5 ms·

I think the massive costs of a mistake rule nuclear power our. There is no rational calculation to be made. We risk decimating the entire environment around the

by throw2016 10y ago

I think the massive costs of a mistake rule nuclear power our. There is no rational calculation to be made. We risk decimating the entire environment around the plant for hundreds of years with consequences that will stay with us hundreds of years. No price can be put on that kind of damage and we have zero right to ruin the earth in this way. We need to find safer technology. God knows what the final consequences of Fukushima will be. I think nuclear power proponents have no case. I am not russian and have nothing to do with Russia but as a fellow human being those images of ordinary russians trying to deal with the crisis bring me to tears and I don't want any human being to be in that position or suffer in this grotesque way because of someone's overconfidence or mistake.

collyw 10y ago
Yet we seem happy pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere which will likely cause far greater damage.
cknight 10y ago
When working as intended, nuclear is low on emissions and the main concern is the requirement for waste disposal. The waste can be deposited far from human habitation or particularly sensitive ecological areas. Big problems that kill or injure people are rare, but catastrophic. Its main competitor, coal, is estimated to cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year when working exactly as intended, and is the single biggest culprit with regards to human induced climate change, the results of which may be catastrophic. I wouldn't say I am exactly pro-nuclear but it makes no sense to me to target nuclear when we have this fossilized wooden elephant in the room.
- beders 10y ago
  "deposited far from human habitation" Which is not really a solution. Solar is at $.029/wH now. Stop the nuclear power non-sense. Stop the coal power non-sense. All of this is obsolete technology now. Both have disastrous and costly consequences.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    It's a big world out there, solar doesn't work everywhere or at all times anywhere. It's definitely a big piece of the future, but we're never going to go exclusively solar.
  - cknight 10y ago
    No solution is going to be perfect. Going pure solar and wind in the US would require several hundred thousand square kilometers of photovoltaic panels. More for the windmills if you can't build them all out at sea. Aside from the cost running in to the trillions, you need so much steel and concrete that the emissions produced by those ingredients being made (remember steel in particular requires coal) that the overall emissions from such a project are, let's say, non-negligible. I'm afraid even visionaries like Elon Musk know that renewables are only part of the solution. Solar and wind's energy output per area is just too small, even before you consider their consistency drawbacks. Molten salt looks cool but it's not prime time for that yet, and certainly not .029/wH. If we want to reduce emissions now while waiting for better technology to be made, nuclear is as viable an option as any. It's been a shame here to see Germany go backwards and shut down its nuclear plants for new coal ones. http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
  - blakeyrat 10y ago
    Going solar is great, but we need some base-load power generation, and nuclear is brilliant for that. The options for base-load are: nuclear, gas, oil, coal, dammed rivers. Pick one. Of that set, I prefer nuclear.
elsonrodriguez 10y ago
Nuclear hasn't ruined the earth, anti-nuclear protesters have ruined the earth.
thmsths 10y ago
I just want to make a slight correction, in case of a catastrophic Nuclear accident the environment is not decimated, it just becomes unsuitable for humans but life finds a way. Chernobyl has become a wildlife refuge [0]. And some fungus have evolved to use Gamma radiations for growth [1]. [0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

collyw 10y ago

Yet we seem happy pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere which will likely cause far greater damage.

cknight 10y ago

When working as intended, nuclear is low on emissions and the main concern is the requirement for waste disposal. The waste can be deposited far from human habitation or particularly sensitive ecological areas. Big problems that kill or injure people are rare, but catastrophic. Its main competitor, coal, is estimated to cause hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year when working exactly as intended, and is the single biggest culprit with regards to human induced climate change, the results of which may be catastrophic. I wouldn't say I am exactly pro-nuclear but it makes no sense to me to target nuclear when we have this fossilized wooden elephant in the room.

beders 10y ago
"deposited far from human habitation" Which is not really a solution. Solar is at $.029/wH now. Stop the nuclear power non-sense. Stop the coal power non-sense. All of this is obsolete technology now. Both have disastrous and costly consequences.
- jonknee 10y ago
  It's a big world out there, solar doesn't work everywhere or at all times anywhere. It's definitely a big piece of the future, but we're never going to go exclusively solar.
- cknight 10y ago
  No solution is going to be perfect. Going pure solar and wind in the US would require several hundred thousand square kilometers of photovoltaic panels. More for the windmills if you can't build them all out at sea. Aside from the cost running in to the trillions, you need so much steel and concrete that the emissions produced by those ingredients being made (remember steel in particular requires coal) that the overall emissions from such a project are, let's say, non-negligible. I'm afraid even visionaries like Elon Musk know that renewables are only part of the solution. Solar and wind's energy output per area is just too small, even before you consider their consistency drawbacks. Molten salt looks cool but it's not prime time for that yet, and certainly not .029/wH. If we want to reduce emissions now while waiting for better technology to be made, nuclear is as viable an option as any. It's been a shame here to see Germany go backwards and shut down its nuclear plants for new coal ones. http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/ http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
- blakeyrat 10y ago
  Going solar is great, but we need some base-load power generation, and nuclear is brilliant for that. The options for base-load are: nuclear, gas, oil, coal, dammed rivers. Pick one. Of that set, I prefer nuclear.

elsonrodriguez 10y ago

Nuclear hasn't ruined the earth, anti-nuclear protesters have ruined the earth.

thmsths 10y ago

I just want to make a slight correction, in case of a catastrophic Nuclear accident the environment is not decimated, it just becomes unsuitable for humans but life finds a way. Chernobyl has become a wildlife refuge [0]. And some fungus have evolved to use Gamma radiations for growth [1]. [0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus