7 ms·

If any of my serious argument is an anecdote just point at it, I will provide a source. I don't think I'm irrational and would be grateful to anyone pointing o

If any of my serious argument is an anecdote just point at it, I will provide a source. I don't think I'm irrational and would be grateful to anyone pointing out some dubtious material of mine given as a solid argument. The total impact on health (and therefore the real costs) of the nuclear industry will only be known when the last site will be completely decommissioned and the last waste innocuous. Low carbon countries are high in nuclear because none of them really invested into renewables. Concluding that nuclear must be part of the mix is at best weird. Especially given that there are very few new nuclear powerplants projects, many of them failures (very over-schedule and over-budget), and that the capital intensity induced by a fair proportion of the few new potential projects condemns them, given that the TCO of renewables is quickly getting lower and lower. The political side is also grim for nuclear plants, probably mainly because of the NIMBY effect. Most ongoing nuclear powerplants building in progress were ordered by nondemocratic countries (France and Finland being among the rare exceptions, however many in France argue that the democratic process ("débat public") is not really applied upon nuclear matters). This may reflect an 'undue failure', i.e. public opinion may be wrong about this and maybe should forget about NIMBY, however this is at least a failure to communicate as in many countries the official lenient message isn't in favor, and many people just don't want any nuke powerplant. This is not absurd, as the "everything is under control, the risk is infinitesimal" message is seriously shattered by disasters. As for transport electrification and fuel cells are indeed potential solutions, however even more remote in time than an infrastructure-oriented approach. Generalizing new types of powerplants nationwide cannot be done quickly, costs large amounts of money, and implies trade-offs (see Germany at work, and this nation was lucky because the decision to effectively switch wasn't totally out of the scheduled cycle of nuclear powerplants decomissions, reducing the losses). Modifying the energy architecture underlying a significant proportion of transport means is an even (much) more difficult target. I hope that thermal solar can be sufficient to provide to fuel cell (no nuclear powerplants necessary), and see no sign of being wrong.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
> I don't think I'm irrational and would be grateful to anyone pointing out some [dubious] material of mine given as a solid argument. > The total impact on health (and therefore the real costs) of the nuclear industry will only be known when the last site will be completely decommissioned and the last waste innocuous. Allow me to point out that this argument can be defeated easily with a relatively simple thought experiment. Your claim is that the impact of a health hazard cannot be assessed until the health hazard itself has spontaneously become innocuous. Radiological hazards are fairly unique in their characteristic of becoming innocuous with time. Compared to analogous hazardous materials, say for example, mercury. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It was always a neurotoxin and it always will be. This was used in household thermometers for decades until too many kids broke them and became injured. So we banned them, moved the hazard out of ready access, and now fewer people get mercury poison. Clearly, we can make this assessment even though the mercury still exists somewhere, and is still a neurotoxin. Et voila, this impossible goalpost you have set up crumbles by reductio ad absurdum. Nuclear waste is a hazardous material. When it is moved out of reach, we can assess the health hazard. We have done this over the past 60 years of nuclear operation and the numbers are in. Here they are: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy (yes this doesn't list wind and solar. Yes wind and solar are extremely safe too. That's why we need more wind, solar, and nuclear). It saddens me when people eschew considering the expansion of our natural nuclear resources of Earth in order to save human civilization from climate change. But that is a choice they are free to make. You mention Germany again. Recall that Germany quite literally and unambiguously chose to kill about 1000 extra people per year with air pollution from brown coal rather than continue to operate their high-quality nuclear assets. This appears very difficult to defend. How can one defend this seemingly inhumane choice? Was it thought that continuing the nuclear plants would possibly kill more than 1000/year? In this case it very literally is a choice between brown coal and nuclear. Germany chose coal. I find this shameful.
- natmaka 7y ago
  After a nuke disaster collecting all wandering dangerous material is 'difficult', to say the least. Much more difficult than recalling thermometers! And there is no way to ''ban' them in order to see them gently come back in some cask. See the Cherno and Fuku cases. After such a disaster some wandering radionucleides induce solid cancers developing in the 10 to 15 years afterwards. A silent and stealth killer, nothing fun. Hot nuclear waste is the most hazardous material as it is dangerous by contact, if inhaled, and also kills at a distance, in most cases without any warning. Moreover some of it remain dangerous for 10s of thousand years. Germany is in a transition, it is trying to quit what seems to them a bad habit (nuclear), and this is never easy nor free. On the political side of things maintaining nuclear plants in activity against citizens will is dangerous, especially if some boo-boo happens (which becomes more probable as those powerplants age up).

acidburnNSA 7y ago

> I don't think I'm irrational and would be grateful to anyone pointing out some [dubious] material of mine given as a solid argument. > The total impact on health (and therefore the real costs) of the nuclear industry will only be known when the last site will be completely decommissioned and the last waste innocuous. Allow me to point out that this argument can be defeated easily with a relatively simple thought experiment. Your claim is that the impact of a health hazard cannot be assessed until the health hazard itself has spontaneously become innocuous. Radiological hazards are fairly unique in their characteristic of becoming innocuous with time. Compared to analogous hazardous materials, say for example, mercury. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It was always a neurotoxin and it always will be. This was used in household thermometers for decades until too many kids broke them and became injured. So we banned them, moved the hazard out of ready access, and now fewer people get mercury poison. Clearly, we can make this assessment even though the mercury still exists somewhere, and is still a neurotoxin. Et voila, this impossible goalpost you have set up crumbles by reductio ad absurdum. Nuclear waste is a hazardous material. When it is moved out of reach, we can assess the health hazard. We have done this over the past 60 years of nuclear operation and the numbers are in. Here they are: https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy (yes this doesn't list wind and solar. Yes wind and solar are extremely safe too. That's why we need more wind, solar, and nuclear). It saddens me when people eschew considering the expansion of our natural nuclear resources of Earth in order to save human civilization from climate change. But that is a choice they are free to make. You mention Germany again. Recall that Germany quite literally and unambiguously chose to kill about 1000 extra people per year with air pollution from brown coal rather than continue to operate their high-quality nuclear assets. This appears very difficult to defend. How can one defend this seemingly inhumane choice? Was it thought that continuing the nuclear plants would possibly kill more than 1000/year? In this case it very literally is a choice between brown coal and nuclear. Germany chose coal. I find this shameful.

natmaka 7y ago
After a nuke disaster collecting all wandering dangerous material is 'difficult', to say the least. Much more difficult than recalling thermometers! And there is no way to ''ban' them in order to see them gently come back in some cask. See the Cherno and Fuku cases. After such a disaster some wandering radionucleides induce solid cancers developing in the 10 to 15 years afterwards. A silent and stealth killer, nothing fun. Hot nuclear waste is the most hazardous material as it is dangerous by contact, if inhaled, and also kills at a distance, in most cases without any warning. Moreover some of it remain dangerous for 10s of thousand years. Germany is in a transition, it is trying to quit what seems to them a bad habit (nuclear), and this is never easy nor free. On the political side of things maintaining nuclear plants in activity against citizens will is dangerous, especially if some boo-boo happens (which becomes more probable as those powerplants age up).