4 ms·

Nuclear is dangerous for the local ecosystem, fossil fuels are dangerous to the global ecosystem, and renewables will require a total societal makeover in terms

Nuclear is dangerous for the local ecosystem, fossil fuels are dangerous to the global ecosystem, and renewables will require a total societal makeover in terms of energy consumption. A choice needs to be made, and I'd argue that we're better at mitigating Chernobyl and Fukushima than we are about mitigating global warming, or convincing everyone that we don't need industry.

bassman9000 7y ago
Nuclear is dangerous for the local ecosystem Utterly wrong. https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html#9 https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.htm... You get more radiation living in a brick house https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9778.html https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9778.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html
- imtringued 7y ago
  Radiation is just a straw man. Nuclear power plants are like coal plants without CO2, except they are much bigger. The massive amount of water needed to cool down a nuclear power plant takes it's toll on the river ecosystems, sometimes to the point where the nuclear power plant has to shut down to prevent irreversible damage. Then there are the fish that get caught in the coolant system. To them nuclear plants are like those giant Minecraft mob farms that automatically kill monsters without player involvement. A truly magnificient killing machine. http://www.neis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Its-the-water-stupid-June-2017.pdf http://www.neis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Its-the-water... But to be fair I only consider our inability to build reactors cost efficiently (less disruptive cooling systems cost more $$$) to be the major roadblock to nuclear power. Just look at every HN submission regarding nuclear power. The vast majority of posters are in favor of nuclear power. So where exactly is the political opposition? I only see coal dependent communities as roadblocks but every non coal technology shares this problem.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    HN isn't the world though, and seems a bit obsessed with nuclear energy to me. For example, when activists stormed a coal mine in Germany a majority of that discussion was about "why not nuclear".. I think that is nowhere near how the average person would react to the same news, which would be either yay or nay, but not making it about nuclear energy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253954
  - bassman9000 7y ago
    And HN is one of the few places where people know the MSR alternative, which barely needs water compared to LWR/HWR. There's still the issue of the final investment stretch before making it a battle-tested technology, but what's that compared to the externalities of coal/oil, or even wind, with its also high ecological impact? Radiation is not a strawman if it's what preventing the technology from taking off due to pop fear.
  - foxyv 7y ago
    > The massive amount of water needed to cool down a nuclear power plant takes it's toll on the river ecosystems, sometimes to the point where the nuclear power plant has to shut down to prevent irreversible damage. Then there are the fish that get caught in the coolant system. To them nuclear plants are like those giant Minecraft mob farms that automatically kill monsters without player involvement. A truly magnificient killing machine. This is true in so many ways. This is why a lot of nuclear advocates are pushing for a non-pressurized water reactor designs like molten salt reactors. In addition to not needing to place reactors in locations with lots of water, we also reduce the damage to waterways from waste heat and water intakes.

bassman9000 7y ago

Nuclear is dangerous for the local ecosystem Utterly wrong. https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.html#9 https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/related-info/faq.htm... You get more radiation living in a brick house https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9778.html https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q9778.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/building.html

imtringued 7y ago
Radiation is just a straw man. Nuclear power plants are like coal plants without CO2, except they are much bigger. The massive amount of water needed to cool down a nuclear power plant takes it's toll on the river ecosystems, sometimes to the point where the nuclear power plant has to shut down to prevent irreversible damage. Then there are the fish that get caught in the coolant system. To them nuclear plants are like those giant Minecraft mob farms that automatically kill monsters without player involvement. A truly magnificient killing machine. http://www.neis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Its-the-water-stupid-June-2017.pdf http://www.neis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Its-the-water... But to be fair I only consider our inability to build reactors cost efficiently (less disruptive cooling systems cost more $$$) to be the major roadblock to nuclear power. Just look at every HN submission regarding nuclear power. The vast majority of posters are in favor of nuclear power. So where exactly is the political opposition? I only see coal dependent communities as roadblocks but every non coal technology shares this problem.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  HN isn't the world though, and seems a bit obsessed with nuclear energy to me. For example, when activists stormed a coal mine in Germany a majority of that discussion was about "why not nuclear".. I think that is nowhere near how the average person would react to the same news, which would be either yay or nay, but not making it about nuclear energy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20253954
- bassman9000 7y ago
  And HN is one of the few places where people know the MSR alternative, which barely needs water compared to LWR/HWR. There's still the issue of the final investment stretch before making it a battle-tested technology, but what's that compared to the externalities of coal/oil, or even wind, with its also high ecological impact? Radiation is not a strawman if it's what preventing the technology from taking off due to pop fear.
- foxyv 7y ago
  > The massive amount of water needed to cool down a nuclear power plant takes it's toll on the river ecosystems, sometimes to the point where the nuclear power plant has to shut down to prevent irreversible damage. Then there are the fish that get caught in the coolant system. To them nuclear plants are like those giant Minecraft mob farms that automatically kill monsters without player involvement. A truly magnificient killing machine. This is true in so many ways. This is why a lot of nuclear advocates are pushing for a non-pressurized water reactor designs like molten salt reactors. In addition to not needing to place reactors in locations with lots of water, we also reduce the damage to waterways from waste heat and water intakes.