this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
393 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59169 readers
3156 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
393
Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report (newatlas.com)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

[T]he report's executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

"The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs," says the report. "But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, essentially, nuclear power is like airships, except with worse disasters?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

More people died in airship incidents than in civil nuclear power.

E: typo

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Mmmm. Looking at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

Roughly I'd say it's at most 200-300 people. Airships just didn't carry many at once.

If you look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_fatalities_by_country

You easily go past the airships estimate. One that surprised me was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

"Estimated 100 to 240 cancer fatalities in the long term"

You can beat airships deaths will just one of big accidents.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I explicitly wrote "civil nuclear power". I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Kind of academic as your still go past the small number killed in airships.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I get about 450 (as kids bounce on me). It's not nothing, about the same as Chernobyl alone (many got thyroid cancer but lived). Let alone adding 2314 for Fukushima.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So we agree, airships and nukes are both outmoded, old tech.

also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.

At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"No evacuation." Have you ever actually talked to people?

You know that nuclear power plant up the road? They just had a big accident, we don't know exactly what's going on, and at least one person is already dead from radiation. But it's fine, and you shouldn't worry or leave the area.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.

The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

You know that nuclear power plant up the road? They just had a big accident, we don’t know exactly what’s going on, and at least one person is already dead from radiation. But it’s fine, and you shouldn’t worry or leave the area.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades

The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:

The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.

The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).