5 ms·

Fission isn't far out. Fission has been a readily available solution for decades. The only obstacle is political. The only reason fission is expensive is politi

Fission isn't far out. Fission has been a readily available solution for decades. The only obstacle is political. The only reason fission is expensive is political. As the climate situation worsens, more and more nations will overlook that obstacle and roll out large scale nuclear. The only question is, will they be able to do it quickly enough. I feel like I'm the only person in the room missing something when watching the world focus on 'renewable' technology when a much less resource/labour intensive and much higher energy dense power source is already available. And it's safer too. [1] Why is renewable in quotes? Because we don't actually have a way to recycle solar and wind installations[2][3]. Nuclear is the only currently available large scale power source that doesn't require a large and continuous supply of mined materials. Am I missing something? Am I an idiot? Why is everyone so anti nuclear and pro 'renewable' when nuclear is significantly better by every objective metric? Looks like the 'ban plastic straws' activism which ignored that straws make up an insignificant fraction of ocean waste and the vast majority of it is discarded fishing equipment. Inconsequential feel-good activism is a higher priority goal than more difficult but effective solutions? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#453cd006709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://recyclinginternational.com/editors-top-picks/critical-question-how-to-recycle-12-000-wind-turbines/26883/ https://recyclinginternational.com/editors-top-picks/critica... [3] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/waste-crisis-looms-as-thousands-of-solar-panels-reach-end-of-life-20190112-p50qzd.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/waste-crisis-looms-a...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
You're not the only one missing this. It seems very common to miss, but I can point out what you're missing. Your link number 1 is supposed to support nuclear being safer than renewables, and it simply doesn't do that. There's a few links that regularly get shared, intending to make that point and they all don't actually make it. The list of things that nuclear is safer than, is notably missing grid scale wind and solar. What a mysterious ommision from something that is trying to argue they are not safe. Having read your link 2 and 3, I see they also don't support the point you are making (the first describes how to recycle turbine blades into concrete and is looking for more applications, the second says solar panels are 90% recyclable and just wants some government policies to ensure this happens), which makes me wonder if you're arguing in good faith here?
- missosoup 7y ago
  How does the first link not demonstrate that nuclear, at 90 deaths per trillion kWh (and this includes all the deaths from the earliest incidents when humanity was just figuring out how to harness nuclear power), is not safer than wind at 150, solar at 440, or coal at 100k? Are you disputing the article? My interpretation of it? The sources it cites? The error bounds on the estimates? What?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The deaths figure is not the whole story? The areas rendered uninhabitable matter as well.
    - missosoup 7y ago
      There is a significantly larger land area rendered uninhabitable by coal mining operations. No one seems to care. The impact of all the nuclear disasters combined is negligible in comparison. Wind power renders larger areas unusable just by the fact of covering that area with wind turbines. No one cares. Solar and wind installations devastate wildlife populations. No one cares. Why should we treat nuclear power differently and discard all of its advantages just because worst-case failures can render small land areas unusable, but smaller than other alternatives already do on a regular basis? I'm not even bringing up the fact that there exist modern reactor designs that are provably incapable of failing like this. The comparison is in favour of nuclear even when we're looking at currently rolled out explode'y reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_co... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522
    - ageofwant 7y ago
      Chernobyl is a wildlife haven. Its got one of the highest levels of biodiversity in Eastern Europe.
      - jhgb 7y ago
legulere 7y ago
You’re not stupid. Nuclear is an amazing idea on paper. But it’s simply too expensive and too slow to deploy. I recommend reading the World Nuclear Industry Status Report the Reuters article is based on.
philwelch 7y ago
I suspect it's because a lot of people don't see climate change as an actual problem to be solved as effectively as possible, but rather as an opportunity to effect the kinds of change they would favor anyway. It's "never let a crisis go to waste" thinking. We could even keep generating power with natural gas and just capture all of the carbon emissions at the powerplant. Nuclear is an improvement but you don't even need to go that far if you are serious about decarbonizing the power grid as quickly as possible.
digianarchist 7y ago
Fission is expensive: https://www.power-technology.com/news/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project-to-run-2-9bn-over-budget/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/hinkley-point-c-nuclea...
isostatic 7y ago
> Fission isn't far out. Fission has been a readily available solution for decades the UK is building new fission plants. It costs more than renewables, and won't be ready for a decade.
- tjoff 7y ago
  Yet they will be indispensable when they are done.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

You're not the only one missing this. It seems very common to miss, but I can point out what you're missing. Your link number 1 is supposed to support nuclear being safer than renewables, and it simply doesn't do that. There's a few links that regularly get shared, intending to make that point and they all don't actually make it. The list of things that nuclear is safer than, is notably missing grid scale wind and solar. What a mysterious ommision from something that is trying to argue they are not safe. Having read your link 2 and 3, I see they also don't support the point you are making (the first describes how to recycle turbine blades into concrete and is looking for more applications, the second says solar panels are 90% recyclable and just wants some government policies to ensure this happens), which makes me wonder if you're arguing in good faith here?

missosoup 7y ago
How does the first link not demonstrate that nuclear, at 90 deaths per trillion kWh (and this includes all the deaths from the earliest incidents when humanity was just figuring out how to harness nuclear power), is not safer than wind at 150, solar at 440, or coal at 100k? Are you disputing the article? My interpretation of it? The sources it cites? The error bounds on the estimates? What?
- pjc50 7y ago
  The deaths figure is not the whole story? The areas rendered uninhabitable matter as well.
  - missosoup 7y ago
    There is a significantly larger land area rendered uninhabitable by coal mining operations. No one seems to care. The impact of all the nuclear disasters combined is negligible in comparison. Wind power renders larger areas unusable just by the fact of covering that area with wind turbines. No one cares. Solar and wind installations devastate wildlife populations. No one cares. Why should we treat nuclear power differently and discard all of its advantages just because worst-case failures can render small land areas unusable, but smaller than other alternatives already do on a regular basis? I'm not even bringing up the fact that there exist modern reactor designs that are provably incapable of failing like this. The comparison is in favour of nuclear even when we're looking at currently rolled out explode'y reactors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_co... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47165522
  - ageofwant 7y ago
    Chernobyl is a wildlife haven. Its got one of the highest levels of biodiversity in Eastern Europe.
    - jhgb 7y ago

legulere 7y ago

You’re not stupid. Nuclear is an amazing idea on paper. But it’s simply too expensive and too slow to deploy. I recommend reading the World Nuclear Industry Status Report the Reuters article is based on.

philwelch 7y ago

I suspect it's because a lot of people don't see climate change as an actual problem to be solved as effectively as possible, but rather as an opportunity to effect the kinds of change they would favor anyway. It's "never let a crisis go to waste" thinking. We could even keep generating power with natural gas and just capture all of the carbon emissions at the powerplant. Nuclear is an improvement but you don't even need to go that far if you are serious about decarbonizing the power grid as quickly as possible.

digianarchist 7y ago

Fission is expensive: https://www.power-technology.com/news/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-project-to-run-2-9bn-over-budget/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/hinkley-point-c-nuclea...

isostatic 7y ago

> Fission isn't far out. Fission has been a readily available solution for decades the UK is building new fission plants. It costs more than renewables, and won't be ready for a decade.

tjoff 7y ago
Yet they will be indispensable when they are done.