18 ms·

Mankind can not handle the responsabilities that come with nuclear technologies. Aging and literally crumbeling reactors are kept running on extended permits gr

Mankind can not handle the responsabilities that come with nuclear technologies. Aging and literally crumbeling reactors are kept running on extended permits granted by cabinets where the revolving door with the energy industry is well oiled. Fukushima thaught the cynical lesson that a nuclear operator can profit even more from the post-accident cleanup than from simply running the facility. Meanwhile the nuclear lobby thankfuly jumped onto the passing 'CO2 posterchild' train for a free greenwash. But hey, it is so more trendy, edgy and suave to be pro-nuke these days than to be a tired old hippie pointing out that nuclear is no free lunch.

simion314 7y ago
Nuclear energy is not a free but it kills a lot less the coal, so closing nuclear plants and using coal plants like Germany did is stupid(the decision was pure political and forced by the Green party, ironic)
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  Acutally, On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. It is especially Solar and Wind that are on the rise in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
  - ekelsen 7y ago
    It seems like they got the order wrong though.
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    The damage will be done by 2038. We need to stop pretending we have time to slowly wean off of fossil fuels. We're already facing feedback loops that are going to drastically change the climate. Just look at the graph on that page. Renewables have largely replaced nuclear... Which is largely a clean energy source while coal has barely changed and the use of gas has slightly increased. Except now we have nothing to cover baseload except for coal and we're still building new coal power plants.
  - scythe 7y ago
    Germany has always had a good environmental track record, which is why their bad decisions are interesting. It tells us about communication problems between researchers who study the impacts of energy generation and voters who are concerned about protecting the environment.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      And politicians who were happy to simply outsource CO₂ emissions by closing their nuclear plants and buying electricity from other countries, which generate it from coal.
      - jacobush 7y ago
        Yep - it's not in their electoral backyard. Another angle is that it seems Germany is becoming a giant in renewable tech. I mean, it looks like their big bet on that is paying off in pure economical terms. So the voters are unlikely to punish politicians for a move that seems to spell a lot of export money for Germany.
  - xorfish 7y ago
    They could have replaced coal with all the new renewable energy sources and thus reduce the CO2 output. But instead they somehow decided it was a good idea to shut down nuclear power plants before they shut down the last coal plant. Per TWh produced, coal kills more than the power produced by Chernobyl. Generation 4 reactors will very likely begin operation in the next 6-10 years. Just look at the integral molten salt reactor as an example.
  - kikoreis 7y ago
    It is great, but 18 years is a long time. Nuclear is the one realistic approach to bridge the gap, and I am not sure we have others.
- varjag 7y ago
  Nuclear energy is used a lot less than coal and kills a lot less than coal. Let's see how it goes when reactors replace power generation in third world with poor safety record and in upcoming warzones. We nerds love technology and this is really the main reason for strong pro-nuclear sentiment in places like HN. Health effects or emissions footprint have little to do with it.
  - simion314 7y ago
    I think you imagine that a nuclear power plant would explode like a nuclear bomb, that is not the case. The fuel used is not the same as in the one in bombs either so you can't put some masks on and rob the nuclear plant.
    - varjag 7y ago
      I lived some 200km downwind from Chernobyl when it happened so have pretty solid concept of reactor failure modes.
      - simion314 7y ago
        I agree that there are risks and waste from nuclear, my main issue is that for some reasons coal plants have larger damage to the environment and population. My opinion is that we should not rush on building new nuclear plants but finish the ones that are already built, use them to full capacity , invest into research for the safer nuclear versions. I would not like to have a nuclear plant near my house, but if you have to chose between a coal plant that is polluting and radiating all the time is running and a new nuclear plant design that it would fail only in super rare events (there are designs that would be safe even if the cooling system fails) then I definitely don't want the coal plant. Btw nuclear is used in medicine, there are labs that use radioactive materials, I think the number of this would grow and it may end up in countries you don't trust but you can't stop progress,
        varjag 7y ago
        Natural gas burns quite cleanly. There's a number of European nations that don't have a single active coal power plant and they get by somehow. The reason nuclear crowd loves to focus on coal is it's the worst case conventional technology and hence the easiest to argue against. The arguments against hydro, wind or NG are a lot less convincing.
- postalrat 7y ago
  Most people aren't afraid of responsibly run power plants. They are afraid of what those power plants can be used for (building nuclear weapons).
  - simion314 7y ago
    This is the problem, you can't build a nuclear weapon with the fuel in a power plant, misconceptions like this cause a lot of damage to the entire planet.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
But mankind can handle the responsibilities that come with geoengineering, such as just heating up the globe? Because that's what we've been doing for the past century. Fukushima taught the cynical lesson that overreaction to and media-fueled mindless panic about nuclear incidents causes more damage and death than nuclear incidents themselves. "Nuclear is no free lunch", but you get to pick what you eat for the money you have. When you compare fossil fuel burning, which involves mining and shipping stupendous quantities of fuel and releasing equally stupendous amount of CO₂ pollution (including radioisotopes!) into atmosphere, to nuclear power, which involves mining, shipping and using tiny amounts of fuel for the same energy output, and the result is a tiny amount of solid waste... well, nuclear is a no-brainer here.
- jacobush 7y ago
  "Fukushima taught the cynical lesson that overreaction to and media-fueled mindless panic about nuclear incidents causes more damage and death than nuclear incidents themselves." Yes, but did we really take that lesson to heart? Because one can react to that in different ways. Currently I'm leaning to towards, that yes, maybe I can be confident nuclear can be engineered to (for the money we have) acceptably safe. But I'm not convinced we can manage the social cost and education effort and corruption mitigation needed. Damage and death caused by panic is still damage and death.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    People forget that the real tragedy with "fukushima" was the tsunami, the nuclear thing is a minor part of that. Seriously, over 20 000 people died from the tsunami and countless more doesn't even have a home anymore. But the fact that some people will not be able to move back to their homes are the real tragedy?
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Tsunamis mankind didn't create, so I think the feel is a bit different. Even though deaths from that is also our own responsibility in as far as we could have prevented them. (Building codes, zoning, early warning systems etc.) But there is a lot of suffering involved with whole communities being erased and ghost towns - sometimes for no great reason. Some places didn't receive much of any radiation but are now dead. Even places where it's allowed now to move back to, people don't want to. Some are afraid, and some don't want to move back to an empty ghost town.

simion314 7y ago

Nuclear energy is not a free but it kills a lot less the coal, so closing nuclear plants and using coal plants like Germany did is stupid(the decision was pure political and forced by the Green party, ironic)

PeterStuer 7y ago
Acutally, On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. It is especially Solar and Wind that are on the rise in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
- ekelsen 7y ago
  It seems like they got the order wrong though.
- jplayer01 7y ago
  The damage will be done by 2038. We need to stop pretending we have time to slowly wean off of fossil fuels. We're already facing feedback loops that are going to drastically change the climate. Just look at the graph on that page. Renewables have largely replaced nuclear... Which is largely a clean energy source while coal has barely changed and the use of gas has slightly increased. Except now we have nothing to cover baseload except for coal and we're still building new coal power plants.
- scythe 7y ago
  Germany has always had a good environmental track record, which is why their bad decisions are interesting. It tells us about communication problems between researchers who study the impacts of energy generation and voters who are concerned about protecting the environment.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    And politicians who were happy to simply outsource CO₂ emissions by closing their nuclear plants and buying electricity from other countries, which generate it from coal.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Yep - it's not in their electoral backyard. Another angle is that it seems Germany is becoming a giant in renewable tech. I mean, it looks like their big bet on that is paying off in pure economical terms. So the voters are unlikely to punish politicians for a move that seems to spell a lot of export money for Germany.
- xorfish 7y ago
  They could have replaced coal with all the new renewable energy sources and thus reduce the CO2 output. But instead they somehow decided it was a good idea to shut down nuclear power plants before they shut down the last coal plant. Per TWh produced, coal kills more than the power produced by Chernobyl. Generation 4 reactors will very likely begin operation in the next 6-10 years. Just look at the integral molten salt reactor as an example.
- kikoreis 7y ago
  It is great, but 18 years is a long time. Nuclear is the one realistic approach to bridge the gap, and I am not sure we have others.
varjag 7y ago
Nuclear energy is used a lot less than coal and kills a lot less than coal. Let's see how it goes when reactors replace power generation in third world with poor safety record and in upcoming warzones. We nerds love technology and this is really the main reason for strong pro-nuclear sentiment in places like HN. Health effects or emissions footprint have little to do with it.
- simion314 7y ago
  I think you imagine that a nuclear power plant would explode like a nuclear bomb, that is not the case. The fuel used is not the same as in the one in bombs either so you can't put some masks on and rob the nuclear plant.
  - varjag 7y ago
    I lived some 200km downwind from Chernobyl when it happened so have pretty solid concept of reactor failure modes.
    - simion314 7y ago
      I agree that there are risks and waste from nuclear, my main issue is that for some reasons coal plants have larger damage to the environment and population. My opinion is that we should not rush on building new nuclear plants but finish the ones that are already built, use them to full capacity , invest into research for the safer nuclear versions. I would not like to have a nuclear plant near my house, but if you have to chose between a coal plant that is polluting and radiating all the time is running and a new nuclear plant design that it would fail only in super rare events (there are designs that would be safe even if the cooling system fails) then I definitely don't want the coal plant. Btw nuclear is used in medicine, there are labs that use radioactive materials, I think the number of this would grow and it may end up in countries you don't trust but you can't stop progress,
      - varjag 7y ago
        Natural gas burns quite cleanly. There's a number of European nations that don't have a single active coal power plant and they get by somehow. The reason nuclear crowd loves to focus on coal is it's the worst case conventional technology and hence the easiest to argue against. The arguments against hydro, wind or NG are a lot less convincing.
postalrat 7y ago
Most people aren't afraid of responsibly run power plants. They are afraid of what those power plants can be used for (building nuclear weapons).
- simion314 7y ago
  This is the problem, you can't build a nuclear weapon with the fuel in a power plant, misconceptions like this cause a lot of damage to the entire planet.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

But mankind can handle the responsibilities that come with geoengineering, such as just heating up the globe? Because that's what we've been doing for the past century. Fukushima taught the cynical lesson that overreaction to and media-fueled mindless panic about nuclear incidents causes more damage and death than nuclear incidents themselves. "Nuclear is no free lunch", but you get to pick what you eat for the money you have. When you compare fossil fuel burning, which involves mining and shipping stupendous quantities of fuel and releasing equally stupendous amount of CO₂ pollution (including radioisotopes!) into atmosphere, to nuclear power, which involves mining, shipping and using tiny amounts of fuel for the same energy output, and the result is a tiny amount of solid waste... well, nuclear is a no-brainer here.

jacobush 7y ago
"Fukushima taught the cynical lesson that overreaction to and media-fueled mindless panic about nuclear incidents causes more damage and death than nuclear incidents themselves." Yes, but did we really take that lesson to heart? Because one can react to that in different ways. Currently I'm leaning to towards, that yes, maybe I can be confident nuclear can be engineered to (for the money we have) acceptably safe. But I'm not convinced we can manage the social cost and education effort and corruption mitigation needed. Damage and death caused by panic is still damage and death.
- tjoff 7y ago
  People forget that the real tragedy with "fukushima" was the tsunami, the nuclear thing is a minor part of that. Seriously, over 20 000 people died from the tsunami and countless more doesn't even have a home anymore. But the fact that some people will not be able to move back to their homes are the real tragedy?
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Tsunamis mankind didn't create, so I think the feel is a bit different. Even though deaths from that is also our own responsibility in as far as we could have prevented them. (Building codes, zoning, early warning systems etc.) But there is a lot of suffering involved with whole communities being erased and ghost towns - sometimes for no great reason. Some places didn't receive much of any radiation but are now dead. Even places where it's allowed now to move back to, people don't want to. Some are afraid, and some don't want to move back to an empty ghost town.