4 ms·

Well...besides the obvious accidents there is nuclear waste. But luckily you have places where you can make it disappear: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/po

Well...besides the obvious accidents there is nuclear waste. But luckily you have places where you can make it disappear: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca-mountain-congress-works-revive-dormant-nuclear-waste-dump/664153002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/03/yucca...

dotancohen 8y ago
Does coal not have accidents? And where do you think the waste byproducts of coal go? Take a deep breath.
- hwillis 8y ago
  Or eat some tuna. Coal has doubled the amount of mercury in the ocean.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    Not sure where you've been the last decade but people who speak against nuclear power are usually also against coal.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. Even solar plants burn down or a wind mill may fall over. All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. But it says much that you chose coal. Another energy source that is on the way to be abolished. PS. I may have taken too many deep breaths when the Tschernobyl cloud moved over me.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. > All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. Your response gives me the feeling that you're significantly underestimating the number of deaths caused by power generation using coal. It's not a "handful" of people–it's more like a million people, per year.
    - Krasnol 8y ago
      As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). You've set up this straw man to point away from the actual issue and it's quite funny since it's what the industry does. I guess their advertising works ;)
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        > As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. Not anytime soon. > I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people, while nuclear fallout is "ridiculous". Also, I'd rather prefer if you didn't belittle me. I don't particularly care personally, but it's not adding anything to the argument so it's just extra stuff I need to read.
        Krasnol 8y ago
        > Not anytime soon. What is "soon"? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fir... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-says-too-early-to-exit-coal-in-2035-idUSKCN1LW0GM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-say... Especially considering nuclear waste. (see how desperately I try to get back to the topic?) > And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people Because _accidents_ just do that.... Nothing anymore on the topic? Nuclear power you remember? Waste, accidents?
        saagarjha 8y ago
        Many countries, notably India and China, are adding nuclear power to their electrical grids to supply base load. Also, nuclear accidents, while large, are very rare–especially with regards to how much power each plant generates. So per MWh you end up with a much, much lower casualty rate as compared to other power sources–coal, in particular, leads to many deaths in the process of mining it, breathing in its pollution (which many in this thread have mentioned is radioactive), etc.
rando444 8y ago
Saying that you can make nuclear waste disappear is an extremely ignorant (bordering on negligent) thing to say. The hope that a dead project started 40 years ago might be brought back to life is hardly a "don't need to worry about it" sort of bullet point, especially when you're discussing something that needs to be managed and maintained for thousands of years.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  It was meant to sound ironic. I don't consider dumping nuclear waste being a solution at all.
nickik 8y ago
Nuclear waste is just a political issue that anti-nuclear people use to come up with reasons. Technically it is not a huge problem and consented policy could solve it. So first of all, current nuclear waste should not be buried as it is fuel for future reactors. It should just stay where it is until somebody wants to use it. Second, Yucca Mountain is a terrible place for nuclear waste. It was always a terrible idea and this goes back to the very first time this problem got studied. There are far better locations in the US for a repository, but insane political shenanigans prevent Yucca Mountain from going forward and prevent any smart solutions as well. I strongly believe that Yucca Mountain will never actually be used, but it will probably take another 15-20 years of drama and pointless arguments with false facts to finally resolve it. Listen: - https://www.titansofnuclear.com/bradyhanson https://www.titansofnuclear.com/bradyhanson - https://www.titansofnuclear.com/davidblee https://www.titansofnuclear.com/davidblee
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Before I go in there, can you elaborate on what the "Energy Impact Center" is? It's founding this page and the only info I could come up with is a google books result leading to a page that is not accessible. The result reads: > Further actions were a $4 billion private sector commitment to scale up innovation in clean energy and the launching of a new Clean Energy Impact Center at the ... - https://books.google.de/books?id=gVBtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=%22Energy+Impact+Center%22&source=bl&ots=CLfG4tuAtk&sig=RJf8hBBAr-xUJai-e0tJt1d9XJo&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw85y178LdAhVBWiwKHYuoAmkQ6AEwDXoECAIQAQ https://books.google.de/books?id=gVBtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT242&lpg=P... The other guy is President, US Nuclear Industry Council... Don't you have anything credible? I mean, I know it's about the transmutation of waste. There has to be something coming from credible sources out there or...not?

dotancohen 8y ago

Does coal not have accidents? And where do you think the waste byproducts of coal go? Take a deep breath.

hwillis 8y ago
Or eat some tuna. Coal has doubled the amount of mercury in the ocean.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  Not sure where you've been the last decade but people who speak against nuclear power are usually also against coal.
Krasnol 8y ago
Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. Even solar plants burn down or a wind mill may fall over. All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. But it says much that you chose coal. Another energy source that is on the way to be abolished. PS. I may have taken too many deep breaths when the Tschernobyl cloud moved over me.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Sure does coal also have accidents. A handful people die having it. > All of this is ridiculous compared to a nuclear fallout. Your response gives me the feeling that you're significantly underestimating the number of deaths caused by power generation using coal. It's not a "handful" of people–it's more like a million people, per year.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). You've set up this straw man to point away from the actual issue and it's quite funny since it's what the industry does. I guess their advertising works ;)
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      > As I've said before, coal is already on the way to be abolished also. Not anytime soon. > I also never stated that I support coal. Actually you'll probably find not many (if any at all) people who support coal over nuclear power (didn't you know that?). And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people, while nuclear fallout is "ridiculous". Also, I'd rather prefer if you didn't belittle me. I don't particularly care personally, but it's not adding anything to the argument so it's just extra stuff I need to read.
      - Krasnol 8y ago
        > Not anytime soon. What is "soon"? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fired-power-plants-close-2025 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/05/uk-coal-fir... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-says-too-early-to-exit-coal-in-2035-idUSKCN1LW0GM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rwe-coal/germanys-rwe-say... Especially considering nuclear waste. (see how desperately I try to get back to the topic?) > And yet, you're making comments about coal killing a "handful" of people Because _accidents_ just do that.... Nothing anymore on the topic? Nuclear power you remember? Waste, accidents?
        saagarjha 8y ago
        Many countries, notably India and China, are adding nuclear power to their electrical grids to supply base load. Also, nuclear accidents, while large, are very rare–especially with regards to how much power each plant generates. So per MWh you end up with a much, much lower casualty rate as compared to other power sources–coal, in particular, leads to many deaths in the process of mining it, breathing in its pollution (which many in this thread have mentioned is radioactive), etc.

rando444 8y ago

Saying that you can make nuclear waste disappear is an extremely ignorant (bordering on negligent) thing to say. The hope that a dead project started 40 years ago might be brought back to life is hardly a "don't need to worry about it" sort of bullet point, especially when you're discussing something that needs to be managed and maintained for thousands of years.

Krasnol 8y ago
It was meant to sound ironic. I don't consider dumping nuclear waste being a solution at all.

nickik 8y ago

Nuclear waste is just a political issue that anti-nuclear people use to come up with reasons. Technically it is not a huge problem and consented policy could solve it. So first of all, current nuclear waste should not be buried as it is fuel for future reactors. It should just stay where it is until somebody wants to use it. Second, Yucca Mountain is a terrible place for nuclear waste. It was always a terrible idea and this goes back to the very first time this problem got studied. There are far better locations in the US for a repository, but insane political shenanigans prevent Yucca Mountain from going forward and prevent any smart solutions as well. I strongly believe that Yucca Mountain will never actually be used, but it will probably take another 15-20 years of drama and pointless arguments with false facts to finally resolve it. Listen: - https://www.titansofnuclear.com/bradyhanson https://www.titansofnuclear.com/bradyhanson - https://www.titansofnuclear.com/davidblee https://www.titansofnuclear.com/davidblee

Krasnol 8y ago
Before I go in there, can you elaborate on what the "Energy Impact Center" is? It's founding this page and the only info I could come up with is a google books result leading to a page that is not accessible. The result reads: > Further actions were a $4 billion private sector commitment to scale up innovation in clean energy and the launching of a new Clean Energy Impact Center at the ... - https://books.google.de/books?id=gVBtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=%22Energy+Impact+Center%22&source=bl&ots=CLfG4tuAtk&sig=RJf8hBBAr-xUJai-e0tJt1d9XJo&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw85y178LdAhVBWiwKHYuoAmkQ6AEwDXoECAIQAQ https://books.google.de/books?id=gVBtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT242&lpg=P... The other guy is President, US Nuclear Industry Council... Don't you have anything credible? I mean, I know it's about the transmutation of waste. There has to be something coming from credible sources out there or...not?