4 ms·

>Climate change is causing massive loss of land in the form of shifting climate and rising sea levels. And coal power's contribution to that lost land is far gr

>Climate change is causing massive loss of land in the form of shifting climate and rising sea levels. And coal power's contribution to that lost land is far greater than the lost land at Chernobyl and Fukushima. False equivalency, as you are measuring the total land mass, to two specific accidents. This is a perfect example as to why no-body trusts Nuclear power advocacy, because it twists and turns facts into a mush with the aim of pushing the agenda. Building nuclear plants, & Uranium extraction and processing both release high amounts of CO2 gasses, to build nuclear plants isnt a magic wand that will fix global warming, it is an upfront cost, in the tens of billions of USD per plant, and after that comes the economic costs of constant subsidies. After all, nuclear power is the single most expensive way to produce energy after coal. >They want reliable constant power, and a large portion of that is going to be coal if they don't have other options. "They want reliable constant power", except you can deliver that with a matrix of solar+natural gas, or solar+wind+natural gas, or solar+gas+batteries. Again, you show yourself to not be discussing in good faith. Coal just like nuclear energy is simply not an economic endeavor anymore, it is all in gas, solar and wind. And energy matrices composed out of those can be highly reliable. >Few problems with this thinking. First this is why nuclear power plants are regulated. I mean, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl where all "regulated". "Known knowns, Known unknowns and Unknown unknowns". The risk costs of the Unknown unknowns for nuclear are simply stratospheric. Also, going once again back to price, the safer you make the nuclear plants, the more the cost, and the higher the subsidies they need to receive from consumers and governments. Also n2, as other people have mentioned in the thread, nuclear plants are always built by the lowest bidder, same with the staffing, same with the handling of nuclear waste. When you build a nuclear plant, you arent "trusting the best", you will always be trusting the cheapest guys in the business. >We do know how to dispose of it. Put it in a deep hole. Or burn it more in a breeder. Except.... We dont, Yuka Mountain isnt really operating, there are like 2 nuclear waste disposal in Europe, Onkalo and another site in Germany, and in the past there have been serious claims of dilapidation and abandonment [0] [0] https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-leaves-a-bitter-legacy/a-47420382 https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-waste-in-disused-german-mine-l... When it comes to breeders, again, there's not a single one really working in the entire planet[1]. Spent nuclear fuel usually sits idly bye in rusting tanks [2, 3, 4], barrels, or besides the working reactors in the pools. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-bre... [2] https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-st... [3] https://www.thelocal.se/20140224/rust-found-on-vattenfall-nuclear-waste-barrels https://www.thelocal.se/20140224/rust-found-on-vattenfall-nu... [4] https://www.smh.com.au/national/rusted-barrels-of-radioactive-waste-cost-csiro-30-million-20170307-gusb6v.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/rusted-barrels-of-radioactiv... If you want people to actually believe what you say, you need to speak truthfully of how things actually work, not lie and give a rose tinted version of the facts

erentz 7y ago
> False equivalency, as you are measuring the total land mass, to two specific accidents. I really don't understand how this is false equivalency? You're saying you're only allowed to consider land loss due to nuclear. All other forms of power generation are to be exempted from this side effect? That seems plainly wrong. > This is a perfect example as to why no-body trusts Nuclear power advocacy, because it twists and turns facts into a mush with the aim of pushing the agenda. I'm not twisting or turning here. It seems to me the opposite, you're carving out exemptions for your favored sources and ignoring history. > Building nuclear plants, & Uranium extraction and processing both release high amounts of CO2 gasses... It is fair to do a complete life cycle CO2 emissions comparison for the different generation sources. Nobody who is a proponent of nuclear power would ever dispute that since it's a core component of why they end up in favor of nuclear. When you do that what do you come up with? > to build nuclear plants isnt a magic wand that will fix global warming, it is an upfront cost, in the tens of billions of USD per plant, I don't see why the costs of not including nuclear in the mix aren't factored in your calculation wrt global warming. > "They want reliable constant power", except you can deliver that with a matrix of solar+natural gas, or solar+wind+natural gas, or solar+gas+batteries. Huh? Natural gas is CO2 emitting. It's 50% less than coal, but that's hardly a good argument in it's favor over nuclear. > Again, you show yourself to not be discussing in good faith. Coal just like nuclear energy is simply not an economic endeavor anymore, it is all in gas, solar and wind. And energy matrices composed out of those can be highly reliable. I'm here in good faith. But here you demonstrate you're arguing from a purely economic perspective, this is the difference we seem to have. You want whatever is the cheapest source of power regardless of it's emissions. > I mean, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl where all "regulated". "Known knowns, Known unknowns and Unknown unknowns". The risk costs of the Unknown unknowns for nuclear are simply stratospheric. You accuse me of not arguing in good faith, and yet here you are just ignoring my point. Yes these were regulated. And yes they had accidents. But still the central point is that those accidents are less damaging than the alternative. > Also, going once again back to price, the safer you make the nuclear plants, the more the cost, and the higher the subsidies they need to receive from consumers and governments. > Also n2, as other people have mentioned in the thread, nuclear plants are always built by the lowest bidder, same with the staffing, same with the handling of nuclear waste. When you build a nuclear plant, you arent "trusting the best", you will always be trusting the cheapest guys in the business. Again it seems to come down to economics for you and lack of trust in regulation. I wish we had put half as much regulation into coal, gas, hydro, and solar generation over the past 50 years as we had put into nuclear -- it would've saved a lot of lives and damage to the environment. Instead those source got a largely free ride and still do. How about we do that going forward with an adequate carbon tax to cover the damage of the gas generation you favor and a recycling tax on all solar and see how that changes the economics. > Except.... We dont, Yuka Mountain isnt really operating, there are like 2 nuclear waste disposal in Europe, Onkalo and another site in Germany, and in the past there have been serious claims of dilapidation and abandonment [0] I think a big difference between us is that we see the dangers of nuclear waste vs the dangers posed by a world that didn't have nuclear very differently. One is clearly very present and real to you, and the other less so. I find the problem of nuclear waste pretty easy to deal with and wrap my head around. Is it unpretty in some cases as you cite? Sure. Is it worse than the equivalent tonnage of CO2 having been pumped into the atmosphere? Or the equivalent tonnes of radioactive waste from coal mining and burning being disperse everywhere? A heck of a lot less so. Your response had an unnecessarily nasty edge and you seem to think me a nuclear power industry shill. I am not. I'm a person still young enough that I'll live through the start of much of the effects of climate change, and I care very deeply about the damage that will bring to the planet and the hundreds of millions of people worldwide that will be displaced and worse by it. I care deeply about those people and my planet.

erentz 7y ago

> False equivalency, as you are measuring the total land mass, to two specific accidents. I really don't understand how this is false equivalency? You're saying you're only allowed to consider land loss due to nuclear. All other forms of power generation are to be exempted from this side effect? That seems plainly wrong. > This is a perfect example as to why no-body trusts Nuclear power advocacy, because it twists and turns facts into a mush with the aim of pushing the agenda. I'm not twisting or turning here. It seems to me the opposite, you're carving out exemptions for your favored sources and ignoring history. > Building nuclear plants, & Uranium extraction and processing both release high amounts of CO2 gasses... It is fair to do a complete life cycle CO2 emissions comparison for the different generation sources. Nobody who is a proponent of nuclear power would ever dispute that since it's a core component of why they end up in favor of nuclear. When you do that what do you come up with? > to build nuclear plants isnt a magic wand that will fix global warming, it is an upfront cost, in the tens of billions of USD per plant, I don't see why the costs of not including nuclear in the mix aren't factored in your calculation wrt global warming. > "They want reliable constant power", except you can deliver that with a matrix of solar+natural gas, or solar+wind+natural gas, or solar+gas+batteries. Huh? Natural gas is CO2 emitting. It's 50% less than coal, but that's hardly a good argument in it's favor over nuclear. > Again, you show yourself to not be discussing in good faith. Coal just like nuclear energy is simply not an economic endeavor anymore, it is all in gas, solar and wind. And energy matrices composed out of those can be highly reliable. I'm here in good faith. But here you demonstrate you're arguing from a purely economic perspective, this is the difference we seem to have. You want whatever is the cheapest source of power regardless of it's emissions. > I mean, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl where all "regulated". "Known knowns, Known unknowns and Unknown unknowns". The risk costs of the Unknown unknowns for nuclear are simply stratospheric. You accuse me of not arguing in good faith, and yet here you are just ignoring my point. Yes these were regulated. And yes they had accidents. But still the central point is that those accidents are less damaging than the alternative. > Also, going once again back to price, the safer you make the nuclear plants, the more the cost, and the higher the subsidies they need to receive from consumers and governments. > Also n2, as other people have mentioned in the thread, nuclear plants are always built by the lowest bidder, same with the staffing, same with the handling of nuclear waste. When you build a nuclear plant, you arent "trusting the best", you will always be trusting the cheapest guys in the business. Again it seems to come down to economics for you and lack of trust in regulation. I wish we had put half as much regulation into coal, gas, hydro, and solar generation over the past 50 years as we had put into nuclear -- it would've saved a lot of lives and damage to the environment. Instead those source got a largely free ride and still do. How about we do that going forward with an adequate carbon tax to cover the damage of the gas generation you favor and a recycling tax on all solar and see how that changes the economics. > Except.... We dont, Yuka Mountain isnt really operating, there are like 2 nuclear waste disposal in Europe, Onkalo and another site in Germany, and in the past there have been serious claims of dilapidation and abandonment [0] I think a big difference between us is that we see the dangers of nuclear waste vs the dangers posed by a world that didn't have nuclear very differently. One is clearly very present and real to you, and the other less so. I find the problem of nuclear waste pretty easy to deal with and wrap my head around. Is it unpretty in some cases as you cite? Sure. Is it worse than the equivalent tonnage of CO2 having been pumped into the atmosphere? Or the equivalent tonnes of radioactive waste from coal mining and burning being disperse everywhere? A heck of a lot less so. Your response had an unnecessarily nasty edge and you seem to think me a nuclear power industry shill. I am not. I'm a person still young enough that I'll live through the start of much of the effects of climate change, and I care very deeply about the damage that will bring to the planet and the hundreds of millions of people worldwide that will be displaced and worse by it. I care deeply about those people and my planet.