4 ms·

"... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to o

by pdkl95 11y ago

"... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win..." -JFK We used to see difficulties like that as a challenge we could overcome, instead of running away in fear of risk.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> We used to see difficulties like that as a challenge we could overcome, instead of running away in fear of risk. Why build a reactor on earth that isn't cost competitive when you can better use the one in the sky? It is a challenge. Train Americans to install solar and wind across the country. Install it. Problem solved.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  See the other posts in this thread, where this has already been covered: solar and wind are not a replacement for coal. By rejecting nuclear, you are choosing coal, de facto, for the base load. Why build a reactor? Because it's safer than solar, and cheaer in the long run. Why do you want a power source that kills more people per kWh? Nuclear has very low running costs (practically no fuel) and a lot of the startup costs are temporary (new design approval). Intermittent technologies like solar and wind need expensive extra redundency and battery storage. Show me the batteries you are going to use, at a price cheaper than both coal and nuclear, Not some vaporware future technology, something we can buy right now. (the grid isn't a battery, even though most people using solar right now use the grid as if it was). Nuclear isn't easy or cheap, but it's the least worst method we have for generating power. Other technologies will always have niche uses, of course, but choosing to wait for some mythical future technology to become available is choosing to let coal plants continue polluting the world.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    > By rejecting nuclear, you are choosing coal, de facto, for the base load. I'm not. I'm picking natural gas, which while still a fossil fuel, is much cleaner and releases far less CO2 per kwh generated. Nuclear still takes a decade to build. A decade. I don't have to show you the batteries today, as long as they're built and in production in the next 10 years, which they will be. The Tesla Gigafactory will produce 50GWh of battery capacity per year: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/corner-office-marketplace/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-future-runs-batteries http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/corner-office-mar... Nuclear isn't the least worst method. Solar, wind, and batteries are the least worst method. > but choosing to wait for some mythical future technology to become available is choosing to let coal plants continue polluting the world. Safe nuclear is this mythical future technology you speak of.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > releases far less CO2 That's not a small amount. Nuclear releases 0 CO2. > 50GWh of battery capacity per year: Thank you for making my point for me. At that rate, we might have enough battery power (assuming no replacements) in a century or two. We need TWh capacity, not GWh, to change the world over to intermittent generation sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... > Safe nuclear is this mythical future technology you speak of. Of course not. Nothing is without risk. Do I need to remind you of the problems natural gas can cause? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explos... http://www.news.com.au/world/cctv-footage-shows-natural-gas-plant-explosion/story-fndir2ev-1226535030467 http://www.news.com.au/world/cctv-footage-shows-natural-gas-... You have a strange sense of "least worst", given incidentsw like these happen fairly regularly in the oil and gas industries. Nuclear hasn't killed anywhere near this many people.
    - DennisP 11y ago
      Natural gas releases half as much CO2 as coal, and in practice also results in a lot of methane release which according to some researchers makes its warming impact as bad as coal's, at least over the next few decades.

by pdkl95 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> We used to see difficulties like that as a challenge we could overcome, instead of running away in fear of risk. Why build a reactor on earth that isn't cost competitive when you can better use the one in the sky? It is a challenge. Train Americans to install solar and wind across the country. Install it. Problem solved.

pdkl95 11y ago
See the other posts in this thread, where this has already been covered: solar and wind are not a replacement for coal. By rejecting nuclear, you are choosing coal, de facto, for the base load. Why build a reactor? Because it's safer than solar, and cheaer in the long run. Why do you want a power source that kills more people per kWh? Nuclear has very low running costs (practically no fuel) and a lot of the startup costs are temporary (new design approval). Intermittent technologies like solar and wind need expensive extra redundency and battery storage. Show me the batteries you are going to use, at a price cheaper than both coal and nuclear, Not some vaporware future technology, something we can buy right now. (the grid isn't a battery, even though most people using solar right now use the grid as if it was). Nuclear isn't easy or cheap, but it's the least worst method we have for generating power. Other technologies will always have niche uses, of course, but choosing to wait for some mythical future technology to become available is choosing to let coal plants continue polluting the world.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > By rejecting nuclear, you are choosing coal, de facto, for the base load. I'm not. I'm picking natural gas, which while still a fossil fuel, is much cleaner and releases far less CO2 per kwh generated. Nuclear still takes a decade to build. A decade. I don't have to show you the batteries today, as long as they're built and in production in the next 10 years, which they will be. The Tesla Gigafactory will produce 50GWh of battery capacity per year: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/corner-office-marketplace/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-future-runs-batteries http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/corner-office-mar... Nuclear isn't the least worst method. Solar, wind, and batteries are the least worst method. > but choosing to wait for some mythical future technology to become available is choosing to let coal plants continue polluting the world. Safe nuclear is this mythical future technology you speak of.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > releases far less CO2 That's not a small amount. Nuclear releases 0 CO2. > 50GWh of battery capacity per year: Thank you for making my point for me. At that rate, we might have enough battery power (assuming no replacements) in a century or two. We need TWh capacity, not GWh, to change the world over to intermittent generation sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... > Safe nuclear is this mythical future technology you speak of. Of course not. Nothing is without risk. Do I need to remind you of the problems natural gas can cause? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_San_Bruno_pipeline_explos... http://www.news.com.au/world/cctv-footage-shows-natural-gas-plant-explosion/story-fndir2ev-1226535030467 http://www.news.com.au/world/cctv-footage-shows-natural-gas-... You have a strange sense of "least worst", given incidentsw like these happen fairly regularly in the oil and gas industries. Nuclear hasn't killed anywhere near this many people.
  - DennisP 11y ago
    Natural gas releases half as much CO2 as coal, and in practice also results in a lot of methane release which according to some researchers makes its warming impact as bad as coal's, at least over the next few decades.