Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

moral_luck t1_j7jszcb wrote

Reply to comment by simcoder in Rolls-Royce Nuclear Engine Could Power Quick Trips to the Moon and Mars by darthatheos

Quick question. What do you think the total externalized cost of Fukushima was? I have an estimate ~$100billion. Sound like a lot, right?

Coal industry externalizes an estimated $50 billion/year.

1

simcoder t1_j7jt8v2 wrote

I'm no fan of coal and I'm a huge, huge fan of clean air regulations and things like carbon/pollution taxes. So, to that extent, I'm in favor of acknowledging the true price of coal as well.

But, once you shut the coal plant down, the vast majority of the long term impact shuts down as well. Not so much with nukes. That stuff hangs around for a very long time and you have to manage it all along the way.

That's why the industry requires such extreme indemnities.

1

moral_luck t1_j7jtvfj wrote

>the vast majority of the long term impact shuts down as well

Source? because I can find one that contradicts this.

1

simcoder t1_j7ju8f2 wrote

Let me ask you this.

If we had to evacuate or abandon a major city because of a nuclear power plant accident, would you still think that nuclear power was worth it?

1

moral_luck t1_j7jv00i wrote

You're asking airplanes vs cars here. And we know the answer to that, airplanes are vastly safer.

To answer your question directly. It depends. Basically what would the frequency of occurrence be and what are the alternatives?

With the information we have, yes, it is worth the risk. Why?

Nuclear is a better alternative in terms of externalized economic and health costs than what it would replace (it won't replace solar, wind or hyrdo).

Do you think we should continue to mine and burn coal while we transition to an entirely solar/hydro future? You really think coal is better than nuclear? Or do you think natural gas is better than either of them?

I am assuming you realize that an entirely solar/hyrdo/geothermal/wind electrical grid is not currently feasible. I am also assuming you also realize that is what we will and need to transition into completely in a few generations.

So the real question is, what is best gap filler for the next 50 to 100 years?

1

simcoder t1_j7jv7xn wrote

Oh I'm not saying we should get rid of nuclear. And I think that nuclear is precisely that, a gap filler till we have something better.

But I also think the risk of having to abandon or evacuate a major city is enough to push nuclear over the edge to a "currently necessary 'evil'" as opposed to some techno silver bullet.

Plus managing the spent fuel for the next 10,000 years or so. That's going to hit your bottom line pretty hard without a govt stepping in and pushing that onto future generations to pay for.

1

moral_luck t1_j7jvweg wrote

Great! so we're on the same page! Very few people who currently advocate for nuclear thinks it's the end all of electrical generation.

I think it's pretty clear to most people that we should be harnessing the huge fusion reactor in the middle of our solar system for the future use. Currently our issue is energy storage, i.e. batteries. Those will also have externalized costs.

Storage is obviously a long term issue. We have built a seed vault so it's not entirely outside our capability to handle.

But long story short, nuclear is a better option than coal ESPECIALLY when considering externalized costs.

1

simcoder t1_j7jw6dj wrote

>But long story short, nuclear is a better option than coal ESPECIALLY when considering externalized costs.

I would say they are both bad in unique ways.

However low the risk, abandoning a major city is unimaginably bad. The spent fuel management will soak up money that could be spent on better options for 10,000 years or so after we've transitioned to something else.

And the carbon benefit is not a slam dunk. Particularly when you consider those externalized costs.

1