4 ms·

> the argument is that after including Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear power is still, according to the evidence, safer and more environmentally friendly than s

> the argument is that after including Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear power is still, according to the evidence, safer and more environmentally friendly than solar or wind. That's really not the argument, but also please don't pretend that this is a fact. This might of been true in the long ago past, but solar has and is innovating and advancing way faster than nuclear. Solar is also on the order of 10x cheaper to build per kWh, 10x faster to build, safer, and doesn't leave you with radioactive materials that you need to store safely for some 50-10,000's years.

orwin 6y ago
300 years for dangerous nuclear waste, 2000 if you want to go to average mS levels. You have your orders of magnitude wrong. Solar panels (as in photovoltaic energy) is the worst "green" energy when accounting for waste and probably the one that caused the most cancer with children near zinc/cadmium mines, but fear not, in the following years they will start killing people near landfills[0][1]. More wastefull in term of minerals too, but veolia might have something to say bout this (Best company working with renewable imo). Maybe in 50 years. You can't smelt rare earth without a lot of energy, whereas you can reduce iron and CaCO3 with hydrogen and make steel and cement almost carbon-free. And as Fe and CaCO3 are present almost everywhere, you also don't have to globablize the production. Ow, and if you evalutate the CO2 ton to be around 100$ (i think its at least 4 time this price), solar energy is twice as expensive to build and install as nuclear per kWh(and if we start reducing iron and cement with hydrogen, the difference will only grow). Thats only installed power, not produced power, also not counting energy storage. I really like wind though and geotermic energy though, i think thermo solar is a good idea (not as good as passive) and maybe next gen solar won't use as much rare earth. Also if you're really interested, you should check how a power grid works. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720310962 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/ https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...
- tomphoolery 6y ago
  One thing that is nice about solar is that it flips the entire idea of "power" on its head. Solar theoretically allows you to power your own life without needing to be a part of any power grid. That's pretty neat, and I think will be very useful in the coming decades. But I think the argument here is a little convoluted. In my opinion, nuclear power is still the best "bang for your buck", and that's probably not going to change considering the same rules apply in the rest of the universe. Absorbing the energy of photons that were created by a nuclear reaction is going to net far less energy than simply using the full energy from the original nuclear reaction to power a turbine, no matter which way you slice it. On a large scale, nuclear makes sense. And even though there have been a number of high-profile incidents in the past 50 years, nuclear doesn't even come close to the amount of deaths and sickness people have suffered over the past couple hundred years by working in coal mines. I'd much rather take my chances with a bit of radiation than go into one of those mines, knowing that my lungs are going to be pitch black by the time I'm 45...and if it catches fire, I'm done.

orwin 6y ago

300 years for dangerous nuclear waste, 2000 if you want to go to average mS levels. You have your orders of magnitude wrong. Solar panels (as in photovoltaic energy) is the worst "green" energy when accounting for waste and probably the one that caused the most cancer with children near zinc/cadmium mines, but fear not, in the following years they will start killing people near landfills[0][1]. More wastefull in term of minerals too, but veolia might have something to say bout this (Best company working with renewable imo). Maybe in 50 years. You can't smelt rare earth without a lot of energy, whereas you can reduce iron and CaCO3 with hydrogen and make steel and cement almost carbon-free. And as Fe and CaCO3 are present almost everywhere, you also don't have to globablize the production. Ow, and if you evalutate the CO2 ton to be around 100$ (i think its at least 4 time this price), solar energy is twice as expensive to build and install as nuclear per kWh(and if we start reducing iron and cement with hydrogen, the difference will only grow). Thats only installed power, not produced power, also not counting energy storage. I really like wind though and geotermic energy though, i think thermo solar is a good idea (not as good as passive) and maybe next gen solar won't use as much rare earth. Also if you're really interested, you should check how a power grid works. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720310962 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/ https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die...

tomphoolery 6y ago
One thing that is nice about solar is that it flips the entire idea of "power" on its head. Solar theoretically allows you to power your own life without needing to be a part of any power grid. That's pretty neat, and I think will be very useful in the coming decades. But I think the argument here is a little convoluted. In my opinion, nuclear power is still the best "bang for your buck", and that's probably not going to change considering the same rules apply in the rest of the universe. Absorbing the energy of photons that were created by a nuclear reaction is going to net far less energy than simply using the full energy from the original nuclear reaction to power a turbine, no matter which way you slice it. On a large scale, nuclear makes sense. And even though there have been a number of high-profile incidents in the past 50 years, nuclear doesn't even come close to the amount of deaths and sickness people have suffered over the past couple hundred years by working in coal mines. I'd much rather take my chances with a bit of radiation than go into one of those mines, knowing that my lungs are going to be pitch black by the time I'm 45...and if it catches fire, I'm done.