5 ms·
Re the waste problem being overstated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU https://www.dw.com/en/what-to-d
by beders 7y ago
Re the waste problem being overstated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwY2E0hjGuU
https://www.dw.com/en/what-to-do-with-nuclear-waste/a-16755844 https://www.dw.com/en/what-to-do-with-nuclear-waste/a-167558...
Interesting tidbit:
"The German Atom Forum, comprised of all German nuclear power plant operators, intends to pay as little as possible for storage and rejected shouldering costs for the new site search. In their opinion´”there is no legal basis" for them to pay and all costs should be "financed by taxpayers."
Also, how long did it take to clean up after Three Mile Island?
(hint: the cost was estimated at $1b)
Yes, Nuclear power plants for commercial power generation are done for and rightfully so.
Too dangerous, too expensive. Not only building them but de-constructing them and dealing with the waste.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago>Interesting tidbit: ... The German government had told them that they need to shut down their plants by 2022. It's not really surprising that they are unwilling to pay for forcibly closing their business. >Also, how long did it take to clean up after Three Mile Island? (hint: the cost was estimated at $1b) Why does it matter how long the cleanup took? How many dollars of energy did the other reactor generate over that time.
- beders 7y agoTo your last point, I'm not sure what you want to say: Nuclear accidents happen and the cleanup can't be that bad compared to electricity generated? Imagine we would have used that $1b for renewables? Any idea how much power THAT would have generated? It's interesting how the mind of nuclear power proponents work: Unwilling to see the larger picture, denying of basic facts (like a failure rate of 1%, brilliant) or the enormous costs being handed to tax payers (on top of their electricity bill). And down-voting facts they don't like.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago>To your last point, I'm not sure what you want to say: Nuclear accidents happen and the cleanup can't be that bad compared to electricity generated? No, mostly that blindly mentioning numbers is meaningless, particularly as a "hint" for how long cleanup took. >Unwilling to see the larger picture, denying of basic facts (like a failure rate of 1%, brilliant) or the enormous costs being handed to tax payers (on top of their electricity bill). There's no consensus on what the "big picture" is, there is a crisis right now and the best way to solve it may not be your ideal solution. I would need to be presented with basic facts to be able to deny them, random numbers or statistics with no context aren't facts. The government can pay enormous costs, I generally view that appeal as a scare tactic.
- throwanem 7y agoYou make a good point: Nuclear power plants for commercial power generation are done for, and rightfully so. Nobody ever said it had to be commercial.
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoQuite agree. I want nuclear power on the moon and mars bases. Let's use it where energy density of fuel actually matters.
- throwanem 7y agoI want it on Earth, but I don't want a profit motive imposing perverse incentives.
- SuoDuanDao 7y agoI feel the exact opposite - if you can't pay your insurance premiums or your investors, I don't want to fund your project through my taxes. I'm aware Nuclear competes with industries that have negative externalities which aren't priced in - to my mind, the proper solution is to tax the negative externalities and not subsidize any particular technology. Subsidizing industries requires hitting a moving target, and government simply doesn't move at a pace where it can reliably add value in that space.
- manicdee 7y agoI don’t want ideology imposing perverse incentives either.
- throwanem 7y agoCapitalism is an ideology, too.