4 ms·

IMO being anti-nuclear and pro-environment are mutually exclusive positions. Easy way to discern who really wants to reduce carbon emissions and who is just a p

by Grue3 9y ago

IMO being anti-nuclear and pro-environment are mutually exclusive positions. Easy way to discern who really wants to reduce carbon emissions and who is just a populist.

ahartmetz 9y ago
According to environmentalists in Germany, nuclear and pro-environment are indeed mutually exclusive. But I prefer not to copy all of my opinions from the group I most agree with. FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies have proven responsible enough to handle it. So I'm kind of against nuclear but not in this dogmatic way. The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's orders of magnitude safer - maybe something with Thorium, maybe fusion, maybe a new fission reactor design. Then I'd be in favor of using it. The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000 years are quite predictable in geology.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000 years are quite predictable in geology. Also the amount of nuclear waste produced is minuscule compared to much more toxic and more difficult to handle substances produced by various industrial processes. And people somehow have no issue with the latter.
- mfukar 9y ago
  > FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies have proven responsible enough to handle it. So the currently operating nuclear plants that have gone without incident are dismissed? Why so?
  - cygx 9y ago
    Their design is still fairly naive in dealing with worst-case scenarios (eg lack of core catchers).
    - mfukar 9y ago
      I'm not sure what that means. Are you pointing out a severe deficiency that makes their whole operational record somehow moot?
      - cygx 9y ago
        It means their design is flawed, cannot be fixed and likely would not pass muster if proposed today. Whether or not you consider this a severe enough deficit to necessitate a shutdown is a matter of policy. As to any operation record, just keep in mind that the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had one dating back to 1971.
        mfukar 9y ago
        I don't make policy. Policy, however, involves risk management. If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it.
        cygx 9y ago
        If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it. A lack of air bags is not noticable until your car crashes.
        mfukar 9y ago
        Sure, but what you're claiming is that air bags are missing based on never having seen them operate.
- sinxoveretothex 9y ago
  > The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's orders of magnitude safer In practice this attitude makes you pro-coal (but not in a dogmatic way). In the real world, waiting for things to improve before pulling the trigger means using what's currently used until then. That has costs. What's the energy source that's most dangerous? The common sense answer is nuclear (probably because of nuclear bombs first, Chernobyl second). Some clever people might argue about coal given its high emission output. But at least by death count, the winner is clearly hydro power. Mostly due to the Banqiao Dam incident [1] which directly killed 26,000 people and indirectly killed 145,000. Of course, that incident is a mess of stupid decision after stupid decision and some might want to claim that it's an outlier. To that I will reply that the same can be said of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima (as well as every other hydro incident[2]). The fact is that the world is full of stupid. I predict that in the future there will be some solar power company that figures out how to kill a bunch of people with a battery fire. And yet, that won't change anything to my support of hydropower or solar power. Nuclear safety is a minor issue compared to its advantages over coal and other fossil fuels. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_...
Ntrails 9y ago
It is incredibly telling to me that the article doesn't even mention the nuclear issue because, i assume, the author is afraid of that reality. Coal is going to have to be a backbone because nuclear got killed. Pick your poison please, but be honest that that was the choice made.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  The author is pro-nuclear: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclear-power-no-hinkley-point-yes-atomic-energy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclea... "Nuclear power, whatever its detractors might claim, is a low-carbon energy source, roughly comparable to renewables in terms of total emissions. To shut down viable nuclear capacity in the midst of a climate change emergency (now, in other words), as Germany and Japan have done, is a refined form of madness, especially when at least some of that capacity is likely to be replaced by gas or coal, whose carbon emissions are much higher. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables, on the timescale in which we need to act, is hard enough, without setting yourself the additional, unnecessary challenge of also replacing nuclear power."

by Grue3 9y ago

IMO being anti-nuclear and pro-environment are mutually exclusive positions. Easy way to discern who really wants to reduce carbon emissions and who is just a populist.

ahartmetz 9y ago

According to environmentalists in Germany, nuclear and pro-environment are indeed mutually exclusive. But I prefer not to copy all of my opinions from the group I most agree with. FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies have proven responsible enough to handle it. So I'm kind of against nuclear but not in this dogmatic way. The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's orders of magnitude safer - maybe something with Thorium, maybe fusion, maybe a new fission reactor design. Then I'd be in favor of using it. The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000 years are quite predictable in geology.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> The nuclear waste "killer argument" is mostly bullshit. Highly radioactive substances are spent quickly, long lived substances radiate weakly. 100000 years are quite predictable in geology. Also the amount of nuclear waste produced is minuscule compared to much more toxic and more difficult to handle substances produced by various industrial processes. And people somehow have no issue with the latter.
mfukar 9y ago
> FWIW I think nuclear is good in principle, but neither states nor companies have proven responsible enough to handle it. So the currently operating nuclear plants that have gone without incident are dismissed? Why so?
- cygx 9y ago
  Their design is still fairly naive in dealing with worst-case scenarios (eg lack of core catchers).
  - mfukar 9y ago
    I'm not sure what that means. Are you pointing out a severe deficiency that makes their whole operational record somehow moot?
    - cygx 9y ago
      It means their design is flawed, cannot be fixed and likely would not pass muster if proposed today. Whether or not you consider this a severe enough deficit to necessitate a shutdown is a matter of policy. As to any operation record, just keep in mind that the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had one dating back to 1971.
      - mfukar 9y ago
        I don't make policy. Policy, however, involves risk management. If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it.
        cygx 9y ago
        If deficient plants have been operated successfully for this long, the implication to me is that their operators have proven responsible enough to handle it. A lack of air bags is not noticable until your car crashes.
        mfukar 9y ago
        Sure, but what you're claiming is that air bags are missing based on never having seen them operate.
sinxoveretothex 9y ago
> The practical difference is that I think there should be further research to design inherently safe approaches and processes to reduce the risk until it's orders of magnitude safer In practice this attitude makes you pro-coal (but not in a dogmatic way). In the real world, waiting for things to improve before pulling the trigger means using what's currently used until then. That has costs. What's the energy source that's most dangerous? The common sense answer is nuclear (probably because of nuclear bombs first, Chernobyl second). Some clever people might argue about coal given its high emission output. But at least by death count, the winner is clearly hydro power. Mostly due to the Banqiao Dam incident [1] which directly killed 26,000 people and indirectly killed 145,000. Of course, that incident is a mess of stupid decision after stupid decision and some might want to claim that it's an outlier. To that I will reply that the same can be said of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima (as well as every other hydro incident[2]). The fact is that the world is full of stupid. I predict that in the future there will be some solar power company that figures out how to kill a bunch of people with a battery fire. And yet, that won't change anything to my support of hydropower or solar power. Nuclear safety is a minor issue compared to its advantages over coal and other fossil fuels. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_...

Ntrails 9y ago

It is incredibly telling to me that the article doesn't even mention the nuclear issue because, i assume, the author is afraid of that reality. Coal is going to have to be a backbone because nuclear got killed. Pick your poison please, but be honest that that was the choice made.

ZeroGravitas 9y ago
The author is pro-nuclear: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclear-power-no-hinkley-point-yes-atomic-energy https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/nuclea... "Nuclear power, whatever its detractors might claim, is a low-carbon energy source, roughly comparable to renewables in terms of total emissions. To shut down viable nuclear capacity in the midst of a climate change emergency (now, in other words), as Germany and Japan have done, is a refined form of madness, especially when at least some of that capacity is likely to be replaced by gas or coal, whose carbon emissions are much higher. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables, on the timescale in which we need to act, is hard enough, without setting yourself the additional, unnecessary challenge of also replacing nuclear power."