New and improved nuclear plants may cost more than expected.

Great Debates
181

Risky by what definition of risk? What is ‘risky’ and what is not?

One of the interesting things I generally hear when people discuss nuclear power is that they go off on ‘risk’ without ever defining what is risky*. Is pumping out tons and tons of waste into the environment like we do with fossil fuels risky? If not, why? If so, how is it *less *risky than nuclear? Same with coal.

Our present sources of power are basically a long running accident. This gets ignored while fears of a nuclear are way overblown. Alternative energy, at this point, just ain’t gonna do it. So we end up pumping out more nasty crap into the atmosphere because nuclear doesn’t meet some undefined criteria for risk.

Slee

  • On a side note, most of the people that I end up in discussion of nuclear power with have absolutely no idea what the actual risk is. They just hear nuclear and freak, 'cause well, they watched a movie about it or something and nuclear is scary.
182

I know. If you tallied up all the health problems, deaths, and environmental problems created by coal burning and lied to the public and said those were the health costs of nuclear power, there’d be protests in every state. But if all those cases of lung cancer, emphysema, smog, pollution, global warming, dead coal miners, etc. come from coal - no big deal.

Everyone exaggerates the potential damage of nuclear power, but no one seems to care about the far greater ACTUAL DAMAGE BEING CAUSED RIGHT NOW by coal.

183

This misstates part of the argument on the dangers of coal compared to nuclear as many people experience their fears. We know the full extent of the dangers of coal gone awry: huge fires in coal seams that take hundreds of years to burn out, mining dangers, black lung, release of toxins including mercury and trace radioactive materials, etc. The public does not feel that they know the worst of what could happen in a nuclear accident. Some think Chernobyl (a meltdown) could have been worse. Some people think that could not have happened at Three Mile Island, but it very nearly did, it was a partial meltdown, just much better both dealt with and contained. People, as is part of their nature, are afraid of things they do not understand. If there was an education effort about the designs and potential risks that was honest perhaps that would change.

184

Well, that may be an explanation, but it’s not a justification. We could have many many timesm ore nuclear accidents than we do currently and still not come close to the same degree of harm caused.

185

Or perhaps because harm from a nuclear plant is so rare that it is news - similar to why so many are much more afraid of flying than driving even though driving is much likely to get you killed and kills many more every day; it’s just not news. Hysteria over nuclear is that sort of irrationality.

186

You don’t live near any nuclear power plants, do you, Stone? Trust me. We get more than enough education on the potential downsides over by Indian Point.

187

You have to admit radiation sickness is a particularly horrible way to go.

Hemorrhagic fevers are probably the only thing comparable.

188

Coal plants are dangerous and dirty. Part of the reason that it is true, is the energy people have huge political power, make giant contributions to campaigns and lobby the laws into giving them pretty much everything they want. The nuke people are the same people. They will fight hard to cut every guide line and rule they can. They are interested in making money. They don’t care about the public.

189

Well lung cancer ain’t all that pretty either.

From here. Note, air pollution is a major factor in lung cancer, as is smoking.

It appears, from a quick search, that the number of people who die each year from lung cancer is way more than the number of people killed in *all *the nuclear accidents to date. Linky. That includes Chernobyl.

Slee

190

Cite?

You do realize, don’t you, that having a nuclear accident won’t make those evil people (whomever they are) any money. In fact, it’d kill their business. They have a vested interest in running safe plants.

Slee

191

His cite is the cartoonishly evil way they twirl their mustaches.

192

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Part of the reason that it is true, is the energy people have huge political power, make giant contributions to campaigns and lobby the laws into giving them pretty much everything they want.
[/QUOTE]

As usual you exaggerate to the point of stupidity. Certainly energy people lobby to get laws favorable to them. But in case you missed it, environmental groups ALSO lobby to get laws favorable to THEM as well. Which means that no one gets ‘pretty much everything they want’.

And yet, the numbers just don’t seem to back up your assertions…unless you are claiming that the ‘nuke people’ have simply gotten lucky for the past couple of decades.

Oh, but that’s right…you don’t want to use deaths as a gauge for risk. You want to use the patented Gonzo Scary Factor(AAR). And really, how can one compare actual deaths vs how scary something is?

:stuck_out_tongue: You really don’t get it. Yes, they are interested in making money…no, they don’t care about the public, per se (though that’s really a broad brush…I’m sure some do and some don’t). But in order to make that fat money they have to care about what their products do to the public…or they will stop making those big bucks and get shut down. Yeah, they will try and lobby for laws favorable to themselves and to their bottom line. But, environmentalist will also be out there lobbying their little green hearts out, trying to get laws favorable to their own bottom lines. The laws and the politicians will end up meeting somewhere in the middle (give or take), depending on how the wind is blowing with the public.

Really, the old style environmentalists have been the top dog on the nuclear position in the US for decades now. We know this because, well, an eagle eyed observer would note that no new nuclear power plants have been built in quite some time in the US. The enviro’s have concentrated a lot of their effort on nuclear power (you know, all that nasty lobbying and such) and they have basically killed it here in the US. And it doesn’t look like this is going to be changing any time soon, since the focus seems to me to be on the magic pony solutions and all that Hope™ stuff. If Big Tree Hugger™ had gone after coal instead of nuclear then we’d probably have very few coal plants today…and a lot of nuclear (say, similar to France).

Just the thought probably has you twitching and shaking…to me, it’s a sadly missed opportunity. We could be in a position today to go green in a big way…and still have all the energy we need. Instead…we aren’t. Let’s Hope™ all that Global Climate Change stuff isn’t for real…or that it can wait for 20 or 30 years while we get our ponies together.

-XT

193

Yeah, the environmental movement as a driving force behind the movement against nuclear power pisses me off massively. Both because it’s so damn stupid (nuclear is way better for the environment than coal, obviously) and because they wasted money that they could’ve spent doing actual good things for nature.

194

A lot of Americans don’t know this, but there is a Chernobyl-style nuclear plant a few hundred miles south of the border, in northern Vera Cruz state. (Mexico and the United States - Google Books) Designed, and construction supervised by the same people who built Chernobyl, with an added dose of PRI-style corruption, overseen by the same people who built the largest medical center in Latinamerica using 3/4" rebar where 2" was called out on the plans, and so forth. The hospital collapsed in the 1985 earthquake, destroying billions of dollars worth of equipment and killing a lot of doctors, nurses, and patients. The nuke plant hasn’t collapsed (yet), but has had plenty of problems, as the cited material points out.

195

Agreed. Here, the main opposition to the Pebble Bed Reactor has come from an organization that otherwise does a lot of good for the environment. But I’ve come close to being ejected from meetings because I won’t toe the party line on the evils of nuclear power.

196

Well hell, I’m not advocating Mexico be encouraged to run nuclear reactors. They couldn’t run a corndog factory without killing people.

That scares me.

Is Mexico included when people refer to “the west”? If so, I’d like to take back when I said “the west” and say “western Europe, the US, and Canada”

197

While I agree with your conclusion, the Chernobyl disaster was not purely local. The fallout was carried long ways by wind and still causes problems far away from the local area. For example reindeer meat here in Sweden has to be radiation tested and sometimes has elevated values due to eating contaminated plants where the fallout has accumulated. People are also advised not to eat mushrooms from the affected areas due to the radiation risk. Fetuses of pregnant mothers who were 8-25 weeks and lived in the affected area have had significantly lower grades in school compared to others, etc.

Local compared to Global Warming, but not purely local. :slight_smile:

198

Here’s the latest. We have gotten lucky a few times and if backers think we will not have some ugly accidents ,they are delusional.

199

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Here’s the latest. We have gotten lucky a few times and if backers think we will not have some ugly accidents ,they are delusional
[/QUOTE]

You should look up the term ‘strawman’ sometime. It might prove helpful.

-XT

200

Missed the edit window while I was reading . From your cite:

That sounds pretty scary…until you put it in perspective. Such as…it DIDN’T kill ‘hundreds of people’, and it DIDN’T force ‘the evacuation of thousands of people for tens of miles in villages along the coast and inland’…in fact, it didn’t cause anything at all except this article talking about how scary it COULD have been. But, let’s say that it happened, and hundreds died. It would be tragic…and it would be on par with a really bad plane crash from a deaths perspective. From an environmental impact perspective it would be about on par with a major chemical leak…certainly a nasty clean up and engineering problem. Nothing remotely like the impact of, say, coal or oil on the GLOBAL environment however.

I’m certain you won’t get the point…but perhaps others will. Hope springs eternal, anyway (for those others, at any rate)…

ETA: Also, this was a decommissioned reactor.

-XT