4 ms·

Renewable is immaterial as long as it doesn't emit CO2. Nuclear isn't renewable, either.

by throwaway5752 7y ago

Ericson2314 7y ago
Nuclear doesn't ravage fish and watersheds either!
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jnellis 7y ago
  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hanford+leaking+into+columbia https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hanford+leaking+into+columbia
  - derblitzmann 7y ago
    Hanford isn't a power plant, it was a nuclear production facility for weapons grade nuclear material.
    - jnellis 7y ago
      "The last reactor, N Reactor, continued to operate as a dual-purpose reactor, being both a power reactor used to feed the civilian electrical grid via the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)" "Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory. "
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Nuclear has well known downsides. As I mentioned, it's not renewable so isn't a permanent path forward for human civilization. But additionally it currently has unpriced externalities in long term waste storage, looks less attractive when fuel & plant are full amortized over lifecycle, complex relationship with arms proliferation, limited deployment options because of large cooling requirements, requires permanent and expensive security and expertise over the life of a plant, and others. It's not the harmless cure-all that it's made out to be here at times. edit: that said, CO2 levels are an immediate planetary crisis and nuclear is a tool we can and should use to mitigate it.
  - jki275 7y ago
    Nuclear isn't renewable precisely, but the amount of fuel available is extremely large and not being decreased by any appreciable amount. Waste storage can be handled quite easily by reprocessing fuel, the waste is very small in comparison to other types of energy. There's little to no relationship to arms proliferation, that's only a very specific type of reactor and fuel that's not in general use for nuclear power. And finally there's a lot of water on the planet. Cooling isn't a difficult problem. The bigger problem is that reactor research has essentially been stopped due to nimby problems, so we don't even know how much better we could make nuclear power.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- imtringued 7y ago
  I think I'm missing some sarcasm here. Nuclear power plants need water for cooling. If a fish gets stuck in the cooling system then it gets ravaged. The hot water gets dumped back into the river. If the water gets too hot then everything that lives inside the river dies.
jddj 7y ago
Pumped hydro actually emits significant levels of greenhouse gases (methane rather than CO2, though). https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06/hydropower-hydroelectricity-methane-clean-climate-change-study https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06...
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  All hydro does, I don't know about the effect per kWH generated vs other fuel sources, though.

Renewable is immaterial as long as it doesn't emit CO2. Nuclear isn't renewable, either.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Nuclear doesn't ravage fish and watersheds either!

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jnellis 7y ago
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hanford+leaking+into+columbia https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hanford+leaking+into+columbia
- derblitzmann 7y ago
  Hanford isn't a power plant, it was a nuclear production facility for weapons grade nuclear material.
  - jnellis 7y ago
    "The last reactor, N Reactor, continued to operate as a dual-purpose reactor, being both a power reactor used to feed the civilian electrical grid via the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS)" "Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory. "
throwaway5752 7y ago
Nuclear has well known downsides. As I mentioned, it's not renewable so isn't a permanent path forward for human civilization. But additionally it currently has unpriced externalities in long term waste storage, looks less attractive when fuel & plant are full amortized over lifecycle, complex relationship with arms proliferation, limited deployment options because of large cooling requirements, requires permanent and expensive security and expertise over the life of a plant, and others. It's not the harmless cure-all that it's made out to be here at times. edit: that said, CO2 levels are an immediate planetary crisis and nuclear is a tool we can and should use to mitigate it.
- jki275 7y ago
  Nuclear isn't renewable precisely, but the amount of fuel available is extremely large and not being decreased by any appreciable amount. Waste storage can be handled quite easily by reprocessing fuel, the waste is very small in comparison to other types of energy. There's little to no relationship to arms proliferation, that's only a very specific type of reactor and fuel that's not in general use for nuclear power. And finally there's a lot of water on the planet. Cooling isn't a difficult problem. The bigger problem is that reactor research has essentially been stopped due to nimby problems, so we don't even know how much better we could make nuclear power.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
imtringued 7y ago
I think I'm missing some sarcasm here. Nuclear power plants need water for cooling. If a fish gets stuck in the cooling system then it gets ravaged. The hot water gets dumped back into the river. If the water gets too hot then everything that lives inside the river dies.

jddj 7y ago

Pumped hydro actually emits significant levels of greenhouse gases (methane rather than CO2, though). https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06/hydropower-hydroelectricity-methane-clean-climate-change-study https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06...

throwaway5752 7y ago
All hydro does, I don't know about the effect per kWH generated vs other fuel sources, though.