-0504.html) ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/96 "2014-09-02T18:57:44Z")
Subsidized by the ratepayers? What does that mean? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/97 "2014-09-02T19:05:14Z")
**iiandyiiii** do you have any cites or responses to anything? Or are you inventing it all? > [@](#): > > Full disclosure – I am a nuclear-trained, engineer-qualified former Navy submarine officer. cite? Not understanding that the nuclear reaction with weapons and power reactors is the exact same physical phenomenon makes me doubt this claim deeply. > [@](#): > > The problems for nuclear power come into play when there is not proper training, proper engineering practices, or proper oversight. When done right, it’s completely safe. cite? please explain Fukushima and Chernobyl and six Soviet/Russian subs on the bottom of the ocean due to reactor problems. Plus K-19. > [@](#): > > Explain Chalk River and why it went wrong despite being properly operated > [@](#): > > The cores (at least for the US subs) have not breached, and the surrounding waters are periodically monitored. It’s my understanding that, in a hundred years or more, the cores will eventually start to corrode into the ocean. This will be very gradual and will not result in a significant release of radioactive material at once – essentially a very slow flaking/dusting of tiny pieces of the core. This should be easily absorbed, and releases much less radioactive material then, say, an average undersea volcanic eruption. You treat the Soviet and Russian subs as if they were fictional. They were not. Describe what they did improperly with citations. All witnesses dead? Kinda of a problem for your argument and the burden of coming up with cites that you impose on others. The burden of coming up with cites is only something you impose on others, is it not? > [@](#): > > These cores are designed so that any disturbance results in the control rods “scramming” (slamming down) into the core itself, which shuts down all reactor activity but some residual decay heat. So “scramming down” didn’t fail in any of those Russian subs? You can’t know that. But cite if you do. > [@](#): > > No idea what you’re saying here about the differences and similarities – the safety concerns of nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are really quite different, but I was definitely a nuclear-trained and engineer-qualified submarine officer. I stood many watches as the officer in charge of the reactor and engine room, and was the division officer for multiple nuclear and engineering divisions. At one point I was the acting Chief Engineer of the submarine, while the Chief Engineer was on vacation. This isn’t sufficient. Cite and explain it, otherwise you are, according to your own standard, just making it up. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > These are quite different physical phenomena, even though they use the same physical properties of matter. No. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. They are both controlled with respect to speed, one being fast, and the other very slow. While a power reactor can’t go off like a weapon, the weapon damn well can meltdown if ignition isn’t correct. They are different ways of controlling nuclear fission for different purposes. Where did you get the idea that they are “quite different physical phenomena?” Provide cites. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Irrelevant nonsense. This has nothing to do with any real-world concerns or discussion about the safety and practicality of nuclear power. Scare tactics like this are unfortunate and foolish. Coal plants have done far, far more damage to the world’s environment than Chernobyl and all other nuclear accidents. Cite? Everyone has noticed that you won’t compare the dangers with living at ground zero Hiroshima and Fukushima. That is a concession that a power plant aftermath is more dangerous. Unless you have a cite? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In the real world, nuclear power is not perfect, but its risks are far, far less than coal plants, both to human life and both the environment. There are no perfect options, and nuclear power should definitely be in the mix. Not perfect? Underplaying it much? Ask the people who used to live next to Chernobyl and Fukushima. Life ruining for hundreds of thousands. Nuclear power on a for profit basis should definitely not be in the mix. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Sure. In fact, these rational worries and concerns are part of what helps make nuclear energy safer. No, they are rational worries and concerns that go unaddressed by pro-nuke types that downplay the dangers as “not perfect”. > [@Chronos](#): > > **The Second Stone** , I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about the speed of energy released. Yes, it’s true that bombs and power plants use the same reaction. Yes, it’s true that power plants release the energy more slowly than bombs. Yes, sometimes, for various reasons, power plants release energy more quickly than they’re designed to do, and that the consequences of this can be very bad. But it is simply not possible for a power plant to release energy at the same speed as a bomb, even in such circumstances, and the consequences are therefore much less severe. Only much less severe for immediate loss of life. The property loss is still permanent, and for a vastly larger area. > [@](#): > > I think we can do a lot better than one every 25 years, but even if that’s the nuclear accident rate, that’s still far, far less damage both to human beings and to the environment than is caused by coal plants. Nuclear power isn’t perfect, it’s just better in many ways than the alternative. Most importantly, it’s safer both to the environment and to human life, even taking into account all nuclear accidents. > > Quote: > You keep asserting that this is fine and dandy, not perfect, but acceptable. > No I don’t. It’s not acceptable, and I think we can do a lot better. What you personally think, while I’m sure laudable in some circles, is not the point. It isn’t acceptable to fail once every 25 years and to _hope_ we can do better is not enough. The people living in Fukushima hoped and thought that it wouldn’t be as bad as it was. > [@](#): > > Coal mining and operating coal plants have killed orders of magnitude more people, and caused orders of magnitude more damage, then all the nuclear accidents of the world. You keep going on about coal. I’m not for coal power at all. I’m for wind and solar. So stop it with the straw man. Nobody in this thread is for coal. Although I suppose Una might show up. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > TSS Quote: > > When evaluating the risks, how many Fukushima or Chernobyl type meltdowns every 100 years can be anticipated? > > With proper engineering practices, less than one. That isn’t acceptable to me. Noted that it is to you. Proper engineering practices is a very squishy phrase. I also note that actual experience shows far more than one every 100 years. It shows one every 25 years with real world engineering practices with about 400 to 500 reactors. The expectation that engineers be close to perfect is not in keeping with our knowledge of human nature. > [@](#): > > No one has denied they both use the processes of nuclear fission. But this is just a pointless digression. The risks can be quantified, and the risks of nuclear power are significantly better than alternatives like coal plants. Still haven’t quantified them (wind and solar), have you. And remember, nobody is promoting coal in this thread. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If so, this is great news too – a far, far lower risk to human life and the environment. One Fukushima/Chernobyl every 25 years is way, way better both for human life and for the environment than the record of the other major energy sources. Way to go nuclear power! Umm, no. Fukushima and Chernobyl are unacceptable as in I don’t want my tax dollars given to Mr. Burns to run his nuclear plant as cheaply as possible by Homer, Lenny and Carl. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In the real world, the alternative to nuclear power is fossil fuels. Solar and wind can’t power any more than a tiny percentage of the needs of the world right now. Hopefully they will be able to at some point, and hopefully we’ll develop fusion power as well. Until then, nuclear power is far, far safer and less risky than the alternative. What we are talking about is how to invest our tax dollars for the future. More nuclear or more renewables. If the US government spent the same effort and dollars on wind and solar that we do on nuclear, over time we could expand and replace our sources. It would require lots of turbines and solar panels and some large methods of storage, but there are literally dozens of effective ways to store energy. > [@Chronos](#): > > Got a cite for 125 foot tsunamis ever having occurred before? The fact is, the engineers _did_ design for tsunamis, very large ones in fact, and their preparations were _almost_ good enough to withstand the largest tsunami on record. So you guys have given up on crapping on my tsunami heights, which were initially from memory. I’d thought the megatsunamis of 1500 feet could only be done in a basin, but scientists think it could happen similarly all the way across an ocean, which I’d forgotten. There are at least one instable volcanic landslides waiting to happen in both the Atlantic and Pacific. The Atlantic one is either the Canaries or Azores, and the Pacific is one of the Hawaiian islands. We do not know when they will happen. We do know that they will. The 600 foot tsunami estimate for NYC seems about five times high to me, but how am I to argue with scientists who have done the calculations? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > These risks and consequences are far, far lower and better than the alternative right now. cite for wind solar, remember nobody in this thread likes coal or ever did. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Compared to the death and destruction caused by coal plants, Chernobyl and Fukushima are, unfortunately, tiny blips. Keep telling everyone that. Across the river from me, I can see it from the top of the hill near my house, is the Solano County wind farm. I rather like it. It’s frickin’ huge and is the future of electrical generation. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/98 "2014-09-02T19:09:19Z")
> [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > Subsidized by the ratepayers? What does that mean? Public utilities in California, where I live, are allowed to raise and lower electrical charges only on application to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. PUC for short. It is a monopoly and they are not allowed to charge whatever they want. What the shareholders have to take out of earnings distributed as dividends the costs of screw ups. Unlike when an oil refinery has a fire, the oil company can try to pass on the cost to the consumers rather than the shareholders. That is how it is supposed to work. PUC rates and rate-setting is far more complicated than nuclear physics. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/99 "2014-09-02T19:18:07Z")
I’m pretty sure nuclear bombs are fusion devices … just saying … ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978/100 "2014-09-02T19:25:01Z")
Also … Chernobyl was the best thing that could happen to the area … I fully expect the area around Fukushima to become a beautiful oasis of life … it’s only silly humans who are hurt. [_Radioactive Wolves_](http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/radioactive-wolves/full-episode/7190/) [grin] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-fear-related-to-nuclear-energy-rational/696978.md?page=6)