5 ms·

Alright then. Let's start shutting down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nuclear.

by swebs 6y ago

antocv 6y ago
Yes, lets hurry up this extinction event.
- lightgreen 6y ago
  Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close. But so far nuclear power statistically is safer than any other source (wind, solar, hydro, coal), deaths per Wh, including the worst events like Chernobyl. There’s no dark black magic inside nuclear power plant. It just burns uranium and heats water to spin turbines. Uranium burning happens all the time on Earth, in fact, if Uranium did not burn, the Earth would be much colder place. (Technically, it is not burning of course, it’s fission.)
  - willis936 6y ago
    Well, Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium. There is a real threat of catastrophic outcomes with fission reactors that don’t exist with other reactors. These are issues that can be prevented, but the inherent danger cannot be denied.
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium Poisoning water does not make extinction event. It would render some area unsuitable for living, big economic loss, so don’t operate knowingly flawed reactors, and don’t let Soviets operate nuclear reactors, and it will be fine. > the inherent danger cannot be denied As well as dangers of flying, taking a shower, operating a hydro power plant and everything else. Even accounting for these dangers, nuclear is the safest option.
  - antocv 6y ago
    > Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close The parent commenter did not call for 1 more nuclear power plant. Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances, that some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists. May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others?
    - lightgreen 6y ago
      > Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances Sure, from very small to ten times that, still very small. > some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists OK, we can accept that eventually one or two small regions will be not suitable for living. We already do a lot of that when we build hydro power plants for example. Hydro power plants consume a lot of land. > May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others? Chernobyl, no, it is radioactive and dangerous. Fukushima surrounding is very safe, it was evacuated only because there were ignorant people in Japanese government. Anyway, what's the point of the question? Nobody is supposed to live where it is not safe, like nobody lives in Chernobyl exclusion zone.
nabeards 6y ago
How long will it take to build all those nuclear plants? Not sure there’s enough time. It seems rapid deployment of solar where its most effective would be the quickest route to effect change.
- adrianN 6y ago
  It would probably best if we did both at the same time. They use mostly independent resources.
- bradlys 6y ago
  Quickest route to any change. Quickest route to a complete solution, probably not. Solar is nice but it still requires factories being built too. I don’t think we have all the factories in place to just build out solar to where we could replace most everything with solar. And solar only covers half of the day anyway.
- swebs 6y ago
  >How long will it take to build all those nuclear plants? About 7.5 years if you start them all at the same time. http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... How long would it take to deploy that solar energy system, as well as figuring out a storage solution to overcome the problem of the duck curve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
  - nabeards 6y ago
    ‘Where it’s most effective’ == places that use their energy during the day, e.g, any place close-ish to the equator that needs daytime cooling. Solar farms can be deployed at large scale in less than three years. Here’s India adding 7 MW in that timeframe: https://www.greenlaunches.com/alternative-energy/less-three-years-india-sees-three-fold-rise-solar-power-generation-capacity-currently-10000-megawatts.php https://www.greenlaunches.com/alternative-energy/less-three-... We do have lots of solar panels and lots of solar panel manufacturing capacity. I don’t think we have the nuclear resources we need to produce as fast.

Alright then. Let's start shutting down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nuclear.

by swebs 6y ago

Alright then. Let's start shutting down fossil fuel power plants and replace them with nuclear.

antocv 6y ago

Yes, lets hurry up this extinction event.

lightgreen 6y ago
Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close. But so far nuclear power statistically is safer than any other source (wind, solar, hydro, coal), deaths per Wh, including the worst events like Chernobyl. There’s no dark black magic inside nuclear power plant. It just burns uranium and heats water to spin turbines. Uranium burning happens all the time on Earth, in fact, if Uranium did not burn, the Earth would be much colder place. (Technically, it is not burning of course, it’s fission.)
- willis936 6y ago
  Well, Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium. There is a real threat of catastrophic outcomes with fission reactors that don’t exist with other reactors. These are issues that can be prevented, but the inherent danger cannot be denied.
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > Chernobyl did narrowly miss a much worse outcome: poisoning the water table in a thousand mile radius with corium Poisoning water does not make extinction event. It would render some area unsuitable for living, big economic loss, so don’t operate knowingly flawed reactors, and don’t let Soviets operate nuclear reactors, and it will be fine. > the inherent danger cannot be denied As well as dangers of flying, taking a shower, operating a hydro power plant and everything else. Even accounting for these dangers, nuclear is the safest option.
- antocv 6y ago
  > Even if we intentionally blow a nuclear power plant, it will not be an extinction event, not even close The parent commenter did not call for 1 more nuclear power plant. Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances, that some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists. May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others?
  - lightgreen 6y ago
    > Increasing the scale of reactors to "replace fossil fuels", increases the chances Sure, from very small to ten times that, still very small. > some of them even a dozen would cause environmental destruction for which no known method of cleanup exists OK, we can accept that eventually one or two small regions will be not suitable for living. We already do a lot of that when we build hydro power plants for example. Hydro power plants consume a lot of land. > May I call you lightgreen and other fission-proponents to move to Chernobyl or Fukushima and live there as an example to others? Chernobyl, no, it is radioactive and dangerous. Fukushima surrounding is very safe, it was evacuated only because there were ignorant people in Japanese government. Anyway, what's the point of the question? Nobody is supposed to live where it is not safe, like nobody lives in Chernobyl exclusion zone.

nabeards 6y ago

How long will it take to build all those nuclear plants? Not sure there’s enough time. It seems rapid deployment of solar where its most effective would be the quickest route to effect change.

adrianN 6y ago
It would probably best if we did both at the same time. They use mostly independent resources.
bradlys 6y ago
Quickest route to any change. Quickest route to a complete solution, probably not. Solar is nice but it still requires factories being built too. I don’t think we have all the factories in place to just build out solar to where we could replace most everything with solar. And solar only covers half of the day anyway.
swebs 6y ago
>How long will it take to build all those nuclear plants? About 7.5 years if you start them all at the same time. http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... How long would it take to deploy that solar energy system, as well as figuring out a storage solution to overcome the problem of the duck curve? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve
- nabeards 6y ago
  ‘Where it’s most effective’ == places that use their energy during the day, e.g, any place close-ish to the equator that needs daytime cooling. Solar farms can be deployed at large scale in less than three years. Here’s India adding 7 MW in that timeframe: https://www.greenlaunches.com/alternative-energy/less-three-years-india-sees-three-fold-rise-solar-power-generation-capacity-currently-10000-megawatts.php https://www.greenlaunches.com/alternative-energy/less-three-... We do have lots of solar panels and lots of solar panel manufacturing capacity. I don’t think we have the nuclear resources we need to produce as fast.