By the way, official statistics are one thing (I used to love quoting them as well), but if you look at the number of "close calls" that we had and if you look into the causes behind various incidents, a different picture emerges and you might lose some of the confidence.

I also now think that anyone taking part in the discussion should read Perrow's book.

One thought I had while reading the book is that these days it might make sense to try to model these complex systems and run simulations to at least try to discover the unexpected interactions and mitigate them. Similar to (for example) how FoundationDB was developed. Simulations on that scale were likely difficult or impossible at the time when most nuclear plants were designed, but with modern computing power we might have better ways of reducing the problem domain.

Furthermore, even the operational problem is now nonexistent with newer reactor designs. Older designs, like the reactors at Three Mile Island, required the operators to correctly execute a fairly complex procedure in the event of a problem to prevent the reactor from being severely damaged or destroyed; the TMI operators failed to do that. Also, as Fukushima showed, older reactor designs require reliable backup power for decay heat removal. Newer designs have neither of those requirements; you can literally pull the shutdown switch and walk away and there will be no problem.

So while I don't disagree with what you say about complex systems in general, I don't think nuclear reactors, with today's designs, are even that complex. We know how to design and build them so that it is impossible to operate them unsafely. We just don't have the political will to do it.

I would respectfully suggest that you read the book I quoted. I also thought there were "no incidents". The book is from 1983, so it specifically describes the 70s and early 80s. There were plenty of incidents and accidents, it's just that few of them resulted in major releases of radioactive material. My take on this after reading about some details is that we were just lucky.

Some might say it is outdated — but I followed up on some of the stories described there and checked more recent developments. Specifically, the San Onofre plant which gets a mention in the book. You can read about it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_... — now tell me that we know what we're doing and that we "know how to safely operate nuclear power plants" after reading things like:

> On investigation, the replacement steam generators from 2011 in both units were found to show premature wear on over 3,000 tubes, in 15,000 places.[47] Plant officials pledged not to restart until the causes of the tube leak and tube degradation were understood.

Other honorable mentions:

> "The firm Bechtel was ... embarrassed in 1977, when it installed a 420-ton nuclear-reactor vessel backwards" at San Onofre

> In 2008, the San Onofre plant received multiple citations over issues such as failed emergency generators, improperly wired batteries and falsified fire safety data.

Again, I am not against nuclear power. I'm just pointing out that we have way too much hubris and the rosy picture of "no incidents" is not entirely true.

Also, which newer designs do you mean?

I mean, look at it from the other angle. At San Onofre, a vessel was installed backwards. It then proceeded to deliver power for 25 years & was decommissioned. Additionally, we're reading about all this mismanagement as a result of regulatory oversight. Not as a result of a post-catastrophe investigative report.

Per mile danger is the most favorable towards airlines, but you could use per-journey and then airline travel is 3-4x more dangerous than cars.

The best you can do is either say "airline travel is plenty safe enough" or make direct comparisons like "traveling from NYC to LA via airline is safer than driving the same distance".

This wouldn't be a fair comparison either, unless you normalized for number of people on the journey. (As done in passenger-miles.)

This particular case at least sounds like the system working as expected. The system was inspected, the tubes were in bad shape, so the plant shut down.

You don't. I bet you don't understand how a coal or hydro plant works either. People operating them do.

Furthermore, I feel this this could be an ideal application for AI. AI is outstanding at recognizing patterns that are often impossible for other systems to discover, so what would be better then to "train" a group of AI on nuclear plant safety and let them monitor all the systems in real time, looking for any group of subtle changes that, in the past, have lead to severe problems?

I'm sure I'm hardly the first person to consider this, so I was wondering if anyone has any info about using AI in this way?

Which avenues produce the most? Even PVs + batteries require mining and by-product disposal with environmentally devastating materials, and the fatalities cause by burning coal is almost immeasurable.

I got the Kindle edition and have read up through most of Chapter 2 now. While I see the author's general point, at least regarding nuclear power, and can understand where he was coming from when he wrote it, I already see two obvious flaws looking at it today:

(1) In Chapter 2 he predicts that there will be more TMIs as more reactor years of operation accumulate. But that didn't happen. If the expectation is that we should have, say, one TMI for every 35 reactor years of operation (35 is his estimate of how many reactor years of operation there were of reactors similar to TMI-2 at the time of the incident there), we should have had 50 or more TMIs by now. So evidently there was some major factor that he overlooked in his analysis. (The obvious candidate for such a factor is that, as someone else mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the nuclear industry learned from TMI and incidents like it, and the level of understanding of how nuclear plants work and how to avoid problems became much better than he indicates in the book.)

(2) He focuses on systems in which what he calls "normal accidents" can take place--incidents that are outside the intended operation of the system, but which are unavoidable (and hence "normal") due to the tightly coupled interactions of the parts of the system and the system's complexity being too high to be fully understood. But he completely ignores systems in which the intended, normal operation of the system causes harm, which is simply ignored because it is too diffuse to attract attention. For example, in the introduction to the book he says that we could have chosen coal plants instead of nuclear plants; he seems completely oblivious to the fact that coal plants, by emitting particulates into the atmosphere, have killed orders of magnitude more people through respiratory disease than have been harmed by nuclear incidents. But coal plants emitting particulates isn't an "incident"--it's the normal operation of the plants--and people dying of respiratory disease isn't a single newsworthy incident, so it flies under his radar and he never considers it.

You mention the San Onofre plant, but that was not a US Navy reactor, it was a commercial generating plant. I was specifically talking about US Navy reactors on ships and submarines.

I have not read the book you referenced, but I have added it to my reading list. It seems like it is focused on commercial nuclear plants.

> tell me that we know what we're doing and that we "know how to safely operate nuclear power plants" after reading things like

These are not errors that happened because nobody knows how to do these things correctly. They are errors that happened because technically ignorant managers and business people were making decisions they should not have been making. The US Navy's program solves that problem by not allowing technically ignorant people to be in decision making positions. And even technically non-ignorant people who make minor errors of judgment--far short of the kind illustrated in the incidents you mention--are fired and no longer allowed to operate the reactors, so they never reach the point where they can make a wrong decision that would have significant adverse consequences.

The reasons why civilian nuclear power in the US was never held to the same standards, again, are political, not technical. And it's also worth noting that no other energy source in the US gets held to such standards, even though all of them have caused far more harm than nuclear ever has.

> which newer designs do you mean?

Pebble bed reactors and small modular reactors, for example. But even a standard light water reactor can be passively safe against a TMI or Fukushima type scenario if the cooling system is designed to utilize natural circulation, which US Navy submarine reactors are (they do it in order to be quieter, since they don't require coolant pumps unless the sub is at high speed, but it also gives the passive safety benefit).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Besse_Nuclear_Po...

Had that hole perforated, pressurized water/steam would have jetted straight up into the control rod drive mechanisms.

The USS Seawolf, Theodore Roosevolt, Swordfish, Proteus, Puffer, and Long Beach all had publicly known incidents involving the release of radioactive material... and given the navy's (legitimate) tendency to classify stuff I see little reason to believe this is the extent of the issues.

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html#subs

The only US Navy incidents I see there are:

- Loss of the USS Thresher--the reactor was shut down because of a subsafe problem (water leaking into the submarine because of a failed weld), not anything to do with the reactor. The leakage was severe enough that, as noted, the sub could not surface and sunk past crush depth.

- Loss of the USS Scorpion--the cause is unknown, as noted on the Wikipedia page, but a reactor problem is not among the causes considered possible. Most of the possible causes involve some kind of event causing a hull breach and flooding. [1]

- Various incidents involving radioactive reactor cooling water or related substances (such as the resin used to clean the reactor cooling loop). These do qualify as "incidents", but they have nothing to do with incorrect operation of the reactor or any inherent danger or factors not being understood in the reactor design.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_%28SSN-589%29#The...

To the contrary, society's inability to deal with the radioactive waste created by running these reactors is one of the main concerns against nuclear power.

This is a political problem, not a technical problem. The only country using nuclear power that even has the political problem is the US. As noted elsewhere in this thread, every other country that uses nuclear power reprocesses the spent fuel and does not have a nuclear waste problem.

Last time I looked into it not one country had the ability to reprocess the fuel (and how would that work anyway?) and there was only one country in Europe that claimed it will have a storage facility fit for storing the waste forever, highly disputed (there are multiple for weakly radioactive waste but none for the highly radioactive stuff).

> This is a political problem, not a technical problem

Even if that were true (it isn't) that wouldn't not make it any better. Nuclear energy would still be way too dangerous, it doesn't matter whether the cause for its danger technical or political.

---

No one besides us two will read this, so I will add something I normally would not:

You claim a lot of falsehoods in this thread, like this now and the navy incidents. May I politely invite you to inform yourself a little bit better about this nuclear energy question? I really think that the political power amassed on HN could influence future politics on this question, and HN loves technical solution but sometimes misses the sensitivity for the danger on nuclear energy (probably reflecting that in the US there is no proper green energy movement and knowledge about this is in general limited). You adding completely wrong information to the discussion does not help improving the situation. So, as a real honest request: Please read up a bit more on this and don't spread pro-nuclear propaganda here.

Nobody has reprocessing capacity? You don't know how reprocessing would work? Are you serious?

http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cy...

Note the "reprocessing capacity" table.

> May I politely invite you to inform yourself a little bit better about this nuclear energy question?

I think you are the one who needs to better inform yourself. I definitely think you need to do that before accusing anyone else of claiming falsehoods.

Nuclear energy has caused orders of magnitude less harm per unit of energy generated than any other power source. So you have things entirely backwards here.

Hiding it in a mountain and hoping for the best is hardly a solution.

The US Navy also has effectively as much money as it ever needs to “decommission” reactors. How many private reactors have their decommissioning costs adequately covered? Everything I’ve read says most estimates from time of construction were woefully inadequate and thus any money that may have been squirrelled away to pay for decommissioning will fall way short of what’s required.

The answer is inherently the same thing we do with what we already have. We've been generating electricity from nuclear power for sixty years. Nuclear waste is a thing that already exists. The question of what to do with two hundred thousand tons of nuclear waste is not fundamentally different than the question of what to do with one hundred thousand tons of nuclear waste. It needs to be answered independently of whether we build new reactors, and then the answer is the same for the new reactors as the existing ones.

Moreover, we already know the answers. The big one that nobody seems to talk about for some reason (?) is that the stuff is made of commercially valuable commodities. The short-lived isotopes are used in medical imaging. The longer-lived isotopes can be used to build RTGs and generate power.

You can also build fission reactors that run on it. Ironically the problem is that people keep complaining that we shouldn't build new reactors because of the unspent fuel which dampens investment into the new reactors that can do something about the existing material.

I don't know about the Navy, but we do know what to do with the toxic waste. I didn't realize people still thought it was a problem.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing plus breeder reactors can almost completely burn up all the nuclear fuel, leaving only short lived elements behind, and no long term storage issues.

The only reason we don't do it today is economic plus arms control.

Which would appear to be a disqualifying issue since the entire reason people are advocating for nuclear and not renewables is economic.

Moreover, that is a temporary issue. You have a lot of money from oil and coal lobbying against anything that could replace them, but you don't have to reprocess the spent fuel this year, or next year, or ten years from now. You can do it thirty years from now when the coal lobby is dead and gone because nobody burns coal anymore by then. And storing it for that long is much easier than needing somewhere to put it for thousands of years.

Or if you're saying "reactors are going to be just as safe even if all those expensive regulations are removed", then you have to justify that (and justify that removing regulations will reduce the cost enough). I am extremely skeptical.

Safety is always about trade offs. One solution makes things 30% safer and costs $2500, another makes things 0.000000002% safer and costs $2,500,000, another makes things 10% safer and costs $50,000 but is strictly an alternative to a newer technology that makes things just as safe but costs $500.

The problem with existing nuclear regulations is that they're stale and brittle. You're not allowed to do something which is a safety improvement because every change has to go through a slow, expensive bureaucratic process. By definition, preventing safety improvements does not improve safety.

But it also increases costs, because technology gets better over time in multiple dimensions, including efficiency. You can't use the technology which is both safer and less expensive because existing rules require you to do things in the strictly worse ways that existing reactors do them.

The process of improving the rules is itself the source of significant expense. Opponents will fight sound proposals on spurious grounds just to extend the duration of the process and increase costs. Or propose wastefully inefficient "safety improvements" that are politically difficult to argue against, because pointing out that you can get ten times the safety improvement at 10% of the cost with other technologies will only cause them to turn around and argue for all of those things too, so then your costs increase by 110% of the unreasonable amount instead of 100%.

The existing process is inherently broken. It isn't optimizing for safety or cost, both of which would be improved by a more efficient regulatory environment. Like the regulatory processes -- by no means perfect but a thousand times better than this -- that are used for other things with equally dangerous potential like dams and large chemical plants.

Regulations get added because new accident scenarios come to light, often due to near misses in existing plants. So one would expect a regulatory ratchet effect over time, even with perfect rational regulation.

It's interesting to compare fission to another area of technology that has achieved high reliability in the face of accidents: commercial air travel. There, safety has been achieved on a pile of corpses. Aircraft are reliable because we've crashed so many of them over the decades and learned what not to do. And we can do that because society accepts the occasional smoking pile of aircraft and passenger fragments. And even there, when regulation eases off, safety suffers. Look at the recent experience at Boeing.

I don't think society would tolerate the string of meltdowns that would be needed for the same kind of natural reliability growth in nuclear.

I have.

The existing regulations prohibit safer alternatives. The safer alternatives are also less complicated and correspondingly less expensive. Using those alternatives would not only not reduce safety, it would improve safety, but they can only be used if those regulations are removed.

Here is an example. Older reactors require active cooling. If they lose electrical power for circulating pumps, they melt down. This is precisely what happened in Fukushima.

Alternative reactors use passive cooling. If you have no electricity, it doesn't matter, having electricity is not required by design. Which means you don't need a bunch of expensive multiply-redundant systems and contingencies to keep the power on.

But the new designs aren't allowed by old regulations, so things are more expensive and less safe than they could be.

> Regulations get added because new accident scenarios come to light, often due to near misses in existing plants. So one would expect a regulatory ratchet effect over time, even with perfect rational regulation.

That is what often happens, but it isn't what ought to happen.

There are two ways to address a near miss.

One is to make the minimal change to the existing design to address the issue, which is the only real option for already-existing installations. So e.g. reactors that require active cooling should have better generator redundancy. The other is to fundamentally change the design so that that category of problem inherently cannot happen.

The second one is what you want for new builds, but it's also what a low quality regulatory response expressly prohibits, or at best makes unnecessarily more costly. Because you end up with a rule that says "must have double redundant backup power generation" even for a design that doesn't require any power generation.

All you need instead of that is the ability for regulators to make timely and reasonable decisions. If there is a rule requiring backup power for pumps then it shouldn't apply to designs that don't need pumps, and if that isn't clear then the process for determining that and correcting the regulatory error should take two weeks rather than ten years.

> It's interesting to compare fission to another area of technology that has achieved high reliability in the face of accidents: commercial air travel. There, safety has been achieved on a pile of corpses.

That isn't really necessary. When you need a system to be reliable you build it with high tolerances and significant redundancy of safety-critical components. Then failures come in the form of "the expected maximum value for this variable was 100, the material spec supports values up to 400, but we measured a value of 150 in practice." Then the response is to replace the material with one that supports values up to 600. But there was never any danger, only a smaller safety margin than anticipated -- which is what the safety margin is for.

This is dramatically more difficult for aircraft than almost anything else because an aircraft requires active systems to prevent it from crashing violently into the ground. The normal failsafe of "emergency shutdown in event of serious issues" doesn't exist because you can't just shut down a plane while it's flying through the air at five hundred miles an hour and thirty thousand feet. So the requirement there isn't just "don't blow up" it's that you can't actually stop operating no matter what happens or everybody dies. Which is a much harder target to hit. And yet they still kill fewer people per mile than cars by two orders of magnitude -- while traveling ten times faster and with a hundred times more passengers per vehicle.

We know how to engineer things to be safe without making them uneconomical.

For Japan, reprocessing has been a kind of plausibly deniable nuclear proliferation. They have the material to become a nuclear armed nation in a big way, and quickly, should they ever decide to do that.

Most countries don't reprocess spent nuclear fuel immediately on removing it from the reactor. They store it until it is economical to reprocess it--because reprocessing turns most of the spent fuel into new fuel. So of course it doesn't make sense to reprocess it until doing so is cheaper than just buying new fuel on the market.

The point of reprocessing is not to get rid of all the waste immediately, but to reduce the required storage time from something totally unrealistic like 10,000 years to something totally realistic like 30 to 50 years--in other words, enough time for the market price of new fuel to exceed the cost of reprocessing the spent fuel you have stored. In other words, reprocessing is simply part of a sane long-term plan for the nuclear fuel cycle. But of course the people who are against nuclear power are not against it for sane reasons, so you wouldn't expect them to understand a sane long-term plan.

Reprocessing is a net economic loser (and that's why there's no reprocessing in the US, not because of prohibitions that were removed long ago). It's cheaper to just make new fuel from uranium. This is because uranium turned out to be more abundant than feared, nuclear power growth stalled, fabricating fuel elements with mixed oxides is more expensive because of TRU toxicity, and because the cost of enrichment went WAY down when the world switched from gaseous diffusion to centrifuges.

Reprocessing does not significantly reduce the cost of disposal, especially if fast reactors are not being used. Thermal reactors can tolerate maybe one go around of the fuel, but you then end up with more transuranics like curium that have higher thermal output, which limits how tightly they can be packed in an underground repository. And fast reactors are expensive, so using them doesn't make this an easier sell.

Countries have not foreclosed the possibility of reprocessing in the future, but (aside from it being a kind of deniable weapon material proliferation) it's difficult to see why they would ever want to.

Yes, because, as you state, the current cost of new fuel is lower than the cost of reprocessing. But that won't always be true. If we start building significantly more nuclear capacity, it probably won't be true for more than 30 to 50 years.

> "If we start building significantly more nuclear capacity,"

Why do you think that's going to happen, when nuclear is so grossly uncompetitive? And if cheap uranium is running out, then nuclear is in even worse trouble. Reprocessing might make it not quite as bad for nuclear, but the net effect would still be to place another economic hurdle in the way of fission.

No, I'm simply distinguishing it from the obviously false claim that every single bit of spent fuel gets reprocessed immediately on removal from the reactor. There is plenty of reprocessing actually happening now; it just isn't happening to every single bit of spent fuel that exists now.

> Why do you think that's going to happen, when nuclear is so grossly uncompetitive?

Nuclear is only "grossly uncompetitive" because it is penalized while other energy sources are subsidized. No other energy source is held to a standard of essentially zero risk. Every other energy source has killed many more people per unit of energy generated than nuclear has, yet people still insist on tying up nuclear plants in lawsuits while doing nothing at all about the harms done by other energy sources.

On a fair and level playing field, nuclear does have a signficant economic difference as compared to coal, oil, or natural gas: fuel costs are a much smaller fraction of operating costs, and amortization of the initial capital investment of building the plant is a much larger fraction of operating costs. Nuclear shares this property with solar and wind power, but it has a key advantage over those two: it can supply reliable base load power at all times.

> if cheap uranium is running out, then nuclear is in even worse trouble

Not much, because, as noted above, fuel costs are a much smaller fraction of operating costs than for oil, coal, or natural gas plants. That means profitability is much less sensitive to fuel costs.

Sure sounds like a great plan.

This video [1] is a pretty interesting and reasonably short look at their safety systems/precautions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_XoqXNtRM

>...Or we could have done it after Three Mile Island (which harmed no members of the general public but clearly showed inadequacies in the way civilian nuclear plants were operated). The fact that we didn't is a political problem, not a technical or operational problem.

All indications are that much was learned by industry and the NRC after TMI:

"...The NRC said the TMI accident also led to increased identification, analysis and publication of plant performance information, and recognising human performance as “a critical component of plant safety”. Key indicators of plant safety performance in the US have improved dramatically. Those indicators show:

• The average number of significant reactor events over the past 20 years has dropped to nearly zero.

• Today there are far fewer, much less frequent and lower risk events that could lead to a reactor-core damage.

• The average number of times safety systems have had to be activated is about one-tenth of what it was 22 years ago.

• Radiation exposure levels to plant workers have steadily decreased to about one-sixth of the 1985 exposure levels and are well below national limits.

• The average number of unplanned reactor shutdowns has decreased by nearly ten-fold. In 2007 there were about 52 shutdowns compared to about 530 shutdowns in 1985."

https://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2009/03/23/three-mile-is...

That's true, the industry did learn a lot from TMI--and it made no difference, because it was already too late as far as public opinion was concerned. The US government and the media spun TMI as showing that nuclear power just wasn't safe enough, and the public believed it. As a result, we have nuclear generating about 20% of US electricity, when it could be more like 75%. Imagine if the US had not had to buy any foreign oil at all after, say, 1990.

Care to explain your "carefree" nuclear or give an example of a plant that has solved this problem?

This isn't just some theory work in academic papers. It isn't even "new", lots of research dating back to the 1960s.

The design from the 1960s would require online reprocessing of the salt. This is an immediate showstopper for utilities. No utility wants to operate a highly radioactive reprocessing plant at each of their reactors, especially when that complex equipment could not be maintained with direct human contact.

The MSR design from the 1960s used FLiBe. The total world annual production of beryllium is maybe 220 tonnes; the estimated resource, 100,000 tonnes. The design could not be scaled to supply world energy demand.

Scaling any operation is going to introduce error. It's exponentially harder to control 1,000 outcomes in a civilian operation than 10 outcomes in a military operation. And when the failure scenario is nuclear debris beyond sovereign borders, it gets dicey.

So the real political problem seems to be, "I don't want to be any part of Chernobyl, USA"

According to Wikipedia, US Navy has 70 active nuclear submarines, and 11 nuclear aircraft carriers. So 81 not 10. There is also a number of decommissioned ones.

On reactors less than 200MWe. 1GWe is another game when vessel is huge and pressurized. MSR is the way to go.

https://youtu.be/iW8yuyk3Ugw

Also, in the case of an accident, the ship usually goes down and the reactor is naturally cooled and shielded by water. Then the accident us probably classified, because we don't want Russia recovering an US sub, like the CIA did at great taxpayer expense.

I think that SMRs are a way forward, even if it's a temporary solution until other safer, non pressurized reactors are developed. They draw from navy reactors and can be produced in a factory under strict QA, transported on site by truck and installed by qualified staff using clearly documented and reproductible procedures.

Maybe you just solved the problem. The Navy should operate the civilian nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately, scaling the power output also scales the risks and consequences of an accident.

This is true, and Perrow's book contains an interesting discussion of this. The Navy had requirements which are different from civilian power generation: they needed small and relatively lightweight reactors whose power output can be quickly adjusted, and where fuel can be replaced quickly. None of these requirements make sense for a stationary civilian power plant.

Yes, and not having to meet those requirements makes the reactor easier to design, operate, and maintain.

I’m reading Midnight in Chernobyl, and while the reactor design was flawed, the problem was created and compounded by just how stupid us humans actually are. Things like the builders not being able to get quality cement, for example - is that a technical problem or a human one?

FWIW, I am pro nuclear. The problem w renewables is they are focused on meeting current energy demand. But growth is based on innovation which is tied with energy use.

In other words, what could we accomplish if we could consume 100x our current amount of energy (with the caveats of clean energy and safety)?

I don’t think renewables are going to get us there.

What does that even mean? That renewables run into some hard limit beyond current energy consumption? That would be wrong.

OOM increases in energy tend to correspond with huge improvements in quality of life. I don’t see renewables getting ya there.

In particular, the levelized cost of renewables are already much lower than new nuclear fission, and fusion will almost certainly be even more expensive than fission. That advantage will make even use of low efficiency storage more economical than baseload nuclear (fission or fusion) plants.

Dam failures are nasty, the Banqiao Dam failure killed ~200,000 people alone. While nuclear may be more 'complex', both are subject to human failure and I don't think the protection systems for dams are nearly as automated as they are for nuclear. IMO with modern nuclear power the most likely cause of a major incident is a natural problem (earthquake) leading to failure which I think is also true of dams (rainfall). With climate change looming I'm actually a little more concerned about dams, there were several fairly close calls in the last few years alone caused by rainfall amounts the dams were barely able to handle. e.g. Oroville Dam had 180,000 people in danger, the dam in Lynchburg, VA, Bell Falls Dam in Quebec a month ago, etc.

I can't believe I'd never heard of this tragedy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

> According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, approximately 26,000 people died in the province from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people

We’re going to need deep decarbonization, and actually the most likely scenario is it will take decades, so there’s actually substantial time for nuclear to make a difference. It doesn’t HAVE to take a long time to build a nuclear power plant.

I’m firmly in the “every zero carbon option now, as fast as possible.” And nuclear is definitely part of that. I’ve become worried about the stalling solar power deployment rate in the US (and other places). It hasn’t stopped, but it no longer appears to be on the same exponential growth curve we needed it to be on. We’re going to need everything we can get.

If you look at the timeline and frequent schedule overruns of nuclear plants we can't build them fast enough in the US to make a critical difference at this point. If you look at China without many of the supposed anti-nuclear legal deterrents, their projects were getting more and more overrun vs estimates and they halted all new plants except for a couple plants of their own design. (and those obviously have self-development motivations). They're trying to finish their initial round of plants right now and likely have come to a similar conclusion of too slow, too expensive vs renewables.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/nuclear-plants-renewable-energ...

https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?year=2018&source=...

Also I recommend you to take a look at the daily variance.

https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?year=2018&source=...

Anything below the average of 40% is awful. The longest interval below 40% I have found was from 19.03 to 29.03. A month of storage is more than we would ever need. two weeks would be the sweet spot, one or zero weeks is doable if we use gas plants. Really the only amount energy storage that I would consider absolutely mandatory is 24 hours because we still want to use solar energy at night and wind power that is mostly generated at night during the day.

For example: I built a very low carbon home a year ago, with giant solar panels sized to charge two electric cars, and to heat the house with heat pumps.

I live in the Northeast US, where it gets cold in the winter. The reason why it gets cold in the winter is because the days are very short.

Because the days are shorter in the winter, the solar panels do not generate enough electricity to heat the house, so I end up using a lot of grid electricity in December and January.

And, what really stinks is that April was unusually cloudy this year. So, when I should have generated excess, I ended up pulling from the grid.

In contrast, I have a lot of excess power in the summer when the days are long. (Air conditioning doesn't use as much electricity as heating.)

Now, comes the facts:

We don't have technology that can store the energy that I generate in the summer for use in the winter. Batteries are great for short term storage: Charge at noon when the panels generate the most power, discharge at night.

Even worse, my very expensive Powerwall can't run my heat pump, nor could it hold enough charge to heat my home overnight. Even if I doubled my panels and had a few more Powerwalls, I'd need to pull from the grid in some of the rather bad cold snaps we had this winter.

This is why people say that Nuclear can solve the problem now. Renewables are a great long-term solution, but we still need a lot of R&D to solve the problem of storing energy in the summer for use in the winter. In contrast, the nuclear power plant 15 miles from my home can run my heat pump in the dead of winter, without requiring any new storage technology.

I am a bit curious why running a wood fired stove in the winter doesn't meet your heating needs in a modern well-insulated low carbon home? We need a set of different, possibly non-uniform solutions. For heat, why not store power by growing forests in the spring/summer, and burning wood in the winter? Not high-tech I know, but some of the automatic pellet feed systems are very low touch.

I honestly don't mean for this to be snarky, but I know it's going to sound like it is.

(1) How much property do you believe one home would take to heat using trees?

(2) How quickly do you think trees can grow, barring some horrific invasive species?

(3) Why do you think we moved away from this model in the past?

Spoiler, I know these answers for my area of the US (Northern Midwest), I'm just fascinated to see why you would ask that question. Because it's ridiculous as a solution.

But in what way are those carbon neutral? (which is what I thought was the point of this entire thing)

And that doesn't answer my questions.

It wasn't supposed to do so, but raise awareness that your questions are already highly relevant in the present and not just a hypothetical future: The UK consumes something on the order of 8 million tons of wood pellets per year.

The carbon footprint depends on the source of the wood (eg replacing naturally grown with farmed trees is not a carbon neutral activity). Shipping has to be considered as well.

Uninformed layperson that I am, I'd guess power-to-gas would be a superior solution, but it's pretty expensive right now...

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-ch...

In that scenario, there will be strong incentive to find uses for the low capacity factor very cheap (nearly free) power the curtailment implies. For example, very cheap mediocre efficiency membraneless electrolyzers could make hydrogen. Also in that scenario, there is no place for high capital cost baseload sources, as the price will crash too often for them to be profitable.

It would be great if Germany replaced all their natural gas power plants in favor of storage. It is the perfect solution and it would end the nuclear power discussion rather quickly if nations would actually start to use it rather then building more gas based power plants.

I am in the political camp that says we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short time.

While I'm very skeptical of fossil fuels with carbon capture being any sort of all-around solution, for seasonal use - nat gas storage with fuel cells or turbines with carbon captured outputs seem like a possible mid-line seasonal solution.

That's not how public opinion, politics or economics works and if you're posting on HN you're educated enough to know better.

First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? Is that going to be through a UN agreement or are you going to convince developing nations like China and India that they shouldn't use fossil fuels to catch up even though the rest of the world got to do so during the industrial revolution?

Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? Are we going door-to-door letting consumers know that they're dum-dum children and we know best, or do we just use some executive orders and imminent domain to force it down their throat?

Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands all the world over considering it takes a decade to build a nuclear power plant? Renewables?

Ok, so how are you going to generate sufficient electricity from renewable sources in dark, windless places WITHOUT using fossil fuels?

Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? Because last time I checked you need quite a few plastics and petrochemicals to manufacture the electronics. Not to mention the massive amount of concrete needed in the construction of wind turbines and other facilities, which of course absorbs oxygen like a sponge.

A good start would be EU. Progressive changes would look like a resolution to reduce the use of coal in power production (already exist to some degree), and then continue by putting goals like max 30% of energy production from fossil fuels by year 2030, then 20% by 2040, and a goal for full stop at hopefully the end up this century. The general problem however is that the we might not have enough time to slowly phase out polluting power production in time to reach the Paris Agreement. If we ask why china or India would agree, the same question could be asked why they signed the Paris agreement.

> Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard?

If the chose is between raising sea levels, expanding deserts, melted ice caps, mass extinction and other rather nasty scenario from global warming, or just putting a bunch of spent nuclear material in a miles long deep hole under a mountain, the choice seems pretty simple from a public relation perspective. Nuclear waste that is currently pilling up is bad but putting more pollution in the atmosphere is looking right now as being worse. The choice is choosing which of the two problems we prefer to have.

> Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands

Parent comment said they wanted to use storage and renewable, as in their view that is the cheapest way to solve the issue. Alternative we could start building those nuclear power plants and hope they can be built faster than the global warming crisis will unfold. The third alternative seems to keep burning fossil fuels while telling our self that it is fine as long we also use some renewable once in a while.

> Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines?

I think you are interpreting my statement a bit too literal. No change happens overnight. The goal of net zero emissions is right now an impossibility. A lot of climate research however says that we need to get there yesterday. How we combine the reality of pollution with the practical reality of maintaining supply in the energy grid is currently unsolved.

So much for "ban all burning of fossil fuels today"

So yes. It would be good if we banned all burning of fossil fuels today. I would even say it is second best to reaching it yesterday. Third best is tomorrow, but because of practical reasons 2030 might be the best we can achieve. The first step however is to find agreement that net zero emissions is the goal, and in order to reach there we can't continue to burn natural gas and tell us that because of economical reasons gas is superior to nuclear.

Wikipedia says otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...

In order to replace fossil fuels in the US they would need to build about a million new ones of the current biggest version, through 11hrs capacity sounds low in regard to seasonal changes. They also need to build a matching number of renewable power plants to fill the storage, plus some overhead since storage use more energy that they produce. It is definitively plausible solution which I have nothing against. Looking at the US grid I interpret it to mean that storage is currently responsible for less than 0.1%.

Sometimes he leaves out details in his stories that make the behavior of the people involved seem less perverse.

Some of his predictions were also wrong, like the one that problems with aviation safety and marine safety were going to get worse.

I think the title of the article is exactly right - nuclear power is just the usual plane vs car safety fallacy scaled up, with potentially devastating consequences for our civilization.

Surely you're not comparing the rate of near misses in nuclear to the rate of actual deaths in coal? Every industry is full of sloppy practices, and that's why ships occasionally sink and bridges occasionally collapse. That's not unique to nuclear.

Part of the fear might be that a nuclear accident could harm "innocent" ordinary people who don't work there, but mining accidents feel more acceptable because we're not miners and it's their decision to do dangerous work, and we don't have to worry for them because it'll never affect us.

I wasn't comparing anything of the kind. Please read my comment again.

We need every resource at our disposal.

As I said, solar/wind and nuclear are not complementary. They're in competition.

I expect nuclear to show little or no cost decline in that time. And I expect renewables to have shown large continued declines. I expect solar to have fallen by a factor of 2. Given that sort of decline, even low efficiency seasonal storage could beat nuclear.

High latitude regions -- what latitude are you talking about? 95% of the world's population is below 50 N/S. For the few in true polar regions, I suggest solar + moderate temperature geothermal could be a good combination. Geothermal would be used in the winter, when a very low temperature heat sink is available.

In a solar dominated future, I expect those high latitude regions to eventually lose most of their energy-intensive industry. They will not be able to compete with industries at lower latitude with better access to cheaper solar power. Having expensive nuclear available there will not save them from this.

We're discussing whether we should invest in nuclear. Renewables have reduced in price because of investment. Nuclear has not because we have dramatically reduced our investments there over the last several decades. If we invest again in nuclear, there will be cost reductions from the learning curve. If we don't, there won't be cost reductions.

IMHO, climate demands we invest in every promising resource. And that includes nuclear.

Governments have invested very heavily in nuclear, much more so than in renewables. To pretend there hasn't been investment is disingenuous in the extreme.

Or are you arguing that they never can do so? If you are arguing that, I must disagree.

Nuclear has far more regulation and decades of operational experience. Newer designs are incredibly safe and offer far more power, constantly, than renewables alone.

I think we can all agree that a mix is in our future however I think the article is probably spot on that fear of nuclear technology, however misplaced, is a significant contributor to its slow adoption and greater expense.

You can hold a rock made of heavy metal in your hand which would kill you if ingested. If the rock were a gamma particle emitter, however, those subatomic particles will leave the rock and pass into your body, then through your body and out into the world beyond.

This poorly understood fact is what makes nuclear materials so dangerous. They simply cannot be compared to other "poisons" such as are used in solar plants or PC chips.

Several studies have found a connection between ingestion of tritium-contamined water and health effects, including DNA damage that leads to increased infant mortality. [1][2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

[1] http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html#BEIR

[2] http://www.ccnr.org/tritium_1.html#UN-H

https://agrdailynews.com/2015/07/01/how-to-remove-radioactiv...

Trying to rely only on intermittent power sources has huge storage requirements due to weather along with daily/seasonal variations. For example, one estimate is that Germany would need about 6,000 pumped storage plants which is 183 times their current capacity:

>...Based on German hourly feed-in and consumption data for electric power, this paper studies the storage and buffering needs resulting from the volatility of wind and solar energy. It shows that joint buffers for wind and solar energy require less storage capacity than would be necessary to buffer wind or solar energy alone. The storage requirement of over 6,000 pumped storage plants, which is 183 times Germany’s current capacity, would nevertheless be huge.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/144985/1/cesifo1_wp5...

>...The current expectation in the utility industry is that by the time next gen nuclear is commercialized, the grid will already be >90% carbon free.

What is your industry source for this? Getting the grid to be >90% carbon free is a huge undertaking and won't be done anytime soon.

Looking at human history, the assumption that some state power will always be able to manage it seems rather naive. There have been long stretches of feudalism, warfare, and all-out anarchy and indeed the current relatively stable forms of government are not the norm historically. If all it takes to cause a nuclear meltdown is a brief lapse in order or relative peace, then that doesn’t strike me as very anti-fragile.

Furthermore, nuclear power requires and perpetuates government control over things in a way that say, solar energy, doesn’t. Whether that’s a good thing or not depends on your political persuasion, of course.

That said, one could probably also make the opposite argument that nuclear power would lead to more incentives for peace and stability, in the same way that arguments for Mutually-Assured-Destruction argue that nuclear weapons prevent warfare.

If that happens, the death caused by nuclear power will be the least of your concerns. A descent into anarchy would result in millions or tens of millions of deaths resulting from the collapse of civilization. A few hundred or thousand deaths from any nuclear power plants would be a rounding error in the calculation.

Solar/wind/storage means getting by with orders of magnitude less energy usage. Maybe we should? I just think that asking people to vote for that is even more impossible than getting them to vote for nuclear.

GP still has a point: asking people to vote for nuclear sounds hard because of the perceived risks, but even if there was no perception of risk, it'll still be very hard to justify the costs to voters.

"You can't commute to work anymore because your car will be too expensive to charge. Or, rather it will be a luxury to use a car."

"Ok, I guess?"

"You'll have to live within a few miles of work"

"Well..."

"If you have a two income family and your workplaces are across the city, one of you will need to leave your job."

"That sounds difficult."

"You can't have a detached house in the suburbs. You'll bankrupt yourself heating it".

"I have to move? Hmm... what was that you said about nuclear?"

Yes it will be. There are many many more externalities to using cars as primary transit than their CO2 output. Noise, land use, inefficient use of energy in terms of kWh/personmile, microplastic from tires, accidents,...

> You’ll have to live within a few miles of work.”

There’s such things as mass transit that’s actually quite ok at solving that problem. Now, if you mean “we cannot all live in suburbs and everyone gets a house and a little garden.”, yes, that’s already true. The sprawl would not be possible to manage. It’s already not true for a large chunk of the population.

Heating a house is the least of our issues. Heat is something that we can store fairly easily: Take a large, well insulated tank in your basement, fill it with water (or a better suited liquid, but water will actually do). Heat it up during the day, either using solar panels or electricity driving a heat pump, use it during the night. Works with coolant, too. Insulation is a fairly well understood problem and in such a setting, losses are fairly low.

Hey, maybe you're right! Maybe we should stop using cars! Maybe you've convinced a couple of people to do that right now! Now convince 100 million US voters! Politics is the 'art of the possible'. That's what we're discussing!

There’s such things as mass transit that’s actually quite ok at solving that problem

But none of our cities in North America have been built with that in mind. Convince 100 million US voters to move to transit-serviceable neighborhoods.

Now, if you mean “we cannot all live in suburbs and everyone gets a house and a little garden.”, yes, that’s already true

With nuclear, you can continue doing this. Convince 100 million US voters to move out of the suburbs in the next 20 years. Maybe they will?

Heating a house is the least of our issues. Heat is something that we can store fairly easily: Take a large, well insulated tank in your basement, fill it with water (or a better suited liquid, but water will actually do). Heat it up during the day, either using solar panels or electricity driving a heat pump, use it during the night. Works with coolant, too. Insulation is a fairly well understood problem and in such a setting, losses are fairly low.

This is difficult in northern climates, with short days and shallow noontime sun. Or are we asking people to stop living north of some particular latitude? That's a tough sell too!

And its not just the US - politics is reflexive. As soon as your "impose a heavy carbon tax to make oil and gas prohibitively expensive and to encourage the deployment of solar storage" bill gets passed, you can forget about winning the next election - people will vote a guy in who repeals it as soon as it hits their pocketbook and their standard of living drops. Politics is the art of the possible. I don't see how you're going to convince people to vote for this.

Even then power generation for electric cars is really not a major issue with renewables: most cars will be charged during the day when for example solar power is quite abundant. So I don’t recognize the argument for nuclear power here.

political will

Yes! And money! Convince people to vote for that now! Convince 100 million US voters! Anyone who has taken an interest in municipal politics knows how expensive and inefficient it is to service suburbs with transit service. The suburbs themselves are the problem. Just don't tell the people living in them that!

Even then power generation for electric cars is really not a major issue with renewables: most cars will be charged during the day when for example solar power is quite abundant. So I don’t recognize the argument for nuclear power here.

On cloudy days, in the winter, do you just not go to work? Does everyone stay home from work? Or does everyone draw from the utility-scale storage to charge their cars? 3TW doesn't include cars - presumably we need to store power for them?

Nuclear. Note that I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it's a hard sell, even without risk perception.

The reduced number of new plants has resulted in increased costs for the parts required to build a plant. If we build more plants, capital costs will be reduced.

I agree that solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources are ideal for smaller installations. Although, battery technology, manufacturing capacity, and available raw resources will not be capable of supporting radical change anytime soon.

New nuclear can be a solution. Or, at least, it will need to be part of the process if we are going to replace large scale carbon emitting power production facilities.

And as I argued, renewables don't have to go 100% to kill nuclear. Just forcing nuclear to be intermittent, when the renewables and short term storage are not available, is sufficient.

[0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-nuclear-weapons-moderniz...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-...

The point is nuclear is not competing (just) with coal, it's competing with every other alternative and combinations of alternatives. For nuclear to be preferable it has to beat all of them, not just one of them. Comparing it to just coal is a species of strawman argument.

Why do you people keep saying that? It's not true, and it's obvious that it's not true. It's not true in two ways: renewables can do so, and nuclear can't do so (too expensive, too risky, too dangeous for proliferation).

If you go here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

Once again there's no link to the study. And if you go here: https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=...

"Read the article" isn't an option! Now the question is: Were public funds used in the study? If so, we own it and should have access.

>This work was supported by the UC San Diego Frontiers of Innovation Scholars Program; the UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy; the Electric Power Research Institute; and the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making at Carnegie Mellon University, which is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (SES-094970).

Unfortunately I had to use a site available at a Taiwan hostname to view the funding source info.

Scientific articles can nowadays be found Sci-Hub:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.0...

This seems like a flawed study. It implies that previous nuclear accidents are sufficient data to form a precise “statistical risk” level. And if people don’t decide based on those statistics alone they must be irrational and just “anxious”.

That is not a scientific conclusion. Nuclear accidents are rare, but potentially extreme. Just one more major accident, or the first case of terrorism, could significantly change the statistics. Thus It is possible that people are being rational when they recognize that we have too few data points to form a precise risk model for nuclear power.

So I think we're fighting a couple of battles here: fear-mongering and misinformation/ignorance, and I guess they go hand-in-hand.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/05/hypothetical-numb... [2] Kharecha Pushker A, 2013 [3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107808741770497... [4] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul...

One of the arguments against nuclear is that it's not a short-term alternative; nuclear power plants take decades to build. For instance, the latest nuclear power plant in my country is under construction for over 30 years, and is still not complete; the other reactors in the same complex took 12 years and 24 years to build, according to Wikipedia.

Education on nuclear statistics and modern nuclear technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor) would be useful.

Though I wonder if we're stuck for a similar reason many are afraid of flying, but not of driving - despite driving being significantly more dangerous statistically - the idea/story of a plane crash is vastly scarier than a car crash.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generat...

Public's Dread of Nuclear Power Management Limits Its Deployment

It's not that we're afraid of nuclear power, it's that we're afraid that nuclear power will be managed as poorly as our other basic infrastructure is.

Critical thinking skills and more statistics education is something the world sorely needs.

I'll also add here that Fukushima is still pouring radiation into the Pacific Ocean while we pontificate.

Yes, it still involves possibly polluting reagents (some common reagents are the same as in microchip production, btw). However, it enables use of different types of reactors and different total economy of nuclear power generation.

The end result is that properly managed, you can limit remaining waste as well as extend usability of each kilogram of fissile material several times.

Reprocessing of waste is also how several crucial isotopes are produced - for example, Canadian CANDU reactors are famous for producing important resources for medicine (radiation sources mainly). Similarly, Polish research reactors near Warsaw partially pay for their upkeep by reprocessing the spent fuel into medical isotopes and weapons-grade plutonium (which is then milled with uranium into MOX fuel for civilian reactors)

I think it's impressive a country can suffer the worst nuclear accident but still overcome the fear of using it.

(I think the root cause of why it's not is irrational fear of radiation, which is why I love https://xkcd.com/radiation/ so much)

https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2017/05/hypothetical-numb...

Despite that, I use a similar argument to that graph on the (rare) occasions I've discussed nuclear energy with friends and family.

It's simply based on historical data, which is hugely misleading and dishonest.

Each existing barrel of nuclear waste has been causing risk for few decades at max but will cause risk for thousands of years.

(Not to mention all the waste that has been dispersed in the environment)

This is like driving a car for a 30 seconds and claiming that it's safe.

There’s lots of construction material that has isotopes with a long half life. But the long half life means it’s barely dangerous (less dangerous than background levels of radiation in many habited places in the world).

The stuff that’s actually dangerous for humans are isotopes with short half lives. Those isotopes, by definition, don’t last long.

citation needed

https://archive.org/download/20160422TrumpEnergyLetterSC/201...

QUOTE

We must finish taming fire.

It is no longer enough to raise sensible children without an irrational fear of nuclear energy. They must become aware at a young age that there is a silent war on and they must, in order to ensure the continued survival of modern civilization, begin to oppose and publicly ridicule anyone exhibiting this fear. This may range from a gentle instruction and chiding of those who express misgivings honestly and openly, to a direct and aggressive attack on the greatest dangers of our time — the ones who deliberately cloak their anti-nuclear sentiment in Byzantine ways intended to derail debate and parry the subject to other 'alternative' approaches.

It is unethical to see no clear path to unbounded Energy as anything but an existential threat.

Sound familiar? That is similar to the tactic fronted by frenetic climate alarmists who are trying to push a dozen pet agendas and several for-profit agendas crafted specially for them, all at once — rallying the people over a global average temperature signal that is presently buried in noise, and a CO2-to-temperature causation that may turn out to be nil or even backwards. Unfortunately there is an international scam in progress and the scammers are clever, they have seized the moral high-ground because it had been left unoccupied and undefended. Those who praise humanity and progress for its own sake, and would remind others we should never judge ourselves in haste, must have wandered off somewhere.

There is also a scuffle on the Global Warming moral high-ground as the folks who run nuclear power plants are kicked in the face and tossed off the mound. They expected to be welcomed with open arms because nuclear energy will help save the planet from CO2. They did not realize the movement is rife with people whose irrational fear of radiation exceeds any commitment to the environment. Anyone who even mentions nuclear power gets a feral and brutal response. I've taken pity on the nuclear industry and have tried to explain the phenomenon but they're not taking it very well. Like the Amish, our nuclear power industry needs staunch defenders surrounding it. They're just too polite for their own good.

Unfortunately, we have passed beyond peak politeness. To force Energy debates to address practical solutions, bullies are needed. We must rout the occupiers and re-take the moral high-ground because we place a high priority on survival, and for the children's sake. And because ... well ... "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals..." And other such stuff.