3 ms·

Great points as to why nuclear isn't our best option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk

by bluthru 11y ago

PolLambert 11y ago
Not great points: 1. Isn't a business POV or about deadends and it applies to any shift in energy production. 2. I think some geologists are going to want to have a word with him concerning tectonics. Also just because US can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. E.g. Finland is doing it. 3. The production cost of nuclear based electricity is very weakly dependent on the price of natural uranium. A doubling of the cost in U-nat results in a cost increase of a few %. Also backstop technologies (U from seawater or Th or bomb deconstruction) are available and technologically viable (though not economically viable with oil below $150) 4. No terrorist is going to build a Pu-bomb. It's orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than a U-bomb. Moreover, no terrorists is going to 'build' a bomb. Also, reactor grade Pu is unusable for a bomb due to its isotopic composition. 5. I'm calling BS. Freshwater consumption for energy generation is typically a few % if cooling towers are involved. As for coastal NPP's: Fukushima Daini is located 12km from Fukushima Daichi one the same coast yet nothing happened there.
thomasahle 11y ago
> 40% of the freshwater in France is used on cooling nuclear power plants. Wow, I never heard this. And apparently salt water plants are much harder, and part of what made Fukushima go down.
vlehto 11y ago
1. You can make same argument about any energy recourse. "we need so big number of them, that it's futile." I guess my grandchildren will die then. 2. No way to recycle.. Except there is. Over half of current energy production happens in countries that already have nuclear weapon, or are part of NATO. So because Ghana can't have heavy water nuclear power plant, U.S. can't either? 3. Price going up with the cheapest fuel out there does not sound like much of an issue. He does not quantify anything. 4. France needs to use huge amounts of water for cooling because they produce about 75% of their electricity with nuclear. If average would be even 50% of electricity produced by nukes, we could breathe lot easier with the climate change. You can also cool with seawater. Fukushima proved that even with completely fucked up security culture, dated power plant and overall completely unpredictable carnage, nuclear is still safe. 5. Nuclear is centralized and that's not hip-n-cool. This last point is the best one IMO. But it's more of an argument why we should not rely only on nuclear. Not a reason to abstain from it.
- bluthru 11y ago
  >"we need so big number of them, that it's futile." I guess my grandchildren will die then. You can build a lot of PVs and turbines in the same amount of time, and place them closer to where they're being used (reduce transmission loss). You can also place them on top of buildings (reduces AC load by 2%) and on top of parking lots (reduces car heat and urban heat island effect). You're not going to electrify poor parts of the world with big, expensive, centrally-controlled fission plants. >You can also cool with seawater. The video addresses this. Seawater is often near fault lines, but that's not the biggest issue: transmission loss. If your power generation is on the coasts then you lose a lot of electricity powering the interior of the country. >nuclear is still safe Even if every nuclear accident was as "safe" as Fukushima, that's still a lot of wasted money. It will cost over $100 BILLION to clean it up. You can buy a lot of safe and renewable energy for that amount of money.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    >You can build a lot of PVs and turbines in the same amount of time, and place them closer to where they're being used (reduce transmission loss). You can also place them on top of buildings (reduces AC load by 2%) and on top of parking lots (reduces car heat and urban heat island effect). That was not the point. The argument was that nobody can build all the hundreds of nuclear plants that we would need. How can we build the millions of PV's and thousands of turbines? >You're not going to electrify poor parts of the world with big, expensive, centrally-controlled fission plants. Why not? It's probably the cost/watt that matters. >transmission loss Most of world population lives close to coastline. >It will cost over $100 BILLION to clean it up. Nuclear power might still be cheaper as a whole.
    - bluthru 11y ago
      >How can we build the millions of PV's and thousands of turbines? Those things fall off an assembly line. Nuclear power plants can't be massed-produced. >Why not? Who's going to invest that much money? While you're waiting around for a nuke plant and all of the infrastructure to be built, a few PV's can make a washing machine work and then girls can go to school.

Great points as to why nuclear isn't our best option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk

by bluthru 11y ago

Great points as to why nuclear isn't our best option: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nhhOitYmk

PolLambert 11y ago

Not great points: 1. Isn't a business POV or about deadends and it applies to any shift in energy production. 2. I think some geologists are going to want to have a word with him concerning tectonics. Also just because US can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. E.g. Finland is doing it. 3. The production cost of nuclear based electricity is very weakly dependent on the price of natural uranium. A doubling of the cost in U-nat results in a cost increase of a few %. Also backstop technologies (U from seawater or Th or bomb deconstruction) are available and technologically viable (though not economically viable with oil below $150) 4. No terrorist is going to build a Pu-bomb. It's orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than a U-bomb. Moreover, no terrorists is going to 'build' a bomb. Also, reactor grade Pu is unusable for a bomb due to its isotopic composition. 5. I'm calling BS. Freshwater consumption for energy generation is typically a few % if cooling towers are involved. As for coastal NPP's: Fukushima Daini is located 12km from Fukushima Daichi one the same coast yet nothing happened there.

thomasahle 11y ago

> 40% of the freshwater in France is used on cooling nuclear power plants. Wow, I never heard this. And apparently salt water plants are much harder, and part of what made Fukushima go down.

vlehto 11y ago

1. You can make same argument about any energy recourse. "we need so big number of them, that it's futile." I guess my grandchildren will die then. 2. No way to recycle.. Except there is. Over half of current energy production happens in countries that already have nuclear weapon, or are part of NATO. So because Ghana can't have heavy water nuclear power plant, U.S. can't either? 3. Price going up with the cheapest fuel out there does not sound like much of an issue. He does not quantify anything. 4. France needs to use huge amounts of water for cooling because they produce about 75% of their electricity with nuclear. If average would be even 50% of electricity produced by nukes, we could breathe lot easier with the climate change. You can also cool with seawater. Fukushima proved that even with completely fucked up security culture, dated power plant and overall completely unpredictable carnage, nuclear is still safe. 5. Nuclear is centralized and that's not hip-n-cool. This last point is the best one IMO. But it's more of an argument why we should not rely only on nuclear. Not a reason to abstain from it.

bluthru 11y ago
>"we need so big number of them, that it's futile." I guess my grandchildren will die then. You can build a lot of PVs and turbines in the same amount of time, and place them closer to where they're being used (reduce transmission loss). You can also place them on top of buildings (reduces AC load by 2%) and on top of parking lots (reduces car heat and urban heat island effect). You're not going to electrify poor parts of the world with big, expensive, centrally-controlled fission plants. >You can also cool with seawater. The video addresses this. Seawater is often near fault lines, but that's not the biggest issue: transmission loss. If your power generation is on the coasts then you lose a lot of electricity powering the interior of the country. >nuclear is still safe Even if every nuclear accident was as "safe" as Fukushima, that's still a lot of wasted money. It will cost over $100 BILLION to clean it up. You can buy a lot of safe and renewable energy for that amount of money.
- vlehto 11y ago
  >You can build a lot of PVs and turbines in the same amount of time, and place them closer to where they're being used (reduce transmission loss). You can also place them on top of buildings (reduces AC load by 2%) and on top of parking lots (reduces car heat and urban heat island effect). That was not the point. The argument was that nobody can build all the hundreds of nuclear plants that we would need. How can we build the millions of PV's and thousands of turbines? >You're not going to electrify poor parts of the world with big, expensive, centrally-controlled fission plants. Why not? It's probably the cost/watt that matters. >transmission loss Most of world population lives close to coastline. >It will cost over $100 BILLION to clean it up. Nuclear power might still be cheaper as a whole.
  - bluthru 11y ago
    >How can we build the millions of PV's and thousands of turbines? Those things fall off an assembly line. Nuclear power plants can't be massed-produced. >Why not? Who's going to invest that much money? While you're waiting around for a nuke plant and all of the infrastructure to be built, a few PV's can make a washing machine work and then girls can go to school.