4 ms·

> As the certainty of climate change grew clearer, nuclear power presented a dilemma for environmentalists: Was the risk of accidents or further spread of nucle

by erentz 7y ago

> As the certainty of climate change grew clearer, nuclear power presented a dilemma for environmentalists: Was the risk of accidents or further spread of nuclear weapons greater than the hazard of climate change? That nuclear weapons are spread by nuclear power is false. The type of nuclear plant that is optimized for producing power does not produce the right kind of products for nuclear weapons. These are produced in reactors more optimized for that task. Second, there are 31 countries operating nuclear power plants, but only 9 countries that have decided to develop nuclear weapons. > In 2016, observing these trends, I launched a company devoted to building offshore wind turbines. There were a lot of assertions in this article, but very little meat to back them up. I'd have liked much more detail on how he thinks alternative energy sources will economically meet all electricity needs globally, and more safely over the full life cycle.

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
The weapons thread is bogus anyway. Elon could have a impactor in every spaceship he launches- and level the city, holding the world ransom. With exponential tech every alien noose hair trimmer allows every individual to departicipate a city. This is uncomfortable territory for the high and mighty. Cause if everyone is el presidente with a football- nobody is special. Either we all live in peace, or nobody does in pieces.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  Is tech still exponential? Moores law is dead, and we should be glad of it. Change at a scale we can adapt with is good. We’ll be adapting to the havok created by exponential tech for a while to come, but some might say it’s finally slowed down.
7952 7y ago
Regardless, nuclear energy absolutely presents a dilemma for me. I love the dream of what nuclear energy could become. But the reality of the industry at present does not live up to that. That doesn't make it a practical option for investment and that is always a problem. It is right to try and fix that, but in the meantime renewables just make sense as a good option. If the industry can get its act together then nuclear plants will be built. Arguing about how nuclear is better on paper does not help that one bit. It needs to be better in the messy real world.
thebeefytaco 7y ago
Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest, including wind power. >In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources). -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#583acd1b5467 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-ea... Nuclear power has 0.07 deaths per TWh. (https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy) 1 TWh = 1 billion kWh, so multiply by 1,000 to get trillion kWh and you have ~70 deaths for nuclear, compared to 1,000 for wind per trillion kWh. Fairly small sample size for wind power deaths vs nuclear (someone let me know if you find a better source), but I'd be very surprised if it didn't hold up with a more complete set of data. There have only been a trivial amount of nuclear power related deaths throughout history, with less than 10 deaths in the last 33 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Nuclear_power_plant_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...
- ncmncm 7y ago
  These are cooked numbers. How many died constructing nuke plants? How many mining, refining, processing, transporting fuel and fuel handling equipment? How many died of radioactive krypton gas poisoning after 3MI? (No, not zero.) Zirconium refining, alone, accounts for plenty of deaths. The author clearly has access to far better information than defenders posting here. Just the fact that all nuke plants in operation were designed to withstand much less severe weather and flooding events than are now expected, with no requirements or plans for improvement, justify shutdown.
  - xelxebar 7y ago
    Then you have to play fair. How many died constructing wind turbines? How many mining, refining, processing, transporting the construction materials and equipment? How many died of pollution generated in the manufacturing process. Etc... Admittedly, I don't know the actual data, but as far as I understand, people have made attempts to factor in these kinds of side costs, like estimating deaths caused by Chernobyl, and even with those factors, nuclear still comes out looking a lot safer. https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

by erentz 7y ago

LifeLiverTransp 7y ago

The weapons thread is bogus anyway. Elon could have a impactor in every spaceship he launches- and level the city, holding the world ransom. With exponential tech every alien noose hair trimmer allows every individual to departicipate a city. This is uncomfortable territory for the high and mighty. Cause if everyone is el presidente with a football- nobody is special. Either we all live in peace, or nobody does in pieces.

kennywinker 7y ago
Is tech still exponential? Moores law is dead, and we should be glad of it. Change at a scale we can adapt with is good. We’ll be adapting to the havok created by exponential tech for a while to come, but some might say it’s finally slowed down.

7952 7y ago

Regardless, nuclear energy absolutely presents a dilemma for me. I love the dream of what nuclear energy could become. But the reality of the industry at present does not live up to that. That doesn't make it a practical option for investment and that is always a problem. It is right to try and fix that, but in the meantime renewables just make sense as a good option. If the industry can get its act together then nuclear plants will be built. Arguing about how nuclear is better on paper does not help that one bit. It needs to be better in the messy real world.

thebeefytaco 7y ago

Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest, including wind power. >In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources). -- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#583acd1b5467 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-ea... Nuclear power has 0.07 deaths per TWh. (https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy) 1 TWh = 1 billion kWh, so multiply by 1,000 to get trillion kWh and you have ~70 deaths for nuclear, compared to 1,000 for wind per trillion kWh. Fairly small sample size for wind power deaths vs nuclear (someone let me know if you find a better source), but I'd be very surprised if it didn't hold up with a more complete set of data. There have only been a trivial amount of nuclear power related deaths throughout history, with less than 10 deaths in the last 33 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#Nuclear_power_plant_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accident...

ncmncm 7y ago
These are cooked numbers. How many died constructing nuke plants? How many mining, refining, processing, transporting fuel and fuel handling equipment? How many died of radioactive krypton gas poisoning after 3MI? (No, not zero.) Zirconium refining, alone, accounts for plenty of deaths. The author clearly has access to far better information than defenders posting here. Just the fact that all nuke plants in operation were designed to withstand much less severe weather and flooding events than are now expected, with no requirements or plans for improvement, justify shutdown.
- xelxebar 7y ago
  Then you have to play fair. How many died constructing wind turbines? How many mining, refining, processing, transporting the construction materials and equipment? How many died of pollution generated in the manufacturing process. Etc... Admittedly, I don't know the actual data, but as far as I understand, people have made attempts to factor in these kinds of side costs, like estimating deaths caused by Chernobyl, and even with those factors, nuclear still comes out looking a lot safer. https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy