3 ms·

This is a debate we have all the time, here in France, where we chose nuclear energy as main source of energy for several decades. Nowadays, everybody but lobby

This is a debate we have all the time, here in France, where we chose nuclear energy as main source of energy for several decades. Nowadays, everybody but lobbyists (because for those reasons, nuclear industry is strong, here) seems to agree renewable is the way to go (but we're far to be able to replace nuclear with renewable), mainly because: * we don't know what to do with nuclear wastes, and we start to have a lot * every now and then, you have to dismantle old nuclear plants, and it appears the cost is totally exuberant

dangerlibrary 9y ago
You probably meant "exorbitant." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exuberant http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exuberant http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exorbitant http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exorbitant
yodsanklai 9y ago
> renewable is the way to go Everybody agrees with that. The question is whether we choose nuclear or coal during the transition to 100% renewable (if it ever happens). > we don't know what to do with nuclear wastes, and we start to have a lot > you have to dismantle old nuclear plants, and it appears the cost is totally exuberant I don't know if it's that bad. But again, is this worse than coal?
- oelmekki 9y ago
  That's a hard question. I certainly would not support replacing our nuclear plants with coal plants, I would prefer everyone stay with their current system and we go as fast as possible to replace them with something worth it : trying to replace a bad source with an other bad one, but a bit better, costs time, money and human resources. But the article kind of make me raise an eyebrow when they say that for highly radioactive wastes, we just have to find deep burial sites that will know no geological activity for one million year. Certainly doesn't sound as easy as implied, especially if all earth starts using nuclear power as main energy source. That being said, I remember reading a few months ago about a breakthrough in Germany in nuclear field, where no rare material (like plutonium) was needed, and wastes were greatly reduced. This could be a global way (and then, we may not even need renewable).
- beat 9y ago
  Why do you need a transitional solution? Why not Manhattan-Project the heck out of a purely renewable replacement? Coal is, for a variety of reasons, a terrible stopgap. And nuclear buildout is too slow and expensive. For the cost of building significant new nuclear, we could build the new storage mechanisms, and all the solar/wind needed. Faster.
- whazor 9y ago
  Also here in the Netherlands something similar happened. A company with nuclear waste went bankrupt and it became a expensive problem.
valuearb 9y ago
Nuclear is renewable.
nickik 9y ago
Why do you need renewable when there is practically unlimited nuclear fuel available. > * we don't know what to do with nuclear wastes, and we start to have a lot Nuclear waste is nuclear fuel. Different types of reactors can use that 'waste' and produce energy. Some reactor types produce far less, easier to deal with 'waste'. Much of that waste again can be used for different application. The Nuclear waste issue is one of the most successful fear mongering campaigns ever. The necessary science is done, early version of the technology were developed and are proven to work. The problem is that no more work is put in developing and improving nuclear power but renewable energy gets money for research and subsidies like crazy. Coal also gets subsidies in many places. > * every now and then, you have to dismantle old nuclear plants, and it appears the cost is totally exuberant This is again manly a problem because of the lack of improvement over time. Different types of reacts would make this far easier. Sadly however we are still using the type of reactors designed for submarines.

dangerlibrary 9y ago

You probably meant "exorbitant." http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exuberant http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exuberant http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exorbitant http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exorbitant

yodsanklai 9y ago

> renewable is the way to go Everybody agrees with that. The question is whether we choose nuclear or coal during the transition to 100% renewable (if it ever happens). > we don't know what to do with nuclear wastes, and we start to have a lot > you have to dismantle old nuclear plants, and it appears the cost is totally exuberant I don't know if it's that bad. But again, is this worse than coal?

oelmekki 9y ago
That's a hard question. I certainly would not support replacing our nuclear plants with coal plants, I would prefer everyone stay with their current system and we go as fast as possible to replace them with something worth it : trying to replace a bad source with an other bad one, but a bit better, costs time, money and human resources. But the article kind of make me raise an eyebrow when they say that for highly radioactive wastes, we just have to find deep burial sites that will know no geological activity for one million year. Certainly doesn't sound as easy as implied, especially if all earth starts using nuclear power as main energy source. That being said, I remember reading a few months ago about a breakthrough in Germany in nuclear field, where no rare material (like plutonium) was needed, and wastes were greatly reduced. This could be a global way (and then, we may not even need renewable).
beat 9y ago
Why do you need a transitional solution? Why not Manhattan-Project the heck out of a purely renewable replacement? Coal is, for a variety of reasons, a terrible stopgap. And nuclear buildout is too slow and expensive. For the cost of building significant new nuclear, we could build the new storage mechanisms, and all the solar/wind needed. Faster.
whazor 9y ago
Also here in the Netherlands something similar happened. A company with nuclear waste went bankrupt and it became a expensive problem.

valuearb 9y ago

Nuclear is renewable.

nickik 9y ago

Why do you need renewable when there is practically unlimited nuclear fuel available. > * we don't know what to do with nuclear wastes, and we start to have a lot Nuclear waste is nuclear fuel. Different types of reactors can use that 'waste' and produce energy. Some reactor types produce far less, easier to deal with 'waste'. Much of that waste again can be used for different application. The Nuclear waste issue is one of the most successful fear mongering campaigns ever. The necessary science is done, early version of the technology were developed and are proven to work. The problem is that no more work is put in developing and improving nuclear power but renewable energy gets money for research and subsidies like crazy. Coal also gets subsidies in many places. > * every now and then, you have to dismantle old nuclear plants, and it appears the cost is totally exuberant This is again manly a problem because of the lack of improvement over time. Different types of reacts would make this far easier. Sadly however we are still using the type of reactors designed for submarines.