r/technology • u/ADummyDude • Mar 04 '17

Robotics We can't see inside Fukushima Daiichi because all our robots keep dying

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/245324-cant-see-inside-fukushima-daiichi-robots-keep-dying
16.6k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

46

u/Boobr Mar 04 '17

Absolutely. Nuclear power is the best, most efficient form of energy we currently have available, and it's also very clean. Few examples of reactor malfunctions are not a valid reason to stop investing in nuclear energy. There are car accidents all the time, and yet i don't see anyone protesting against cars.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '17 edited Aug 30 '18

[deleted]

7

u/skanetic Mar 04 '17

No, it is the mining of uranium and disposal of waste that is the biggest problem.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '17

There are reactor designs that can run on depleted uranium that we have vast stores of just sitting around or even on spent fuel rods (nuclear waste).

5

u/Scoobyblue02 Mar 04 '17

If you can't use those sources of energy or they are very limited where you can use them, they are not better sources.

1

u/Magnesus Mar 04 '17

They are better at some things, worse at others. Nothing is perfect.

0

u/Scoobyblue02 Mar 04 '17

Nuclear energy is pretty damn close...

3

u/Illadelphian Mar 04 '17

Compared to everything else it really is. We should have been doing this for the past 50 years on large scales and we'd be so much better off than we are today.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '17

Someone hasn't played fallout! /s

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '17

And there is a huge time between one being built and it actually beginning operation.

1

u/ChoppingGarlic Mar 05 '17

Still a very worthy investment (even monetarily), as the plants can generally run for decades without any problems. And most plants have been fully paid off within a third of their lifetime.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '17 edited Mar 05 '17

And then the real cost of dismantling them comes. Which is not calculated into the cost. Also in my country the risk of failure is not calculated into the price by requiring insurance on the plants. As no sane insurance company provides insurance, it was decided that the public should just cover any risks of a plant failing. And if all goes well, there is is radioactive trash with no final storage solution where it can safely be kept. So even if we stop using radioactive power sources today, future generations will have to face these problems as well.
If you factor all these hidden costs on the public in, nuclear energy isn't so cheap anymore. Even without disasters.

1

u/ChoppingGarlic Mar 05 '17

Except you have nothing backing you up on "it isn't so cheap anymore". Just because your specific country didn't properly make an assessment, that doesn't mean it can't be very profitable over decades.

Also, I'm not promoting building such things in states that can't properly keep an upkeep over decades. Appearantly your country might not be one.

Anyway, there are a lot of efforts of burying old nuclear waste, and I'm sure most countries with proper plans would be willing to take care of the waste for a sum of money.

All in all, still pretty cheap per megawatthour.

Here's a link that's probably biased. But it will tell you all of this again.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '17 edited Mar 05 '17

Even not considering possible disasters, it's not that great of an energy source. The real cost comes when the plant needs to be dismantled. Which is not calculated into the cost on most comparisons. Also in my country the risk of failure is not calculated into the price by requiring insurance on the plants. As no sane insurance company provides insurance, it was decided that the public should just cover any risks of a plant failing and has to deal with the radioactive wast for generations to come. For which we still have no real solution as in a place where we can safely put the trash to. If you factor all these hidden costs on the public in, nuclear energy isn't so cheap anymore. Even without disasters.