Three Mile Island to be restarted

[Thermal]

If there were some reason to expect that something would go wrong, then I think there's a valid point in what you're saying. If Microsoft was getting the upside but not liable for the downside, and there was a significant risk of a major downside, I'd see that as a problem. Heads I win tails you lose.

But there isn't such a (significant) risk. Nuclear is the safest form of power generation we have, and it is extremely carefully regulated in the US. So I don't see this as a reason to oppose the reopening of a nuclear power plant.

Agreed, it has a great track record and is clean (if you ignore that annoying core disposal). But no "significant" risk? The risk is small, but the consequences are incredible. I've read the area around Chernobyl will not be habitable for many millenia. If we continue to rely on nuclear power and multiply it's use, the risk, however tiny, of extremely bad things happening becomes s virtual certainty. And come on, this is TMI. The damned thing actually melted down once already (and no, that it was contained does not reassure me. Anything mechanical can fail, and most certainly eventually will, and possibly at an inopportune time).

We should all be cheering about more low carbon energy. If you're worried about externalities, that's the one to be worried about, and reopening this plant reduces it.

I do cheer for avoiding fossil fuels as a power source. I'd just like renewables pushed harder and made more financially lucrative in a situation like this. It is widely reported that we have broadly tipped over to renewables being cost effective for large scale production. That is solely because the tech was pushed even when it was more costly. I'd like to see MS get on board with that kind of thinking.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Hmmm... I wonder if they'll need a COBOL programmer!

I hear that those are individually weak, but highly dangerous in packs. Especially when they can set traps.

 

[Ziggurat]

Good for who, though? I'm sure as a corporation, getting large amounts of power fast for making a profitable farm is the bees knees. But is that particular tech the direction that society should be band-aiding back together?

Society isn’t doing this. Microsoft and the power company are. It’s their money, not mine or yours. And I see nothing wrong with restarting a plant that’s already built. It’s a waste to leave it idle. Nothing about this precludes others from investing in whatever power gene ration method they prefer. In fact, it just makes it more likely that any other expansion of generation capacity will replace coal rather than simply be absorbed by the expanding demand.

 

[Ziggurat]

Agreed, it has a great track record and is clean (if you ignore that annoying core disposal). But no "significant" risk? The risk is small, but the consequences are incredible. I've read the area around Chernobyl will not be habitable for many millenia.

US reactors cannot fail the way Chernobyl failed. They can fail, but not that way, and not that catastrophically. Seriously, read up on how it happened. The design was a safety nightmare from the start, an epitome of Soviet design carelessness.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

And yet France has some of the cheapest electricity in Europe, while Denmark and Germany has some of the more expensive.

That is a question of taxation, not source.

France has not solved the decommissioning/long-term storage issue, so the true cost of its (incredibly old) reactors has materialized yet.

Germany has tried for decades to get a storage location, and now has to remove their waste out of what turned out to be a bad location at the cost of billions.

Nuclear power, at this point, is an immature technology if you consider its entire lifecycle, and it is prohibitively extensive.

if it was as grand as people claim, why are there no investors lining up to build them? Why does it always take a State?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

And as already mentioned, the worst nuclear power plant disaster in US history (NOT the worst nuclear disaster in US history) didn't even injure a single person. Chernobyl this was not. There have been US nuclear disasters that did kill people (read up on the demon core for one fascinating and horrific story), but they didn't involved power plants.

The SL-1 prototype plant accident in Idaho in 1961 is another pretty scary story, where three men were killed immediately (or nearly so). It's not only a cautionary tale, but in some ways a story of how people can do as well as possible in nightmare conditions.

Every time I read about it I'm kind of amazed that as bad as the initial mistake was the outcome was not immensely worse. I think the engineering should get some credit for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

 

[wobs]

That is a question of taxation, not source.

France has not solved the decommissioning/long-term storage issue, so the true cost of its (incredibly old) reactors has materialized yet.

Germany has tried for decades to get a storage location, and now has to remove their waste out of what turned out to be a bad location at the cost of billions.

Nuclear power, at this point, is an immature technology if you consider its entire lifecycle, and it is prohibitively extensive.

if it was as grand as people claim, why are there no investors lining up to build them? Why does it always take a State?

Long payback. Although there are companies willing to invest, its just that they need certainty from Governments, which has been lacking, owing to the politics of fear and misinformation.

A more detailed look into the economics of nuclear power:
https://zionlights.substack.com/p/what-is-the-true-cost-of-energy
Which includes

No doubt France thinks of it as an investment, since the country is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and therefore gains over €3 billion per year from this, as well as cheap energy at home.

Or Japan:

The data is clear: Japan is home to thirty-three nuclear power plants, and Japanese electricity bills are around 40% cheaper in regions where there are more nuclear reactors online.

Or look at Australia:

Meanwhile, the Australian government estimates that the cost of the batteries to back up current solar and wind will be AU$2.7 billion. Australia is building eight batteries, which have a capacity of 2GW, meaning that they can store energy for around three hours. They will not replace the lost generation from coal-fired power stations that Australia is closing.

These batteries will last up to 25 years, which also needs to be kept in mind when assessing their cost.

Add to this the cost of infrastructure to connect panels and turbines to the grid, and we get an accurate idea of figures that goes beyond the scope of LCOE. Yet Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, still argues that nuclear power is too expensive to build. Australia has a ban on nuclear energy in place, with politicians there arguing that no one wants to invest in nuclear reactors in Australia because of the cost. This is not true: a report found that investment for the energy infrastructure required - from outside investors rather than working people’s pockets - is available, but investors are deterred by the ban. The report found that industry funding is available to invest in energy infrastructure, but investors are waiting on policy direction from the Federal Government, concluding that “Right now, it seems the only politically acceptable investments appear to be relatively small scale, quickly deployed renewable wind or solar projects.”

The article also refers to this report:
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_15000
The Costs of Decarbonisation: System Costs with High Shares of Nuclear and Renewables

 

[Ziggurat]

if it was as grand as people claim, why are there no investors lining up to build them? Why does it always take a State?

Because of environmental lawsuits even during the construction phase, lawsuits made possible by that same state. And because of NIMBYism.

But no plant needs to be built here. That cost is already paid.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

The SL-1 prototype plant accident in Idaho in 1961 is another pretty scary story, where three men were killed immediately (or nearly so). It's not only a cautionary tale, but in some ways a story of how people can do as well as possible in nightmare conditions.

Every time I read about it I'm kind of amazed that as bad as the initial mistake was the outcome was not immensely worse. I think the engineering should get some credit for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

Drifting off-topic here, but if it's a subject people are interested in a great book on the history of accidents is Atomic Accidents.

It's a very interesting read, and there is a chapter dedicated to SL-1.

 

[Thermal]

US reactors cannot fail the way Chernobyl failed.

Nor am I suggesting it would.

They can fail, but not that way, and not that catastrophically.

Everyone thinks they're catastrophe proof. It's why the Titanic went down. TMI went into partial meltdown because of unforeseen improvisation by some maintenance guys (iirc, it's been a while) that the "perfect" safeguards didn't anticipate. It was contained, but if the next containment issue contains one of them thar "unforeseens", well... you learn a lot from the catastrophic failures, they say.

Eta: the only reason I brought up Chernobyl was to point out the Pascal's Wager-esque consequences of **** going south. It's not like a fire. Uninhabitable real estate for millenia is a larger than normal consequence.

 

[angrysoba]

Nor am I suggesting it would.



Everyone thinks they're catastrophe proof. It's why the Titanic went down. TMI went into partial meltdown because of unforeseen improvisation by some maintenance guys (iirc, it's been a while) that the "perfect" safeguards didn't anticipate. It was contained, but if the next containment issue contains one of them thar "unforeseens", well... you learn a lot from the catastrophic failures, they say.

Eta: the only reason I brought up Chernobyl was to point out the Pascal's Wager-esque consequences of **** going south. It's not like a fire. Uninhabitable real estate for millenia is a larger than normal consequence.

People always like to accentuate the negatives. But look at this…

The zone has become a thriving sanctuary with natural flora and fauna with some of the highest biodiversity and thickest forests in all of Ukraine. This is due to the lack of human activity in the Exclusion Zone and is despite the radiation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Everyone thinks they're catastrophe proof.

I didn't say they were catastrophe proof either. I'm saying they can't fail like that. They cannot release material from the core directly into the atmosphere. If you understood reactor design, you would know why. I don't think you understand just how bad a design Chernobyl was. I don't mean just not as good as US designs, I mean actively bad. Like, that is how you design a reactor if you want it to go as badly wrong as possible.

 

[Thermal]

I didn't say they were catastrophe proof either. I'm saying they can't fail like that. They cannot release material from the core directly into the atmosphere. If you understood reactor design, you would know why. I don't think you understand just how bad a design Chernobyl was. I don't mean just not as good as US designs, I mean actively bad. Like, that is how you design a reactor if you want it to go as badly wrong as possible.

I'm not talking about Chernobyl being anything at all, and I truly don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. The part you took the extra time to snip out addresses my concerns pretty plainly.

 

[ahhell]

The reactor in question was in operation until 2019. And nuclear reactors don't get abandoned, not the way that other power plants might get abandoned. It shut down not because of any technical or safety issues, but purely for financial reasons. If Microsoft is providing the funding, then that solves the financial problem. Given that the reactor is already built (and that capital expense is a very big part of the cost of nuclear power), seems like a sensible plan to me.

And as already mentioned, the worst nuclear power plant disaster in US history (NOT the worst nuclear disaster in US history) didn't even injure a single person. Chernobyl this was not. There have been US nuclear disasters that did kill people (read up on the demon core for one fascinating and horrific story), but they didn't involved power plants.

My favorite is SL-1.

The safety concerns are fairly silly. How many people die or are injured every year from Coal and oil as opposed to nuclear?

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/mining-fatalities-rose-21-8-percent-from-2020-to-2021.htm
Turns out its little more than 100 each year in accidents related to oil and coal mining. Doesn't include health effects from pollution.

ETA: There's a fun fake news headline there. Mining fatalities rose 21.8% between 21 and 20 but you could also say that fatalities fell by more than 25% between 2019 and 2020.

 

[Thermal]

My favorite is SL-1.

The safety concerns are fairly silly. How many people die or are injured every year from Coal and oil as opposed to nuclear?

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/mining-fatalities-rose-21-8-percent-from-2020-to-2021.htm
Turns out its little more than 100 each year in accidents related to oil and coal mining. Doesn't include health effects from pollution.

Compare the number of reactors to the number of people involved with coal mining and oil drilling?

Pollution is a viable concern, though. My argument is that as nuclear power increases, the odds of occasional failures grows, and the consequences are potentially more widespread, and go beyond the people immediately working on the actual hazardous end of the game. If renewable sources are net less dangerous, and tipped over to cost effective, I have trouble understanding the thinking rbat we should move backwards in technology. Forward is usually the move.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not talking about Chernobyl being anything at all, and I truly don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. The part you took the extra time to snip out addresses my concerns pretty plainly.

You referred multiple times to areas being uninhabitable for a millennium. That's Chernobyl. You don't get that with any other nuclear accident. Hell, you don't even get that with a nuclear bomb. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm pointing out what your worry actually entails, and why that worst case scenario isn't merely unlikely, but implausible.

Compare the number of reactors to the number of people involved with coal mining and oil drilling?

Coal is way worse than nuclear in terms of danger. It doesn't hurt just the people working in coal mining, it hurts everybody who breathes the pollution they create.

My argument is that as nuclear power increases, the odds of occasional failures grows

On a per watt basis, nuclear is safer than coal or oil.

If renewable sources are net less dangerous

They aren't. In fact, solar is pretty dangerous. Why? Because of all the installers injured from falling off roofs.

I have trouble understanding the thinking rbat we should move backwards in technology. Forward is usually the move.

I have trouble understanding why you would let a working nuclear power plant that's already built sit idle while you're still using fossil fuels. That's not moving forward.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not talking about Chernobyl being anything at all, and I truly don't understand why you keep putting words in my mouth. The part you took the extra time to snip out addresses my concerns pretty plainly.

I think the part you compared to Pascal's wager is to do with the way that risk is formulated, which is usually probability x impact/severity.

So the probability may be low, but the impact could be very high.

Sure, but what is the impact that you are talking about?

Also, we could argue that the impact of not using nuclear is also pretty high and the probability too.

Germany switched off their nuclear power plants, and as a result, had to burn lignite, which contributes to global warming and deaths through cancer and respiratory disease, thanks Germany! Oh, and also it probably led, in some way, to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

 

[dudalb]

Some people just have a "Anything that is Nuclear is EVIL" attitude, and they will never change. It is driven more by emotion and blind following of a political line then logic.

 

[ahhell]

Compare the number of reactors to the number of people involved with coal mining and oil drilling?

Pollution is a viable concern, though. My argument is that as nuclear power increases, the odds of occasional failures grows, and the consequences are potentially more widespread, and go beyond the people immediately working on the actual hazardous end of the game. If renewable sources are net less dangerous, and tipped over to cost effective, I have trouble understanding the thinking rbat we should move backwards in technology. Forward is usually the move.

I willing to bet if you do the comparison to KW hours produced, nuclear still comes out ahead of coal and oil. Its fine to compare nuclear to wind and solar but its also BS to do so. Though, as it turns out, nuclear currently beats coal as a source of electricity in the US, and renewables, including hydro beats both. Natural gas is the biggest source, which is a good thing as its cleaner and safer than coal or oil.

 

[ahhell]

I think the part you compared to Pascal's wager is to do with the way that risk is formulated, which is usually probability x impact/severity.

So the probability may be low, but the impact could be very high.

Sure, but what is the impact that you are talking about?

Also, we could argue that the impact of not using nuclear is also pretty high and the probability too.

Germany switched off their nuclear power plants, and as a result, had to burn lignite, which contributes to global warming and deaths through cancer and respiratory disease, thanks Germany! Oh, and also it probably led, in some way, to Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

But, dude, nuclear is yesterday's technology.