4 ms·

And why is that bad?

by 6d6b73 9y ago

bpodgursky 9y ago
Because some of us care about the environment more than we like populist posturing.
- epistasis 9y ago
  While it may be important to correct the record on the safety of nuclear, if one really cares about the environment, one shouldn't be attached to just one solution like nuclear. In a political environment where approximately half of the country has been tricked by propaganda to disbelieve the basics of climate science, we can't get attached to expensive solutions like nuclear that require lots of public financial and political support. We need the carbon-free electricity to be the cheapest option, as dollars are probably the only thing that can overcome the anti-climate-change political ideology. Market solutions are the best option now, and though well-sited solar and wind are the cheapest source of power at the moment, they need to be distributed properly both in time and in geography. Storage and HVDC are the solutions that make this possible. Storage is getting super cheap, and is on the cusp of becoming a universal install with all new renewables. HVDC is getting somewhat cheaper, and other countries are building tons of it. Getting HVDC built does require some political support, because it means getting different grids to interact with each other. We need to be realistic about nuclear. Refusing to hold people accountable for bad decisions on nuclear isn't fighting against populist posturing, it's just protecting poor decision makers and preventing better ones from taking their place. These utilities have had poor decision makers that have been unfairly biased against renewable energy over the past decade, and are only ever so slowly awakening to the financial realities out there. South Carolina needs utility execs that are forward thinking, understand technology and how its changing, and are not stuck in the 80s or 90s. Only then will they be proper stewards of South Carolin's finances and environment. Imagine if South Carolina had been building off shore wind, at $9B. They amount of industry that would have been gained off that would have been immense. South Carolina companies would have had the knowledge to build off-shore wind all over the East Coast. And it would be local corporations, not foreign contractors like Dong energy. We need to get out of the past, and look to the future of technology. Nuclear had its day, and may again in the future, but for the coming decades it is not a terribly great option, at more than say 1%-5% of our energy supply.
- 6d6b73 9y ago
  When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe, effective and economically viable option. If you care about the environment, tell me what would happen to all of the nuclear plants and the nuclear waste, if suddenly all or most of the people on this planet died?
  - bpodgursky 9y ago
    Er... they would turn off? The 1 lizard in 10,000 years that accidentally wandered into Yucca mountain might die? I guess losing millions of acres of land and ecosystems to global warming is nothing, as long as we save that lizard.
    - 6d6b73 9y ago
      Of, they will simply shut down. Right, and they not going to disintegrate within just a few decades. Even Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement is designed to last only 100 years. With almost 500 reactors in the world, with 100 years of our disappearance at least some of them would go into meltdown, and destroy most of the life on the planet.. Nuclear indeed is a very environmental option.
      - bpodgursky 9y ago
        You need to do some research. I'm willing to debate points, but nonsense claims like "destroy most of the life on the planet" tell me you are an idealogue with no concept of the orders of magnitude involved in any failure scenario.
        6d6b73 9y ago
        Chernobyl and Fukushima were mostly contained by people that were around, yet they still had a profound effect on the environment. Doesn't it make sense that uncontrolled meltdowns at ~ 700 reactors world wide would release so much radiation that pretty much all higher forms of life would die off?
  - 9y ago
jessaustin 9y ago
It's the best news I've heard so far this week.
adventured 9y ago
As well as for the other obvious reasons mentioned, it's highly desirable to maintain a mix of energy supply. For both security reasons, technological know-how reasons, and who-knows reasons. Security: distribution of energy sources, multiple options, no single majority dependency. Who knows: how long will the natural gas supply last? We can speculate, that's all. Know how: having a technological mastery of all the best sources of energy, is critical. What's the limit of nuclear power in terms of what we can accomplish with it and how safe we can make it? We don't yet know. That's very valuable technology ground that shouldn't be given up.
- 6d6b73 9y ago
  We can maintain all of the above without building any new power plants. We just need to maintain all of the ones that we currently have, and have few research reactors.

And why is that bad?

by 6d6b73 9y ago

And why is that bad?

bpodgursky 9y ago

Because some of us care about the environment more than we like populist posturing.

epistasis 9y ago
While it may be important to correct the record on the safety of nuclear, if one really cares about the environment, one shouldn't be attached to just one solution like nuclear. In a political environment where approximately half of the country has been tricked by propaganda to disbelieve the basics of climate science, we can't get attached to expensive solutions like nuclear that require lots of public financial and political support. We need the carbon-free electricity to be the cheapest option, as dollars are probably the only thing that can overcome the anti-climate-change political ideology. Market solutions are the best option now, and though well-sited solar and wind are the cheapest source of power at the moment, they need to be distributed properly both in time and in geography. Storage and HVDC are the solutions that make this possible. Storage is getting super cheap, and is on the cusp of becoming a universal install with all new renewables. HVDC is getting somewhat cheaper, and other countries are building tons of it. Getting HVDC built does require some political support, because it means getting different grids to interact with each other. We need to be realistic about nuclear. Refusing to hold people accountable for bad decisions on nuclear isn't fighting against populist posturing, it's just protecting poor decision makers and preventing better ones from taking their place. These utilities have had poor decision makers that have been unfairly biased against renewable energy over the past decade, and are only ever so slowly awakening to the financial realities out there. South Carolina needs utility execs that are forward thinking, understand technology and how its changing, and are not stuck in the 80s or 90s. Only then will they be proper stewards of South Carolin's finances and environment. Imagine if South Carolina had been building off shore wind, at $9B. They amount of industry that would have been gained off that would have been immense. South Carolina companies would have had the knowledge to build off-shore wind all over the East Coast. And it would be local corporations, not foreign contractors like Dong energy. We need to get out of the past, and look to the future of technology. Nuclear had its day, and may again in the future, but for the coming decades it is not a terribly great option, at more than say 1%-5% of our energy supply.
6d6b73 9y ago
When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe, effective and economically viable option. If you care about the environment, tell me what would happen to all of the nuclear plants and the nuclear waste, if suddenly all or most of the people on this planet died?
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  Er... they would turn off? The 1 lizard in 10,000 years that accidentally wandered into Yucca mountain might die? I guess losing millions of acres of land and ecosystems to global warming is nothing, as long as we save that lizard.
  - 6d6b73 9y ago
    Of, they will simply shut down. Right, and they not going to disintegrate within just a few decades. Even Chernobyl’s New Safe Confinement is designed to last only 100 years. With almost 500 reactors in the world, with 100 years of our disappearance at least some of them would go into meltdown, and destroy most of the life on the planet.. Nuclear indeed is a very environmental option.
    - bpodgursky 9y ago
      You need to do some research. I'm willing to debate points, but nonsense claims like "destroy most of the life on the planet" tell me you are an idealogue with no concept of the orders of magnitude involved in any failure scenario.
      - 6d6b73 9y ago
        Chernobyl and Fukushima were mostly contained by people that were around, yet they still had a profound effect on the environment. Doesn't it make sense that uncontrolled meltdowns at ~ 700 reactors world wide would release so much radiation that pretty much all higher forms of life would die off?
- 9y ago

jessaustin 9y ago

It's the best news I've heard so far this week.

adventured 9y ago

As well as for the other obvious reasons mentioned, it's highly desirable to maintain a mix of energy supply. For both security reasons, technological know-how reasons, and who-knows reasons. Security: distribution of energy sources, multiple options, no single majority dependency. Who knows: how long will the natural gas supply last? We can speculate, that's all. Know how: having a technological mastery of all the best sources of energy, is critical. What's the limit of nuclear power in terms of what we can accomplish with it and how safe we can make it? We don't yet know. That's very valuable technology ground that shouldn't be given up.

6d6b73 9y ago
We can maintain all of the above without building any new power plants. We just need to maintain all of the ones that we currently have, and have few research reactors.