3 ms·

>If we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue. Then we would have even more problems with final disposal than we already have, t

>If we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue. Then we would have even more problems with final disposal than we already have, that's the topic none of the pro-nuclear people ever want to touch on because they fully realize it's quite an issue. As is, it's already bad enough how plant operators socialize these long-term costs while keeping all the profits private, which is the only way these operations can turn a short-term profit. Case in point: http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-deal-with-energy-companies/a-36089376 http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-de... It's even more infuriating to see that quote of Sigmar Gabrial boasting that "society alone doesn't have to bear the costs". How generous of them to pay a little bit into a fund for the disposal of their own waste, while the German taxpayer will end up picking the brunt of the bill when, as always, everything ends up going way over the estimated costs. Just take a look at Fukushima: TEPCO has a book equity of $US20 billion, total cleanup costs are estimated at $US250 billion, who's paying for that? Right, the Japanese government aka the tax payer.

catdog 9y ago
Another problem with going fully nuclear: society is going to be highly dependent on basically a hand full of reactors so it's not that easy to shut them down in case unexpected defects are found or if they simply get too old without newer ones being built in time. We see this e.g. in France which largely runs on nuclear power: they still operate some old reactors with serious known issues. There also were some winters in the recent years where their grid was close to a blackout because a substantial part of the nuclear plants where in maintenance mode and electrical heating is widely used. It is only possible to prevent this because neighboring countries like Germany are able to reliably produce a lot of excess electricity (still too much coal unfortunately, thanks Merkel :() which they can import.
Houshalter 9y ago
Even despite that, it's still better than coal. The costs are just more concentrated, and therefore more apparent. But the fact it's concentrated also make it at least possible to contain and cleanup. No one would even attempt to cleanup the environmental damage caused by coal, and it would cost vastly more than hundreds of billions. The estimated deaths are much larger than from nuclear accidents. If we had invested more in Nuclear it would be less of an issue. We've invented much safer reactors, and more efficient ones that produce much less waste. Probably much more would have been developed if the investment was there.

catdog 9y ago

Another problem with going fully nuclear: society is going to be highly dependent on basically a hand full of reactors so it's not that easy to shut them down in case unexpected defects are found or if they simply get too old without newer ones being built in time. We see this e.g. in France which largely runs on nuclear power: they still operate some old reactors with serious known issues. There also were some winters in the recent years where their grid was close to a blackout because a substantial part of the nuclear plants where in maintenance mode and electrical heating is widely used. It is only possible to prevent this because neighboring countries like Germany are able to reliably produce a lot of excess electricity (still too much coal unfortunately, thanks Merkel :() which they can import.

Houshalter 9y ago

Even despite that, it's still better than coal. The costs are just more concentrated, and therefore more apparent. But the fact it's concentrated also make it at least possible to contain and cleanup. No one would even attempt to cleanup the environmental damage caused by coal, and it would cost vastly more than hundreds of billions. The estimated deaths are much larger than from nuclear accidents. If we had invested more in Nuclear it would be less of an issue. We've invented much safer reactors, and more efficient ones that produce much less waste. Probably much more would have been developed if the investment was there.