I do not trust hierarchically organized nuclear plants, or older plant designs after watching the HBO Chernobyl miniseries (which is amazing btw).
I'd be down for some safely implemented and collectively, horizontally, organized modern nuclear plants though. And I think if you saw the designs of modern nuclear plants that aren't effectively meant to be intertwined with DARPA nuclear projects, you might begin to agree with me from an environmental perspective. At least until we get something better like solar power and battery technology that becomes amazingly efficient.
That and none of these plants should be built anywhere along fault lines or coastlines. We should have learnt our lesson there, but currently we have these things called "borders" which arbitrarily restrict where plants can be located.
But I think the important takeaway here is that until we have anarchism we cannot have safely and ethically produced nuclear energy.
re: safe nuclear
@thufie I feel like your "along coastlines" proscription is a reference to Fukushima Daiichi reactor incident, which claimed * reads marker on hand * zero lives and left a neighboring reactor core intact. Being on a coastline meant a tsunami risk but also meant access to seawater which was instrumental in the sensible response that safely shut down the system.
Honestly, top-down standardized Tepco / IAEA style reactors are remarkably safe because you can train a lot of people on the same design and have many engineers qualified to solve problems on the *exact* model which is having problems.
I think moving forward we'll wind up with two really good nuclear tracks: Bill Gates style molten salt breeder reactors that can consume nuclear waste and naturally put themselves out if there's a problem, and then microreactors which have a problem creating thermal runaway in the first place. Either way I'll be really disappointed if ITER or Max Planck figure out fusion before we get fission right.
re: safe nuclear
@falkreon I think the Fukushima Daichi reactor incident was pretty minor overall besides the ocean water contamination and I agree with you. However I think if anything is to be gleaned from it, we should still avoid coastlines, because in the event of a worse tsunami it would have been worse than an "incident".
re: safe nuclear
@thufie If that particular tsunami hadn't happened, the plant probably would have been shut down within another five years, they were already starting to realize there was an unacceptable risk on that coast. And it really is that particular coast that's the problem. I still maintain that coastlines are where you want to be.
Believe it or not, there was fairly scientific thinking even behind the contamination; they were consolidating watertight resources for the *really* dangerous water. The contamination which happened "isn't that bad", which I put in scare quotes because theoretically it shouldn't be bad because of the volumes involved, but realistically it's just hard to quantify and there's no safe radiation level. Theoretically there shouldn't be microplastic in my beer but there's microplastic in my beer.
So idk. I think *my* takeaway is that nobody ever wants to have enough watertight liquid storage on hand for their chemical or nuclear operation to fail safely.
@thufie Yeah I think if we had focused more nuclear research onto clean energy from the get-go instead of playing chicken with the apocalypse (the way we did in the 80s, not as we do now), we'd have been in a much better place with the energy crisis. Now with such public mistrust and capitalist oversight, renewables seem like the more politically feasible way forward, if only to buy time
Smol server part of the pixie.town infrastructure. Registration is approval-based, and will probably only accept people I know elsewhere or with good motivation.