4 ms·

I mean, you began this thread by saying that they've added a new regulation on waste heat and nobody knows how to build a cooling system that satisfies it. Mayb

I mean, you began this thread by saying that they've added a new regulation on waste heat and nobody knows how to build a cooling system that satisfies it. Maybe we can begin by repealing that one and go from there...

epistasis 6y ago
We know how to build cooling towers. That's the $7B cost. Why would we remove a common sense environmental regulation, when we can build cheaper better things that have less environmental damage? Why the obsession with nuclear, at any cost? What is the benefit and gain when we have cheaper better alternatives? What was considered "cheap" in the 1980s is no longer the cheapest option. We have better, cheaper technologies. And on top of that the US can no longer build big things. We don't have construction management competence.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Because renewables don’t help reduce emissions as much as nuclear does. Renewables need fossile backup plants. Go on electricitymap.org and see how Germany has among the highest emissions in the electricity sector in Europe despite 50% renewables in their electricity mix.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > when we can build cheaper better things that have less environmental damage? No we can't. The plans are to build nuclear plants that do exactly no environmental or social damage. Solar/wind/etc can't possibly compete to that standard. Try reliably isolating solar panel waste from the biosphere for even a century and see how much it costs. The figures would be too absurd to consider, which is why nobody is suggesting it. I'd be happy to go with the cheapest thing if everything was to the same standard; but solar seems to getting a free pass that nuclear isn't, because people care about having to evacuate an area but have no fear of heavy metals poisoning. For reasons that continue to baffle the rationalists.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    > The plans are to build nuclear plants that do exactly no environmental or social damage. Solar/wind/etc can't possibly compete to that standard. I'm not sure if you're serious with post. "No" environmental damage, when we have to mine uranium, iron ore, and massive amounts of concrete? Yet somehow they "waste" of old solar panels is hazardous to the biosphere and impossible to separate? Nuclear waste is far more hazardous and we don't seem to have much problem isolating that in France. And then you say that solar is getting a free pass, when you invent issues for solar that are far more difficult for nuclear to handle? How is this rational in any way?
    - pas 6y ago
      The question is energy density and economics. Can solar/wind with the same environmental impact per kWh become cheaper than nuclear? Maybe it's already cheaper. Who knows. So far no one has really pointed at data in this thread.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > when we have to mine uranium, iron ore, and massive amounts of concrete? If you include the mining that tips the scale even further in the favour of nuclear. A renewables-first strategy use substantially more iron ore and concrete and many more rare-earth metals (which are typically mined in China last time I checked, because they are environmentally damaging to produce). Less uranium with renewables, for obvious reasons, but you can power a country with a very small uranium mine. And again, uranium mines are typically held to higher standards than other mines because they are so small and relatively easy to manage. > ... Nuclear waste is far more hazardous and we don't seem to have much problem isolating that in France. ... You seem to be inching towards enlightenment. Keep following that thought. > you invent issues for solar that are far more difficult for nuclear to handle? https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-... I care about the environment when it is convenient. Nuclear remains hands-down the most environmentally friendly option. The only defence renewables have against it is economics (which is a compelling case, I must admit).

epistasis 6y ago

We know how to build cooling towers. That's the $7B cost. Why would we remove a common sense environmental regulation, when we can build cheaper better things that have less environmental damage? Why the obsession with nuclear, at any cost? What is the benefit and gain when we have cheaper better alternatives? What was considered "cheap" in the 1980s is no longer the cheapest option. We have better, cheaper technologies. And on top of that the US can no longer build big things. We don't have construction management competence.

cbmuser 6y ago
Because renewables don’t help reduce emissions as much as nuclear does. Renewables need fossile backup plants. Go on electricitymap.org and see how Germany has among the highest emissions in the electricity sector in Europe despite 50% renewables in their electricity mix.
roenxi 6y ago
> when we can build cheaper better things that have less environmental damage? No we can't. The plans are to build nuclear plants that do exactly no environmental or social damage. Solar/wind/etc can't possibly compete to that standard. Try reliably isolating solar panel waste from the biosphere for even a century and see how much it costs. The figures would be too absurd to consider, which is why nobody is suggesting it. I'd be happy to go with the cheapest thing if everything was to the same standard; but solar seems to getting a free pass that nuclear isn't, because people care about having to evacuate an area but have no fear of heavy metals poisoning. For reasons that continue to baffle the rationalists.
- epistasis 6y ago
  > The plans are to build nuclear plants that do exactly no environmental or social damage. Solar/wind/etc can't possibly compete to that standard. I'm not sure if you're serious with post. "No" environmental damage, when we have to mine uranium, iron ore, and massive amounts of concrete? Yet somehow they "waste" of old solar panels is hazardous to the biosphere and impossible to separate? Nuclear waste is far more hazardous and we don't seem to have much problem isolating that in France. And then you say that solar is getting a free pass, when you invent issues for solar that are far more difficult for nuclear to handle? How is this rational in any way?
  - pas 6y ago
    The question is energy density and economics. Can solar/wind with the same environmental impact per kWh become cheaper than nuclear? Maybe it's already cheaper. Who knows. So far no one has really pointed at data in this thread.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > when we have to mine uranium, iron ore, and massive amounts of concrete? If you include the mining that tips the scale even further in the favour of nuclear. A renewables-first strategy use substantially more iron ore and concrete and many more rare-earth metals (which are typically mined in China last time I checked, because they are environmentally damaging to produce). Less uranium with renewables, for obvious reasons, but you can power a country with a very small uranium mine. And again, uranium mines are typically held to higher standards than other mines because they are so small and relatively easy to manage. > ... Nuclear waste is far more hazardous and we don't seem to have much problem isolating that in France. ... You seem to be inching towards enlightenment. Keep following that thought. > you invent issues for solar that are far more difficult for nuclear to handle? https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-... I care about the environment when it is convenient. Nuclear remains hands-down the most environmentally friendly option. The only defence renewables have against it is economics (which is a compelling case, I must admit).