5 ms·

A drill in a new not-yet-started local and small solution is not a running global solution. When all waste will be inert we may evaluate the sanitary consequen

A drill in a new not-yet-started local and small solution is not a running global solution. When all waste will be inert we may evaluate the sanitary consequences. Meanwhile the dangerous hot waste may or may not harm. Well-known scientists who worked in situ have a somewhat different opinion about the consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... UN agencies aren't BS and lies-free.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
It has started. They are doing actual tests of waste packages in actual final disposition tunnels. See the photo gallery. > When all waste will be inert we may evaluate the sanitary consequences. Meanwhile the dangerous hot waste may or may not harm. I don't understand how you can justify this statement. Again, commercial nuclear waste in dry casks has never hurt anyone and probably never will, yet nuclear power has produced ~5% of the world's energy over the past several decades, and it does so without emitting carbon dioxide, and it does so 24/7, and it does so with very little raw material and land impact. Meanwhile, fossil actually kills 4.3 million people every single year. How can you justify a nearly fantastical fear of nuclear waste future harm while 4.3 million people are dying every year from air pollution from the alternative? This is like Germany, who phased out nuclear plants while keeping brown coal plants on, thereby choosing literally to kill about 1000 extra people per year because of their fear of radiation. This feels wild to me, and borderline inhumane given the statistics.
- natmaka 7y ago
  The Chernobyl plant, according to officials speaking before the disaster, also was so sure that it could be built on the Red Square. Those savants were nowhere to be found during the disaster. You play the usual card of nuke proponent, which is to describe things just as if not emitting carbon during energy production implies nukes. This is not true. Many renewables, mainly wind and solar, are pertinent. This is absolutely not a "coal or nuke, there is no other option" challenge. Nuke proponents also tend to imply that a 100% nuke-generated gridpower will solve the carbon problem. This is not realistic, as gridpower-related CO2 emission are at max 25%, and more realistically about 17%, of the total emissions. France gridpower production is way more decarbonized than Germany's, Germany is a more heavy player on many fuel-consuming industries (chemical, mechanics, material...), Germany climate implies more heating and France is the leader when it comes to electric heating systems... therefore one may think that Germany's carbon dioxide emissions per capita are way, way superior to France's. They aren't! For 2018: France 5, Germany 9.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    I like anecdotes. I like data better. Nuclear is a very safe energy source compared to the majority of what powers the world, period. Wind and solar are also extremely safe. Wind is very low carbon, about 11 gCO2-eq/kWh. Solar PV is a bit higher, around 40. Hydro varies dramatically from excellent to terrible based on biogenic methane emissions (region dependent). Fracked natural gas is abhorrent with >400 gCO2/kWh, and even worse (in some cases worse than coal) when the short term warming effects of methane are factored in. Nuclear clocks in at 12, beat out only by wind. These are the IPCC full lifecycle numbers, of course. Here's another good (and live) view of worldwide carbon emissions, in CO2-eq/kWh generated [1]. You'll note that a lot of very low carbon countries are very high in nuclear. I am a pragmatist. I see a climate challenge and I want all low-carbon energy sources. Everyone cheers for wind and solar, including me. They're doing phenomenally. We need 10x or more of them. No one disagrees with this. Nuclear is far more controversial, and is the topic at hand in this subthread. Don't tell me I'm anti wind and solar just because I point out challenges with them. All energy sources have challenges. I just refuse to tie my hands and not support nuclear because of irrational and unscientific fear. I want all low-carbon hands on deck. It's much more interesting for me to explain the basis behind why nuclear is actually less dangerous and scary than the vast majority of people think than it is for me to say we need more wind and solar. Regarding electricity's share of total emissions, the only non-combustion solution that I'm aware of for transportation (40% of emissions) is electrification. As buses, cars, trains, and even short-run airplanes electrify, we can decarbonize the transportation sector by using decarbonized electricity. Hydrogen is another option, and nuclear reactors are one of the most excellent ways to make hydrogen without lots of carbon emission. As for process heat, it's difficult for anything to reach fossil-fuel temperatures, but there are lots of interesting efforts with hydrogen blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces that may get us there. Electrification as a means to reduce total emissions is a need shared by all low-carbon energy sources that I'm aware of, including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Advanced nuclear and solar thermal are unique in their abilities to reach process heat temperatures. My goal and value system is all about decarbonizing the world effectively and justly. I want to base my decisions on data and rationale. I'm looking for people to help in this goal, which I consider noble. [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=...

acidburnNSA 7y ago

It has started. They are doing actual tests of waste packages in actual final disposition tunnels. See the photo gallery. > When all waste will be inert we may evaluate the sanitary consequences. Meanwhile the dangerous hot waste may or may not harm. I don't understand how you can justify this statement. Again, commercial nuclear waste in dry casks has never hurt anyone and probably never will, yet nuclear power has produced ~5% of the world's energy over the past several decades, and it does so without emitting carbon dioxide, and it does so 24/7, and it does so with very little raw material and land impact. Meanwhile, fossil actually kills 4.3 million people every single year. How can you justify a nearly fantastical fear of nuclear waste future harm while 4.3 million people are dying every year from air pollution from the alternative? This is like Germany, who phased out nuclear plants while keeping brown coal plants on, thereby choosing literally to kill about 1000 extra people per year because of their fear of radiation. This feels wild to me, and borderline inhumane given the statistics.

natmaka 7y ago
The Chernobyl plant, according to officials speaking before the disaster, also was so sure that it could be built on the Red Square. Those savants were nowhere to be found during the disaster. You play the usual card of nuke proponent, which is to describe things just as if not emitting carbon during energy production implies nukes. This is not true. Many renewables, mainly wind and solar, are pertinent. This is absolutely not a "coal or nuke, there is no other option" challenge. Nuke proponents also tend to imply that a 100% nuke-generated gridpower will solve the carbon problem. This is not realistic, as gridpower-related CO2 emission are at max 25%, and more realistically about 17%, of the total emissions. France gridpower production is way more decarbonized than Germany's, Germany is a more heavy player on many fuel-consuming industries (chemical, mechanics, material...), Germany climate implies more heating and France is the leader when it comes to electric heating systems... therefore one may think that Germany's carbon dioxide emissions per capita are way, way superior to France's. They aren't! For 2018: France 5, Germany 9.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  I like anecdotes. I like data better. Nuclear is a very safe energy source compared to the majority of what powers the world, period. Wind and solar are also extremely safe. Wind is very low carbon, about 11 gCO2-eq/kWh. Solar PV is a bit higher, around 40. Hydro varies dramatically from excellent to terrible based on biogenic methane emissions (region dependent). Fracked natural gas is abhorrent with >400 gCO2/kWh, and even worse (in some cases worse than coal) when the short term warming effects of methane are factored in. Nuclear clocks in at 12, beat out only by wind. These are the IPCC full lifecycle numbers, of course. Here's another good (and live) view of worldwide carbon emissions, in CO2-eq/kWh generated [1]. You'll note that a lot of very low carbon countries are very high in nuclear. I am a pragmatist. I see a climate challenge and I want all low-carbon energy sources. Everyone cheers for wind and solar, including me. They're doing phenomenally. We need 10x or more of them. No one disagrees with this. Nuclear is far more controversial, and is the topic at hand in this subthread. Don't tell me I'm anti wind and solar just because I point out challenges with them. All energy sources have challenges. I just refuse to tie my hands and not support nuclear because of irrational and unscientific fear. I want all low-carbon hands on deck. It's much more interesting for me to explain the basis behind why nuclear is actually less dangerous and scary than the vast majority of people think than it is for me to say we need more wind and solar. Regarding electricity's share of total emissions, the only non-combustion solution that I'm aware of for transportation (40% of emissions) is electrification. As buses, cars, trains, and even short-run airplanes electrify, we can decarbonize the transportation sector by using decarbonized electricity. Hydrogen is another option, and nuclear reactors are one of the most excellent ways to make hydrogen without lots of carbon emission. As for process heat, it's difficult for anything to reach fossil-fuel temperatures, but there are lots of interesting efforts with hydrogen blast furnaces and electric arc furnaces that may get us there. Electrification as a means to reduce total emissions is a need shared by all low-carbon energy sources that I'm aware of, including wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Advanced nuclear and solar thermal are unique in their abilities to reach process heat temperatures. My goal and value system is all about decarbonizing the world effectively and justly. I want to base my decisions on data and rationale. I'm looking for people to help in this goal, which I consider noble. [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=...