3 ms·

The counter risk is having the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for human life, right? Let's see, some area rendered uninhabitable versus the planet rendere

The counter risk is having the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for human life, right? Let's see, some area rendered uninhabitable versus the planet rendered uninhabitable... I'm going with A.

heeen2 8y ago
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't. Designing a carbon-neutral economy is a much bigger problem that requires much broader strategic thinking. The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power, with much smaller capital costs, much faster start-up and build costs, and no concerns about long-lived waste. And the trend lines are clear. There is simply no case for nuclear power now - economic, political, or environmental.
- DennisP 8y ago
  The levelized cost of renewables with enough battery storage to make reliable carbon-free power is higher than nuclear, except in areas where lots of hydro or geothermal is available.
- kortilla 8y ago
  >The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power, Not if you want electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. If renewables were competitive for providing constant load, nobody would be having this fucking conversation.
- godelski 8y ago
  Who says nuclear is carbon neutral? It definitely has a footprint. But so does solar, wind, and hydro. All 4 of which are extremely small though. The advantage nuclear has over the other two is that it can generate power 24/7, it can vary its output, and it has a small footprint on land usage per kilowatt-hour it produces. AFAIK there are no high energy producers that are end-to-end carbon neutral (or negative). Doing so needs some type of sequestration.
- ftr45 8y ago
  >The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't nope
michaelmrose 8y ago
Why are you arguing that the only options are the end of the planet or building nuclear reactors?
- jfnixon 8y ago
  Not claiming those are the only options. I'm comparing the advantages with the risks. It just seems easier to watch a thousand tons of spent fuel than to dim the sun or remove a trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. If you know of a baseload power source with similar carbon emissions to nuclear, I'm listening.

The counter risk is having the entire planet rendered uninhabitable for human life, right? Let's see, some area rendered uninhabitable versus the planet rendered uninhabitable... I'm going with A.

heeen2 8y ago

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't. Designing a carbon-neutral economy is a much bigger problem that requires much broader strategic thinking. The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power, with much smaller capital costs, much faster start-up and build costs, and no concerns about long-lived waste. And the trend lines are clear. There is simply no case for nuclear power now - economic, political, or environmental.

DennisP 8y ago
The levelized cost of renewables with enough battery storage to make reliable carbon-free power is higher than nuclear, except in areas where lots of hydro or geothermal is available.
kortilla 8y ago
>The levelized cost of renewables is already cheaper than the equivalent for nuclear power, Not if you want electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. If renewables were competitive for providing constant load, nobody would be having this fucking conversation.
godelski 8y ago
Who says nuclear is carbon neutral? It definitely has a footprint. But so does solar, wind, and hydro. All 4 of which are extremely small though. The advantage nuclear has over the other two is that it can generate power 24/7, it can vary its output, and it has a small footprint on land usage per kilowatt-hour it produces. AFAIK there are no high energy producers that are end-to-end carbon neutral (or negative). Doing so needs some type of sequestration.
ftr45 8y ago
>The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't nope

michaelmrose 8y ago

Why are you arguing that the only options are the end of the planet or building nuclear reactors?

jfnixon 8y ago
Not claiming those are the only options. I'm comparing the advantages with the risks. It just seems easier to watch a thousand tons of spent fuel than to dim the sun or remove a trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. If you know of a baseload power source with similar carbon emissions to nuclear, I'm listening.