This is just another way to sell nuclear, by trying to justify its production costs higher than renewables'.
It won't work, because baseload was necessary due to technical limitations which aren't anymore.
Not a current user, but I'm happy to see the project advancing
The question is do modern reactors fall far enough into the safe corner to warrant widespread deployment?
Indeed. Each exposed human being must be able to decide. As long-lived (/'hot') waste may be a matter of concern for future generations we have a problem.
Jet liners
There are at least a few major differences with a nuke reactor:
As with cars
Same answers, adaptation (as for non-passengers victims, who now can only dismiss the risk by leaving cities) left as an exercise for the reader
people regard the risk/benefit ratio to be worth the deaths
That's the whole point.
the risks/rewards lie on a continuum and that despite it being distasteful to admit some number of deaths are acceptable
Indeed. BTW a jetliner killed my brother in 1998 (flight SR-111, he was a passenger), I had to give a thought about those matters.
If you compare the number of people likely to be killed by reactor malfunctions to the number of people saved by some consequence of the reactors existing does it compare favourably?
Answering is difficult, for example (again!) because we have to take waste into account. Moreover one cannot neglect lies published by some people advocating it, which is not precisely a good factor in my book.
I just can't parse that sentence
Sorry. Wish I had the wisdom to avoid writing while in a hurry.
The original poster wrote: "Chernobyl, but that one was a combination of bad reactor design even for its age, human error, but most importantly, deliberate shutdown of safety mechanisms while running in experimental mode".
My intent was to say that not a single one of those risks are now solved. "Bad reactor design" is not out of question (recent bugs were discovered in modern designs, and with time others may appear, maybe by hitting hard), human error is always a factor (Three Mile Island...), deliberate (or miscalculated risk-taking) did not suddenly became impossible.
in a modern nuclear plant (pebble-bed designs), when it "goes down" all it does is stop generating power, nothing more
The Soviets masters also used to tout their reactors as "sure to the point of enabling us to build them on the Red Square". When Cherno blasted stuff away they were nowhere to be found, and poor suckers (civilians and liquidators) enjoyed the ride.
Even the modern EPR was also touted as absolutely sure, then experts mandated by the first customer (the Finns) discovered that the classic "sump clogging" problem may cause a major accident, as explained in "Nucleonics Week" (Volume 45, Number 11 - March 11, 2004). It was at least partially fixed, but for one discovered bug how many remain hidden?
As for your pebble thingie don't neglect criticism (page 41). Published by anti-nukers, yep, but please read the authors' pedigrees (page 4).
For informed people anyone claiming that a complex technical thingie (for example a nuclear powerplant or a piece of software) is "fully debugged and sure" is either a naive enthusiast or a liar.
Three Mile Island? Fully contained, worked as designed.
No one knows for sure why the meltdown was avoided. Moreover the very probable causes (regulatory failure and industry cost-cutting) are not forever gone.
Chernobyl, but that one was a combination of bad reactor design even for its age, human error, but most importantly, deliberate shutdown of safety mechanisms while running in experimental mode
All thoses causes were then possible, most (if not all) for sure are and probably will.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions were (2007): 2,433 million metric tons emitted to produce gridpower, and 3,557 for other uses, mainly transportation (no car/plane runs on nuclear fuel!). Source: EIA
In other words building 400 new nuclear reactors, a major ordeal, only reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 40% and there is no further potential gain without an even much more major retrofit: only using gridpower-fed transportation means. Is it an "effective" approach?
Nuclear: 8.5 percent of the total primary energy used. Renewable (7.3%) are not ridiculous, especially given their long history of lack of founding.
We are not a clone.
