4 ms·

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200... Now please provide ci

http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_2008_Annex_D.pdf http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/11-80076_Report_200... Now please provide citations for your claims. Specifically 'Massive Costs' and 'large effects'. Nuclear power does not need to be safe, only saver than the alternatives, this includes long term pollution from solar panel waste. Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment.

dnadler 9y ago
> Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment. That's a little disingenuous, though, isn't it? It's only contained because no one will allow it to be dumped ("stored") near them. Actually, the fact that we have to take special precautions with nuclear waste due to its toxicity is a disadvantage of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels (for example). Obviously, there is a much different calculus when thinking about Mars though.
the_duke 9y ago
Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects. Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement, sources on bottom) Fukushima cost: 188bn + (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/jap...) Costs for decomissioning a nuclear power plant in the US: up to 500mil (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissi...) (which needs total cost and revenue to put it in perspective, but it gives a sense of the scale and difficulty of decommissioning and storage.
- ageofwant 9y ago
  It has everything to do with the economic costs. There is no other reason other than perceived threat to human life that drives that cost. How is that not obvious ? That paper, and others like it, demonstrates that radiation is much more benign than generally believed, and that level of resources spent on threads that don't exists, especially in comparison with others, like drink a can of soda a day, or living in a city, is not justifiable.

dnadler 9y ago

> Every ounce of nuclear waste is entirely contained, every other power source's waste is dumped into the environment. That's a little disingenuous, though, isn't it? It's only contained because no one will allow it to be dumped ("stored") near them. Actually, the fact that we have to take special precautions with nuclear waste due to its toxicity is a disadvantage of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels (for example). Obviously, there is a much different calculus when thinking about Mars though.

the_duke 9y ago

Your reference has absolutely nothing to do with economic effects. Chernobyl costs for new "sarcophagus": 1.5bn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement, sources on bottom) Fukushima cost: 188bn + (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/jap...) Costs for decomissioning a nuclear power plant in the US: up to 500mil (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissi...) (which needs total cost and revenue to put it in perspective, but it gives a sense of the scale and difficulty of decommissioning and storage.

ageofwant 9y ago
It has everything to do with the economic costs. There is no other reason other than perceived threat to human life that drives that cost. How is that not obvious ? That paper, and others like it, demonstrates that radiation is much more benign than generally believed, and that level of resources spent on threads that don't exists, especially in comparison with others, like drink a can of soda a day, or living in a city, is not justifiable.