6 ms·

> wrong side of common sense I fear such a complex issue such as energy production for billions of people is not really something which can be rated by 'common

by lispm 8y ago

> wrong side of common sense I fear such a complex issue such as energy production for billions of people is not really something which can be rated by 'common sense'. > nuclear generation for 64 years now and still no path for insurance/storage/reprocessing etc. Sellafield is one of the prime examples what can go wrong even in industrialized countries: it's a toxic and costly mix of military and commercial nuclear industry waste. In the Western countries nuclear is mostly dead and investments are allocated only mostly for longer lifetimes of existing reactors. And this is not because of 'Greenpeace'. You need to find an answer why there is so little acceptance, why the industry is in such bad shape (examples: lack of reactor safety culture in the Japanese nuclear industry, lack of financial health in the French nuclear industry, Sellafield, ...) and why its only thriving with full-government support/finance (see China with its authoritarian structure or smaller countries who are keen to get nuclear technology to then also build up nuclear weapon technology/material like Iran).

michaelt 8y ago
You need to find an answer why there is so little acceptance, why the industry is in such bad shape Do you have any sources for info about this with a firm basis in fact? Reason being I've heard at least 4 completely different explanations of why the nuclear industry performs so poorly, and I'm not really sure how to tell which is the right one - would be nice to know more.
- lispm 8y ago
  I don't think there is a single explanation, since the current state of nuclear is so diverse: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20180902wnisr2018-hr.pdf https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20180902wnisr2018...
graeme 8y ago
>and still no path for insurance/storage/reprocessing etc. Exactly the same argument applies to carbon waste. Every closed nuclear plant or nuclear plant not built means there is more carbon waste. Edit: Can someone explain the downvotes? By carbon waste I mean CO2 emissions. We look set to destroy our civilization in the next few decades due to their elevated level. Nuclear waste is tangible, CO2 is abstract, but other than that I don't see the difference between them. No one has insurance for the damage caused by excess CO2, we don't have good ways of storing most of it, and we have only limited, tentative efforts to reprocess it from the atmosphere. Instead of nuclear waste, we chose carbon waste by building more power sources that use carbon.
- eecc 8y ago
  Because it is a https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque perhaps?
- Arnt 8y ago
  I didn't downvote, but I expect you got downvoted for a misleading bifurcation. You might well be interpreted as saying "the alternative to nuclear power is more coal" which sounds sort of plausible until you think about it. Or "every time we close a nuclear plant we need to open a new coal-fired electricity plant to replace it". New coal plants isn't what's replacing the nuclear plants that are being closed, so your bifurcation is just misleading rhetoric.
  - graeme 8y ago
    Oh I guess I didn't make that explicit. 1. Before the current solar boom, virtually the only alternative was carbon. Referring to the last 5 decadesbn 2. Even now, my impression was generally that when nuke plants close, carbon is used as the replacement, due to its ability as a baseload supply. For instance, in Germany new coal plants are set to open as part of the 2005 nuclear phase out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/21/the-little-reactor-that-could-germanys-grohnde-nuclear-plant/#2a18d8b821a4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/21/the-littl... Likewise, Japan has boosted coal output in the wake of Fukushima, reversing an earlier trend: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trends-japan-again-embraces-coal-power https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trend... I had thought this was common knowledge. If not, I can see why my comment was downvoted and needed to be expanded on. (On other words, at present and in recent decades I think there was a bifurcation between carbon and nuclear)
    - Arnt 8y ago
      You may confuse short-term and long-term actions. I don't know about Japan, but I live in Germany, and what's happening here isn't a shift back to carbon, it's short-term contracts. The operators of some carbon plants get short-term contracts, so existing plants can be operated at a higher percentage of capacity than they would if nuclear weren't being phased out. But follow the money: Noone's investing in new plants. The current contracts aren't encouraging enough to invest in new plants. And even the operators of some old plants are complaining about underuse. There's a carbon-based plant near where I live that has never been permitted to produce power. It was one of the last carbon power plants built nearby, and eight years after being connected to the grid, it still hasn't produced power. They turn it on for a few hours now and then to test, that's all. Its neighbour ceased production five years ago, after only two years of production. The key here is that the new power plants being built are wind and sun. Your wording could be interpreted as saying said that the shift is was only from nuclear to carbon, and when none of the new plants being built are carbon-fired, then you might well get downvoted for that.
jjoonathan 8y ago
> this is not because of 'Greenpeace'. You need to find an answer why there is so little acceptance Because nobody cares if a jobber falls off a roof while installing a solar panel but if a technician is exposed to radiation everyone loses their minds!
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  No one cares about the jobber or the technician. People only care about themselves. A jobber falls off a roof, there is zero chance of the whole city being affected. A technician slips up and there is radiation exposure, there is a NON-zero chance of the whole city being affected. Same reason people protest the windmill, and the dam, but not the solar roof. The thinking is, "The solar roof doesn't ruin my view or change my waterfront." When it comes to NIMBY's, the N is more about the M than it is about the B or the Y. That's one constant in infrastructure projects that never changes.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    > A technician slips up and there is radiation exposure, there is a NON-zero chance of the whole city being affected. Long distance electric transmission is a fairly solved problem. We can put the nuclear plant downwind in BFE. It's even easier than pumping around liquid energy because the electrons move themselves. You don't hear people up in arms over the risk of catastrophe every time an oil tanker drives by. Why is nuclear any more special than an oil tanker off your coast?
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Because I can avoid problems with spilt oil by not getting into the sea near my coast. Not so much with a nearby nuclear disaster.
  - godelski 8y ago
    But the fear of nuclear is definitely higher than actual danger. It is something to be very cautious of, but in comparison to corner technologies it's fear to risk ratio is much higher
benj111 8y ago
What about Germany? Their renewables have basically been replacing nuclear, rather than coal as maybe we can agree would have been better. Yes nuclear is on its way out, but I feel Greenpeace and its ilk havent got the order right.
- godelski 8y ago
  But they haven't changed their CO2eq output by much. I love the other renewables (I see nuclear as much as a renewable as solar), but there's still problems with batteries and storing energy generated. The IPCC recommends nuclear because it's the only current technology we have to tackle this problem. And no pro nuclear person is saying 100% nuclear. We want a well diversified portfolio that doesn't include fossil fuels. And I want to be clear. Look at the numbers of deaths from the three major accidents. (I'm on my phone so I'll try to remember to edit this to provide sources), but not that many people died or are predicted to die from Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island (which has a count of 0!) There's more people dying in the US every year from just the air pollution caused by coal plants than the total (already dead and predicted early deaths, find the highest number too!) From those accidents. And I'd rather deal with a Coke can of highly radioactive waste a year than train loads of low radioactive waste a day (coal). In the end we do the same thing with them. Put it in the ground. Yeah, there should be better options. Fusion is extremely promising. I'd love to see batteries become better and more environmentally friendly to make. But we're not there yet and we don't have time to wait. For these things to be invented. Build nuclear now. When those come to life, build them too. But we can't just keep arguing and do nothing. It is time to worry. It has been time to worry for awhile now.
  - benj111 8y ago
    I'm not sure I understand, or are you misunderstanding me? Germany could have reduced CO2 output if they had kept their nuclear power stations open, instead they've been running to stand still. That was my point. I agree with you.
    - godelski 8y ago

by lispm 8y ago

michaelt 8y ago

You need to find an answer why there is so little acceptance, why the industry is in such bad shape Do you have any sources for info about this with a firm basis in fact? Reason being I've heard at least 4 completely different explanations of why the nuclear industry performs so poorly, and I'm not really sure how to tell which is the right one - would be nice to know more.

lispm 8y ago
I don't think there is a single explanation, since the current state of nuclear is so diverse: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20180902wnisr2018-hr.pdf https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20180902wnisr2018...

graeme 8y ago

>and still no path for insurance/storage/reprocessing etc. Exactly the same argument applies to carbon waste. Every closed nuclear plant or nuclear plant not built means there is more carbon waste. Edit: Can someone explain the downvotes? By carbon waste I mean CO2 emissions. We look set to destroy our civilization in the next few decades due to their elevated level. Nuclear waste is tangible, CO2 is abstract, but other than that I don't see the difference between them. No one has insurance for the damage caused by excess CO2, we don't have good ways of storing most of it, and we have only limited, tentative efforts to reprocess it from the atmosphere. Instead of nuclear waste, we chose carbon waste by building more power sources that use carbon.

eecc 8y ago
Because it is a https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque perhaps?
Arnt 8y ago
I didn't downvote, but I expect you got downvoted for a misleading bifurcation. You might well be interpreted as saying "the alternative to nuclear power is more coal" which sounds sort of plausible until you think about it. Or "every time we close a nuclear plant we need to open a new coal-fired electricity plant to replace it". New coal plants isn't what's replacing the nuclear plants that are being closed, so your bifurcation is just misleading rhetoric.
- graeme 8y ago
  Oh I guess I didn't make that explicit. 1. Before the current solar boom, virtually the only alternative was carbon. Referring to the last 5 decadesbn 2. Even now, my impression was generally that when nuke plants close, carbon is used as the replacement, due to its ability as a baseload supply. For instance, in Germany new coal plants are set to open as part of the 2005 nuclear phase out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/21/the-little-reactor-that-could-germanys-grohnde-nuclear-plant/#2a18d8b821a4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/21/the-littl... Likewise, Japan has boosted coal output in the wake of Fukushima, reversing an earlier trend: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trends-japan-again-embraces-coal-power https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/bucking-global-trend... I had thought this was common knowledge. If not, I can see why my comment was downvoted and needed to be expanded on. (On other words, at present and in recent decades I think there was a bifurcation between carbon and nuclear)
  - Arnt 8y ago
    You may confuse short-term and long-term actions. I don't know about Japan, but I live in Germany, and what's happening here isn't a shift back to carbon, it's short-term contracts. The operators of some carbon plants get short-term contracts, so existing plants can be operated at a higher percentage of capacity than they would if nuclear weren't being phased out. But follow the money: Noone's investing in new plants. The current contracts aren't encouraging enough to invest in new plants. And even the operators of some old plants are complaining about underuse. There's a carbon-based plant near where I live that has never been permitted to produce power. It was one of the last carbon power plants built nearby, and eight years after being connected to the grid, it still hasn't produced power. They turn it on for a few hours now and then to test, that's all. Its neighbour ceased production five years ago, after only two years of production. The key here is that the new power plants being built are wind and sun. Your wording could be interpreted as saying said that the shift is was only from nuclear to carbon, and when none of the new plants being built are carbon-fired, then you might well get downvoted for that.

jjoonathan 8y ago

> this is not because of 'Greenpeace'. You need to find an answer why there is so little acceptance Because nobody cares if a jobber falls off a roof while installing a solar panel but if a technician is exposed to radiation everyone loses their minds!

bilbo0s 8y ago
No one cares about the jobber or the technician. People only care about themselves. A jobber falls off a roof, there is zero chance of the whole city being affected. A technician slips up and there is radiation exposure, there is a NON-zero chance of the whole city being affected. Same reason people protest the windmill, and the dam, but not the solar roof. The thinking is, "The solar roof doesn't ruin my view or change my waterfront." When it comes to NIMBY's, the N is more about the M than it is about the B or the Y. That's one constant in infrastructure projects that never changes.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  > A technician slips up and there is radiation exposure, there is a NON-zero chance of the whole city being affected. Long distance electric transmission is a fairly solved problem. We can put the nuclear plant downwind in BFE. It's even easier than pumping around liquid energy because the electrons move themselves. You don't hear people up in arms over the risk of catastrophe every time an oil tanker drives by. Why is nuclear any more special than an oil tanker off your coast?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Because I can avoid problems with spilt oil by not getting into the sea near my coast. Not so much with a nearby nuclear disaster.
- godelski 8y ago
  But the fear of nuclear is definitely higher than actual danger. It is something to be very cautious of, but in comparison to corner technologies it's fear to risk ratio is much higher

benj111 8y ago

What about Germany? Their renewables have basically been replacing nuclear, rather than coal as maybe we can agree would have been better. Yes nuclear is on its way out, but I feel Greenpeace and its ilk havent got the order right.

godelski 8y ago
But they haven't changed their CO2eq output by much. I love the other renewables (I see nuclear as much as a renewable as solar), but there's still problems with batteries and storing energy generated. The IPCC recommends nuclear because it's the only current technology we have to tackle this problem. And no pro nuclear person is saying 100% nuclear. We want a well diversified portfolio that doesn't include fossil fuels. And I want to be clear. Look at the numbers of deaths from the three major accidents. (I'm on my phone so I'll try to remember to edit this to provide sources), but not that many people died or are predicted to die from Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island (which has a count of 0!) There's more people dying in the US every year from just the air pollution caused by coal plants than the total (already dead and predicted early deaths, find the highest number too!) From those accidents. And I'd rather deal with a Coke can of highly radioactive waste a year than train loads of low radioactive waste a day (coal). In the end we do the same thing with them. Put it in the ground. Yeah, there should be better options. Fusion is extremely promising. I'd love to see batteries become better and more environmentally friendly to make. But we're not there yet and we don't have time to wait. For these things to be invented. Build nuclear now. When those come to life, build them too. But we can't just keep arguing and do nothing. It is time to worry. It has been time to worry for awhile now.
- benj111 8y ago
  I'm not sure I understand, or are you misunderstanding me? Germany could have reduced CO2 output if they had kept their nuclear power stations open, instead they've been running to stand still. That was my point. I agree with you.
  - godelski 8y ago