18 ms·

Similarly, coal-burning power plants put more radioactive materials into the atmosphere in a year than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, but no

Similarly, coal-burning power plants put more radioactive materials into the atmosphere in a year than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, but nobody worries about that because coal power is old and we're all used to it. Ironically, the people opposing the construction of new nuclear plants are implicitly encouraging the construction/refurbishment of coal plants, and thus increasing the amount of radiation in the atmosphere.

mcv 11y ago
Well, people worry about coal plants primarily because of the CO2, and secondarily because of soot, dust and other pollutants. I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants, though. Most people who oppose one, also oppose the other.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants That's exactly what people are supporting when they oppose nuclear power. Rejecting nuclear doesn't provide power, so it's a de facto vote for staying with the status quo of coal. Until solar/wind can operate fully without a natural gas backup, it's still vaporware for the base load. Maybe that will change in the future, and solar/wind should obviously fill some (non-base load) power generation needs, but until that happens we generate power with either nuclear or carbon. Pick one or other; not choosing leaves the choice to the market which is always going to choose whichever is cheaper, which is coal because they externalize the cost to human health and the environment.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Natural gas is not remotely as dirty as coal (though it still produces CO2, obviously). And I don't think we're going to get rid of gas anytime soon, particularly because it adapts more quickly to changes in demand than anything else. I disagree that opposing nuclear means you cannot oppose coal. You can, and many do. I think the main point is that new investments should go primarily towards wind and solar, not towards nuclear, but I do agree that it's way too early to close existing nuclear plants as long as they work well. The German post-Fukushima plan to close their nuclear plants is folly; they should be closing their coal plants first. But nuclear plants are expensive, and I think Uranium/Plutonium fission can be transitionary tech at best. The primary target for investments should be on cleaner tech, and on better networks and storage to deal with fluctuations in supply. That is absolutely an issue, but it's an issue that's being worked on.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > adapts more quickly to changes in demand I was addressing the base load[1]. >> it's still vaporware for the base load. By definition, the base load does not change quickly. Obviously nuclear (and other slow-to-change generation methods) need to be supplemented with more adaptable methods for the load-following[2] and peaking[3] loads. > I think the main point is that new investments should go primarily towards wind and solar The market doesn't care where you want investment allocated. Power demand is going up dramatically over the next 50 years - which is very good[4] for world stability - and basic economics (and historical experience) says that demand will usually be filled by the cheapest supply. While they have high initial R&D cost, that can be nuclear if we allow for standardized mass production and existing modern designs to proceed (both of which are currently blocked by anti-nuclear fools). If we do nothing, coal (and other carbon-based sources) will remain the cheapest. Maybe in the future we can include solar/wind as cheaper, but for the main base load, they are currently subsided with natural gas (and other) backups. Solar/wind by itself is still vaporware. > they should be closing their coal plants first. Absolutely. If Germany had spent the money they've spent on coal replacement power generation on nuclear, they might have had completely zero carbon energy production several years ago. Instead, they are limping along one of the most hazardous generation methods because of idiotic radiophobia. > Uranium/Plutonium fission As usual, you are leaving out thorium, which is what we should have been using. > investments Given that my brother is working on new photovoltaic generation, I'd love to see a lot of investment for better renewables. The new epitaxy methods he invented for his PhD made InGaN heterojunctions that were 90% efficient in converting sunlight, which is outstanding if a mass production method can be created. Investment in basic research is always important. However, what matters right now is what we can currently make. Vaporware doesn't matter until it becomes an actual shipping product. If we wait for hypothetical methods, we allow more coal power to be built. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant [4] https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing...
      - 11y ago
- blakeyrat 11y ago
  Thus the word "implicit". If you oppose nuclear power, you implicitly support the technologies nuclear plants compete with, specifically, oil and gas plants. If you oppose nuclear, oil, and gas plants all at once, then you need to give a really good explanation of how we're going to generate base-load for our power grid. Because you can't do base-load with solar or wind, and I'd wager those people also oppose constructing new dams. (And in the US, all the good dam sites are already either dammed or in a National Forest.)

mcv 11y ago

Well, people worry about coal plants primarily because of the CO2, and secondarily because of soot, dust and other pollutants. I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants, though. Most people who oppose one, also oppose the other.

pdkl95 11y ago
> I've never heard of anyone opposing nuclear plants while promoting coal plants That's exactly what people are supporting when they oppose nuclear power. Rejecting nuclear doesn't provide power, so it's a de facto vote for staying with the status quo of coal. Until solar/wind can operate fully without a natural gas backup, it's still vaporware for the base load. Maybe that will change in the future, and solar/wind should obviously fill some (non-base load) power generation needs, but until that happens we generate power with either nuclear or carbon. Pick one or other; not choosing leaves the choice to the market which is always going to choose whichever is cheaper, which is coal because they externalize the cost to human health and the environment.
- mcv 11y ago
  Natural gas is not remotely as dirty as coal (though it still produces CO2, obviously). And I don't think we're going to get rid of gas anytime soon, particularly because it adapts more quickly to changes in demand than anything else. I disagree that opposing nuclear means you cannot oppose coal. You can, and many do. I think the main point is that new investments should go primarily towards wind and solar, not towards nuclear, but I do agree that it's way too early to close existing nuclear plants as long as they work well. The German post-Fukushima plan to close their nuclear plants is folly; they should be closing their coal plants first. But nuclear plants are expensive, and I think Uranium/Plutonium fission can be transitionary tech at best. The primary target for investments should be on cleaner tech, and on better networks and storage to deal with fluctuations in supply. That is absolutely an issue, but it's an issue that's being worked on.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > adapts more quickly to changes in demand I was addressing the base load[1]. >> it's still vaporware for the base load. By definition, the base load does not change quickly. Obviously nuclear (and other slow-to-change generation methods) need to be supplemented with more adaptable methods for the load-following[2] and peaking[3] loads. > I think the main point is that new investments should go primarily towards wind and solar The market doesn't care where you want investment allocated. Power demand is going up dramatically over the next 50 years - which is very good[4] for world stability - and basic economics (and historical experience) says that demand will usually be filled by the cheapest supply. While they have high initial R&D cost, that can be nuclear if we allow for standardized mass production and existing modern designs to proceed (both of which are currently blocked by anti-nuclear fools). If we do nothing, coal (and other carbon-based sources) will remain the cheapest. Maybe in the future we can include solar/wind as cheaper, but for the main base load, they are currently subsided with natural gas (and other) backups. Solar/wind by itself is still vaporware. > they should be closing their coal plants first. Absolutely. If Germany had spent the money they've spent on coal replacement power generation on nuclear, they might have had completely zero carbon energy production several years ago. Instead, they are limping along one of the most hazardous generation methods because of idiotic radiophobia. > Uranium/Plutonium fission As usual, you are leaving out thorium, which is what we should have been using. > investments Given that my brother is working on new photovoltaic generation, I'd love to see a lot of investment for better renewables. The new epitaxy methods he invented for his PhD made InGaN heterojunctions that were 90% efficient in converting sunlight, which is outstanding if a mass production method can be created. Investment in basic research is always important. However, what matters right now is what we can currently make. Vaporware doesn't matter until it becomes an actual shipping product. If we wait for hypothetical methods, we allow more coal power to be built. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant [4] https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing...
    - 11y ago
blakeyrat 11y ago
Thus the word "implicit". If you oppose nuclear power, you implicitly support the technologies nuclear plants compete with, specifically, oil and gas plants. If you oppose nuclear, oil, and gas plants all at once, then you need to give a really good explanation of how we're going to generate base-load for our power grid. Because you can't do base-load with solar or wind, and I'd wager those people also oppose constructing new dams. (And in the US, all the good dam sites are already either dammed or in a National Forest.)