3 ms·

First of all, I'd like to point out that the whole nuclear energy was pushed a lot by politics in the 1950s. Without money from the public purse no sane company

by TomK32 7y ago

First of all, I'd like to point out that the whole nuclear energy was pushed a lot by politics in the 1950s. Without money from the public purse no sane company would have gone for this technology. Japan is just as technologically advanced as Germany, yet one of the nuclear plants, as predicted by Kraftwerk (the band), blew and fucked up the whole northern Pacific. Germany has had its technological disaster, for example Eschede, so don't think its powers plants to be 100% safe. We still don't have a long-term storage solution for the nuclear waste produced by the power plants, and don't forget about waste from decomissioning the actual buildings, that's not the stuff you want to recycle for a road. If a wind turbine is decomissioned, you simply strip it, melt it and make a better one. Building a new nuclear power plant now is betting against a huge leap in battery technology. If that leap happens it's bye-bye for fossil fuels.

Fej 7y ago
> fucked up the whole northern Pacific What now? The death toll from the Fukushima Daiichi failure is: up to 1. > We still don't have a long-term storage solution for the nuclear waste produced by the power plants Yes, we do. Put it in the side of a mountain. Nuclear waste has always been a political problem, not a technical one. The US already has a site picked, Yucca Mountain, and only NIMBYism has gotten in the way.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Don't forget the people who died because of the evacuation.
- lispm 7y ago
  > Nuclear waste has always been a political problem, Actually all energy production has/creates 'political problems'. One has to deal with those, too. Otherwise claimed technical solutions will fail in the real world. > not a technical one. I don't believe that for a second. This is the overly optimistic view of technocrats or the industry.
outworlder 7y ago
> First of all, I'd like to point out that the whole nuclear energy was pushed a lot by politics in the 1950s. No. If anything, that has set back nuclear tech for a century, as the designs funded were designed for weapons manufacturing first, energy second. Nuclear is very convenient (very infrequent fuel shipments) and powerful. Which is why well-funded navies use it extensively. The US Navy, for instance, has a perfect track record, under much harsher conditions. > We still don't have a long-term storage solution for the nuclear waste produced by the power plants We do, actually. Breeder reactors. If it is energetic enough to pose a serious threat, it's energetic enough for fuel. Once we have extracted most of the useful energy, the waste is much less dangerous and can be dealt the same way we deal with other hazardous materials. > If a wind turbine is decomissioned, you simply strip it, melt it and make a better one. I don't think it is as simple as that. Source for this claim? Re-purposing for other applications I can buy > and don't forget about waste from decomissioning the actual buildings It's basically the reactor vessel, which is not that big. The entire plant is not radioactive, after all. In fact, it is LESS radioactive than a comparable coal power plant, which can't even be built nearby, as it would trip all sorts of alarms in the nuclear power plant. > Japan is just as technologically advanced as Germany, yet one of the nuclear plants, as predicted by Kraftwerk (the band), blew and fucked up the whole northern Pacific. It was a decades old design that had a design flaw which was documented AND IGNORED. And yet, it survived a major Earthquake AND a Tsunami. If that's not safe I don't know what is. It would have been fine if not for more fuckups, like incompatible power so generator trucks couldn't be connected, even though they were dispatched. It's worth it to point out that Fukushima's reactor shut down as designed. As did other nuclear power plants, which experienced no issues at all. > Building a new nuclear power plant now is betting against a huge leap in battery technology. If that leap happens it's bye-bye for fossil fuels. Look, I'm all for renewables. But we are not there yet for baseline power, which a few (modern!) power plants could easily provide, supplemented by solar, wind, geothermal. Powering things like an aluminum power plant with renewables is going to be a tough task. > so don't think its powers plants to be 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Solar panel installation kills more people per year than all nuclear accidents ever, combined. And most nuclear power plants running today are ancient designs, because it's difficult to get permits to build more, due to public perception. But you wouldn't use the safety record for a car built in 1960 to claim that cars nowadays are inherently unsafe, would you? Why use the same argument for nuclear power plants? We need to replace the old junk with modern power plants.
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
You know that production of cement produces CO2, yes? Every single Windmill needs a massive foundation. Its not like you could put them into the ground like a toothpick. Here are some facts from a windfarming project which i've randomly chosen: [1] https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/article/10886050/ohios-first-largescale-wind-farm-uses-lafarge-cement-for-turbine-concrete-foundations https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/article/1088605... On average, each of these below-ground support systems used 60 truckloads of concrete (750 cubic yards) Lafarge also supplied 20,000 tons of Type I cement for soil stabilization of approximately 44 miles of roads,... I don't think it differs that much from any other. Do you think that has [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value ?

by TomK32 7y ago

Fej 7y ago

> fucked up the whole northern Pacific What now? The death toll from the Fukushima Daiichi failure is: up to 1. > We still don't have a long-term storage solution for the nuclear waste produced by the power plants Yes, we do. Put it in the side of a mountain. Nuclear waste has always been a political problem, not a technical one. The US already has a site picked, Yucca Mountain, and only NIMBYism has gotten in the way.

adrianN 7y ago
Don't forget the people who died because of the evacuation.
lispm 7y ago
> Nuclear waste has always been a political problem, Actually all energy production has/creates 'political problems'. One has to deal with those, too. Otherwise claimed technical solutions will fail in the real world. > not a technical one. I don't believe that for a second. This is the overly optimistic view of technocrats or the industry.

outworlder 7y ago

> First of all, I'd like to point out that the whole nuclear energy was pushed a lot by politics in the 1950s. No. If anything, that has set back nuclear tech for a century, as the designs funded were designed for weapons manufacturing first, energy second. Nuclear is very convenient (very infrequent fuel shipments) and powerful. Which is why well-funded navies use it extensively. The US Navy, for instance, has a perfect track record, under much harsher conditions. > We still don't have a long-term storage solution for the nuclear waste produced by the power plants We do, actually. Breeder reactors. If it is energetic enough to pose a serious threat, it's energetic enough for fuel. Once we have extracted most of the useful energy, the waste is much less dangerous and can be dealt the same way we deal with other hazardous materials. > If a wind turbine is decomissioned, you simply strip it, melt it and make a better one. I don't think it is as simple as that. Source for this claim? Re-purposing for other applications I can buy > and don't forget about waste from decomissioning the actual buildings It's basically the reactor vessel, which is not that big. The entire plant is not radioactive, after all. In fact, it is LESS radioactive than a comparable coal power plant, which can't even be built nearby, as it would trip all sorts of alarms in the nuclear power plant. > Japan is just as technologically advanced as Germany, yet one of the nuclear plants, as predicted by Kraftwerk (the band), blew and fucked up the whole northern Pacific. It was a decades old design that had a design flaw which was documented AND IGNORED. And yet, it survived a major Earthquake AND a Tsunami. If that's not safe I don't know what is. It would have been fine if not for more fuckups, like incompatible power so generator trucks couldn't be connected, even though they were dispatched. It's worth it to point out that Fukushima's reactor shut down as designed. As did other nuclear power plants, which experienced no issues at all. > Building a new nuclear power plant now is betting against a huge leap in battery technology. If that leap happens it's bye-bye for fossil fuels. Look, I'm all for renewables. But we are not there yet for baseline power, which a few (modern!) power plants could easily provide, supplemented by solar, wind, geothermal. Powering things like an aluminum power plant with renewables is going to be a tough task. > so don't think its powers plants to be 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Solar panel installation kills more people per year than all nuclear accidents ever, combined. And most nuclear power plants running today are ancient designs, because it's difficult to get permits to build more, due to public perception. But you wouldn't use the safety record for a car built in 1960 to claim that cars nowadays are inherently unsafe, would you? Why use the same argument for nuclear power plants? We need to replace the old junk with modern power plants.

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago

You know that production of cement produces CO2, yes? Every single Windmill needs a massive foundation. Its not like you could put them into the ground like a toothpick. Here are some facts from a windfarming project which i've randomly chosen: [1] https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/article/10886050/ohios-first-largescale-wind-farm-uses-lafarge-cement-for-turbine-concrete-foundations https://www.forconstructionpros.com/concrete/article/1088605... On average, each of these below-ground support systems used 60 truckloads of concrete (750 cubic yards) Lafarge also supplied 20,000 tons of Type I cement for soil stabilization of approximately 44 miles of roads,... I don't think it differs that much from any other. Do you think that has [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_value ?