5 ms·

> nuclear power is green and just better than renewable and coal How do you arrive at that conclusion? Better in what regard? AFAIK nuclear power has all sort

> nuclear power is green and just better than renewable and coal How do you arrive at that conclusion? Better in what regard? AFAIK nuclear power has all sorts of problems, the main one being that nobody knows what to do about the waste. Building nuclear power plants isn’t exactly carbon emission free either.

vidarh 7y ago
Dealing with the waste is not a problem. Dealing with the fear around the waste is. The amount of radioactive waste from coal plants is a far bigger problem than the very minor volumes of waste from nuclear, a lot of which can be used as fuel for breeder reactors. Once we've decommissioned all coal power plants, then it might be reasonable to assess whether or not continued investment in nuclear is worthwhile, but until then decommissioning nuclear is actively causing harm, including huge numbers of deaths, by keeping more coal plants operational.
jokoon 7y ago
The waste is a non-problem, especially when you compare with co2 over decades. Nuclear energy emits less co2 than renewables: it requires less metals (especially if you store electricity with batteries or other means), and renewables are not baseload energies, meaning you need to burn either coal or gas when there's no sun or wind. Wind mills require a lot of metals, and installing them is complicated. Solar panels require mining elements, and solar panels degrade over time. Nuclear energy is green. It's time to say it.
- rmetzler 7y ago
  Just tell this to the people in Fukushima and Tschernobyl. Also you worded it like you don’t need mining to produce nuclear energy, it’s not complicated to handle and reactors don’t fall apart over time.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    As it was answered above in another comment, there are far more deaths caused by coal (particles, radioactivity of coal fumes). Stop the nuclear fear-mongering. You need less mining for uranium. Reactors have a huge lifespan. They're cheap and clean when considering the energy they bring.
- throwaway023421 7y ago
  You are comparing CO2 emission and use of metal and completely ignore the catastrophic systemic risk of nuclear power. There has been many events where nuclear waste has been dumped in the ocean, misplaced, lost, improperly buried, leaked in rivers, caught fire and even deliberately used in projectiles and dispersed in the environment. And this is nothing compared to the risk of exposing large amounts of waste during a war or terrorist attack.
  - jokoon 7y ago
    fear mongering please have actual figures about death and cancer, and compare them with car exhaust and air quality it is illegal to dump nuclear waste
lm28469 7y ago
> AFAIK nuclear power has all sorts of problems, the main one being that nobody knows what to do about the waste You're breathing the wastes of fossil fuel based energy sources every single second of your life and it will 100% reduce your life expectancy and quality of life. The best case scenario of fossil fuel based energy production is worst than the worst case scenario of nuclear based energy production.

vidarh 7y ago

Dealing with the waste is not a problem. Dealing with the fear around the waste is. The amount of radioactive waste from coal plants is a far bigger problem than the very minor volumes of waste from nuclear, a lot of which can be used as fuel for breeder reactors. Once we've decommissioned all coal power plants, then it might be reasonable to assess whether or not continued investment in nuclear is worthwhile, but until then decommissioning nuclear is actively causing harm, including huge numbers of deaths, by keeping more coal plants operational.

jokoon 7y ago

The waste is a non-problem, especially when you compare with co2 over decades. Nuclear energy emits less co2 than renewables: it requires less metals (especially if you store electricity with batteries or other means), and renewables are not baseload energies, meaning you need to burn either coal or gas when there's no sun or wind. Wind mills require a lot of metals, and installing them is complicated. Solar panels require mining elements, and solar panels degrade over time. Nuclear energy is green. It's time to say it.

rmetzler 7y ago
Just tell this to the people in Fukushima and Tschernobyl. Also you worded it like you don’t need mining to produce nuclear energy, it’s not complicated to handle and reactors don’t fall apart over time.
- jokoon 7y ago
  As it was answered above in another comment, there are far more deaths caused by coal (particles, radioactivity of coal fumes). Stop the nuclear fear-mongering. You need less mining for uranium. Reactors have a huge lifespan. They're cheap and clean when considering the energy they bring.
throwaway023421 7y ago
You are comparing CO2 emission and use of metal and completely ignore the catastrophic systemic risk of nuclear power. There has been many events where nuclear waste has been dumped in the ocean, misplaced, lost, improperly buried, leaked in rivers, caught fire and even deliberately used in projectiles and dispersed in the environment. And this is nothing compared to the risk of exposing large amounts of waste during a war or terrorist attack.
- jokoon 7y ago
  fear mongering please have actual figures about death and cancer, and compare them with car exhaust and air quality it is illegal to dump nuclear waste

lm28469 7y ago

> AFAIK nuclear power has all sorts of problems, the main one being that nobody knows what to do about the waste You're breathing the wastes of fossil fuel based energy sources every single second of your life and it will 100% reduce your life expectancy and quality of life. The best case scenario of fossil fuel based energy production is worst than the worst case scenario of nuclear based energy production.