4 ms·

Also there is a huge difference between workers installing solar panels dying on the job from falling of roofs and citizens getting killed by exploding nuclear

Also there is a huge difference between workers installing solar panels dying on the job from falling of roofs and citizens getting killed by exploding nuclear plants. The former is a risk they were very aware of, had some control over and were payed to accept. The latter is a risk imposed on them outside of their control and without compensation (and if they vote to get rid of that risk HN viciously attacts them).

option 7y ago
My point is that nuclear is very safe, not that we should get rid of solar. People, think! I now live in Bay Area (very sunny place) and have solar on my house. Problem is that it covers at best 40% of my family’s (4 people) energy needs
- CyanBird 7y ago
  Reduce, reuse, recycle That has always been the mantra and always will. I'm certainly opposed to God forbids opening new nuclear plants, but I'm also opposed to closing existing ones, those are different arguments and should be treated as such. Nuclear fission is a relic of early 50's, but we already paid the co2 cost of building said plants, therefore should continue operating to reduce further damage to the biosphere by releasing more co2/methane. But we don't need to build new nuclear plants, as they are overly expensive and the safer you try to make them the more expensive they get, not to mention that they take a huge amount of time to actually get built and in the meantime release ungodly amounts of co2 with the colossal amounts of steel and concrete needed for the construction, a co2 budget that will take a long time to be recovered
  - mooseburger 7y ago
    They only take that long due to red tape, not due to any intrinsic reason. France did not have this problem. The U.S. could do like them, create the one standardized design for a nuclear plant, build them all the same way, which of course will help with construction, safety and maintenance.
- Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
  Needs or wants? Could you conserve another 40% if you tried?
  - gwbas1c 7y ago
    A lot of that depends on what the energy medium is. Is the other 40% gas for cars and natural gas for heating? It's very easy to do 100% of electricity from solar in the Bay Area in a home that still drives gas cars, has gas heat and no AC. I coughed up the money to go as solar as I can, (heat pumps, electric vehicles, ect,) but my state's financing had its limits; and then Mother Nature sent me an unusually cloudy April. I'm probably going to be somewhere between 70-85% solar after I have a few years of data. Anyway, when it comes to reducing CO2, celebrate the partial victories. Rooftop solar can take a huge dent in emissions, but it's not a complete solution. There is no silver bullet for this problem.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  It's a religious argument. The "death per MW" is a red herring. A nuclear advocate will tell you that on a per-MW basis nuclear is safer from a "death from radiation" POV because your installer may fall off a roof or you might get knocked on the head by a loose panel. Conveniently, these "death per-MV" claims exclude the construction of the nuclear plants, the potentially thousands of years of waste containment and human labor associated with it. You also need to price risk higher with nuclear because safety depends heavily on competent administration. That's expensive, and human failure is very common. End of the day, the economics of nuclear are the problem. We would be building nuclear if they made money. In my state, nuclear plants need direct government subsidy (to the tune of billions) as they are unable to sell their electricity at a rate that sustains the plant. The capital costs are extreme and the plant needs to operate at capacity to work financially.
falcolas 7y ago
And the latter (killed by exploding nuclear power plants) is historically zero. All nuclear related fatalities are due to radiation exposure, and the immediate deaths are rather small numbers, with the lingering effects of the fallout (i.e. cancer) only pushing the numbers into the 10's of thousands.
- petschge 7y ago
  Claiming that the fallout is in no part due to exploding nuclear plants is disingenuous.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    The power plants aren't exploding - that's my point. Calling a meltdown an explosion is factually incorrect, and furthers misconceptions about what happens when a nuclear power plant goes critical. These misconceptions help nobody.
    - colordrops 7y ago
      Chernobyl exploded.
    - petschge 7y ago
      Factually there was a hydrogen explosion in Fukushima due to things doing wrong in the nuclear part. And it produced fall out. That is was not a prompt critical nuclear explosion is semantics. You just want to push nuclear instead of being honest.
      - darkpuma 7y ago
        > "That is was not a prompt critical nuclear explosion is semantics." In a world where nuclear weapons are a thing and the public is generally aware of their horrific effects, the distinction between a meltdown and a 'nuclear explosion' is not semantics.

option 7y ago

My point is that nuclear is very safe, not that we should get rid of solar. People, think! I now live in Bay Area (very sunny place) and have solar on my house. Problem is that it covers at best 40% of my family’s (4 people) energy needs

CyanBird 7y ago
Reduce, reuse, recycle That has always been the mantra and always will. I'm certainly opposed to God forbids opening new nuclear plants, but I'm also opposed to closing existing ones, those are different arguments and should be treated as such. Nuclear fission is a relic of early 50's, but we already paid the co2 cost of building said plants, therefore should continue operating to reduce further damage to the biosphere by releasing more co2/methane. But we don't need to build new nuclear plants, as they are overly expensive and the safer you try to make them the more expensive they get, not to mention that they take a huge amount of time to actually get built and in the meantime release ungodly amounts of co2 with the colossal amounts of steel and concrete needed for the construction, a co2 budget that will take a long time to be recovered
- mooseburger 7y ago
  They only take that long due to red tape, not due to any intrinsic reason. France did not have this problem. The U.S. could do like them, create the one standardized design for a nuclear plant, build them all the same way, which of course will help with construction, safety and maintenance.
Jill_the_Pill 7y ago
Needs or wants? Could you conserve another 40% if you tried?
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  A lot of that depends on what the energy medium is. Is the other 40% gas for cars and natural gas for heating? It's very easy to do 100% of electricity from solar in the Bay Area in a home that still drives gas cars, has gas heat and no AC. I coughed up the money to go as solar as I can, (heat pumps, electric vehicles, ect,) but my state's financing had its limits; and then Mother Nature sent me an unusually cloudy April. I'm probably going to be somewhere between 70-85% solar after I have a few years of data. Anyway, when it comes to reducing CO2, celebrate the partial victories. Rooftop solar can take a huge dent in emissions, but it's not a complete solution. There is no silver bullet for this problem.
Spooky23 7y ago
It's a religious argument. The "death per MW" is a red herring. A nuclear advocate will tell you that on a per-MW basis nuclear is safer from a "death from radiation" POV because your installer may fall off a roof or you might get knocked on the head by a loose panel. Conveniently, these "death per-MV" claims exclude the construction of the nuclear plants, the potentially thousands of years of waste containment and human labor associated with it. You also need to price risk higher with nuclear because safety depends heavily on competent administration. That's expensive, and human failure is very common. End of the day, the economics of nuclear are the problem. We would be building nuclear if they made money. In my state, nuclear plants need direct government subsidy (to the tune of billions) as they are unable to sell their electricity at a rate that sustains the plant. The capital costs are extreme and the plant needs to operate at capacity to work financially.

falcolas 7y ago

And the latter (killed by exploding nuclear power plants) is historically zero. All nuclear related fatalities are due to radiation exposure, and the immediate deaths are rather small numbers, with the lingering effects of the fallout (i.e. cancer) only pushing the numbers into the 10's of thousands.

petschge 7y ago
Claiming that the fallout is in no part due to exploding nuclear plants is disingenuous.
- falcolas 7y ago
  The power plants aren't exploding - that's my point. Calling a meltdown an explosion is factually incorrect, and furthers misconceptions about what happens when a nuclear power plant goes critical. These misconceptions help nobody.
  - colordrops 7y ago
    Chernobyl exploded.
  - petschge 7y ago
    Factually there was a hydrogen explosion in Fukushima due to things doing wrong in the nuclear part. And it produced fall out. That is was not a prompt critical nuclear explosion is semantics. You just want to push nuclear instead of being honest.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      > "That is was not a prompt critical nuclear explosion is semantics." In a world where nuclear weapons are a thing and the public is generally aware of their horrific effects, the distinction between a meltdown and a 'nuclear explosion' is not semantics.