4 ms·

...as long as you completely ignore any catastrophic risk for the next 10.000 years.

arcticbull 6y ago
Nothing is risk free. The nice thing about nuclear power is that radiation is really easy to detect, with you know, a Geiger counter. On the other hand, particulate matter emitted by oil and coal plants causes millions of deaths per year, right now. And CO2 emissions from oil, gas and natural gas are bringing us to the brink of an environmental catastrophe.
- airtonix 6y ago
  OMG YOU HEATHEAN! How dare you! The church of climate catastrophe will seek an injuction on your slanderous lies! /s
- bob29 6y ago
  Detecting radiation isn't the hard (or expensive) part https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article225386510.html https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article225... Its not nuclear vs oil and gas. Renewables are an alternative with lower cost and lower waste. A good safety history is a measure of what happened, not what could happen.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    Nuclear energy has exceptionally good safety history.
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > Nothing is risk free. I specifically called out SYSTEMIC risk. What's the systemic risk of solar panels and wind power, for example? A terrorist attack destroying 100 millions solar panels? > On the other hand The usual false dichotomy between nuclear and oil/coal/gas. > And CO2 emissions from oil, gas and natural gas are bringing us to the brink of an environmental catastrophe. ...not to mention the direct release of heat into the atmosphere due to poorly isolated house heating, industrial production and electric generation plants themselves. None of which is mitigated by nuclear. Rather, it's made even worse by any source of cheap electricity.
  - posix_me_less 6y ago
    Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand attacks from crazies. Terrorist attacks done so far have had minimal impact on infrastructure. It is a very minor and manageable threat. Release of heat due to chemical and nuclear sources does heat the planet, but the contribution to heating compared to effect of increasing CO2 concentration is negligible in the range of 1%, this is well known.
scaladev 6y ago
Do you want a bit of perspective from someone who's been living under a very thick pall of coal-produced smog for many years? 100-500 µg/m³ of PM2.5 at day time (depends on wind speed mostly, right now it's 550 µg), twice or thrice that at night. I don't think my body can tolerate this much longer. If we were to switch the coal power plants to nuclear energy, I'd jump up and down like a little girl. A small risk of second Chernobyl seems just fine in comparison to this. I'd be fine with a risk of nuclear explosion with no chance to escape, honestly.
- oddmiral 6y ago
  We cannot switch coal plants to nuclear. We can switch them to gas or hydro. > A small risk of second Chernobyl seems just fine in comparison to this. I'd be fine with a risk of nuclear explosion with no chance to escape, honestly. Chornobyl was near-miss. Potentially, it was able to turn whole Europe into radioactive wasteland, affecting lives of 1B of people. Can you just kill yourself only, please?
- rob74 6y ago
  Sorry for that, but may I ask where you live? Because if the pollution is coming from a coal power plant, there are filters for that. And I shudder to think what the people (mis)managing that coal power plant could do if it was nuclear instead...
- eeZah7Ux 6y ago
  > Do you want a bit of perspective Thanks but I don't need a strawman.
- mixermachine 6y ago
  How about switching to renewables + batteries? Solar is now as cheap as coal power in China. When you add some batteries you will be fine with no pollution. And no waste your childerns childern (and beyond) have to take care of.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    It's not actually true that batteries and solar are a perfect clean solution - and neither is wind. Better than coal to be sure, but it's not what you're making it out to be. Rare earth metals have to be mined in remote portions of China in dystopian hellscapes. Lithium and other minerals also have to be mined, and leave toxic tailing ponds. Solar panels frequently have cadmium and tellurium, which are also hazardous, and need to be managed. Plastics and composites in wind turbines also cannot be recycled. There are no perfect solutions, and the future will almost certainly require a mixture of kinds of energy.

Nothing is risk free. The nice thing about nuclear power is that radiation is really easy to detect, with you know, a Geiger counter. On the other hand, particulate matter emitted by oil and coal plants causes millions of deaths per year, right now. And CO2 emissions from oil, gas and natural gas are bringing us to the brink of an environmental catastrophe.

airtonix 6y ago
OMG YOU HEATHEAN! How dare you! The church of climate catastrophe will seek an injuction on your slanderous lies! /s
bob29 6y ago
Detecting radiation isn't the hard (or expensive) part https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article225386510.html https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article225... Its not nuclear vs oil and gas. Renewables are an alternative with lower cost and lower waste. A good safety history is a measure of what happened, not what could happen.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Nuclear energy has exceptionally good safety history.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> Nothing is risk free. I specifically called out SYSTEMIC risk. What's the systemic risk of solar panels and wind power, for example? A terrorist attack destroying 100 millions solar panels? > On the other hand The usual false dichotomy between nuclear and oil/coal/gas. > And CO2 emissions from oil, gas and natural gas are bringing us to the brink of an environmental catastrophe. ...not to mention the direct release of heat into the atmosphere due to poorly isolated house heating, industrial production and electric generation plants themselves. None of which is mitigated by nuclear. Rather, it's made even worse by any source of cheap electricity.
- posix_me_less 6y ago
  Nuclear power plants are designed to withstand attacks from crazies. Terrorist attacks done so far have had minimal impact on infrastructure. It is a very minor and manageable threat. Release of heat due to chemical and nuclear sources does heat the planet, but the contribution to heating compared to effect of increasing CO2 concentration is negligible in the range of 1%, this is well known.

scaladev 6y ago

Do you want a bit of perspective from someone who's been living under a very thick pall of coal-produced smog for many years? 100-500 µg/m³ of PM2.5 at day time (depends on wind speed mostly, right now it's 550 µg), twice or thrice that at night. I don't think my body can tolerate this much longer. If we were to switch the coal power plants to nuclear energy, I'd jump up and down like a little girl. A small risk of second Chernobyl seems just fine in comparison to this. I'd be fine with a risk of nuclear explosion with no chance to escape, honestly.

oddmiral 6y ago
We cannot switch coal plants to nuclear. We can switch them to gas or hydro. > A small risk of second Chernobyl seems just fine in comparison to this. I'd be fine with a risk of nuclear explosion with no chance to escape, honestly. Chornobyl was near-miss. Potentially, it was able to turn whole Europe into radioactive wasteland, affecting lives of 1B of people. Can you just kill yourself only, please?
rob74 6y ago
Sorry for that, but may I ask where you live? Because if the pollution is coming from a coal power plant, there are filters for that. And I shudder to think what the people (mis)managing that coal power plant could do if it was nuclear instead...
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
> Do you want a bit of perspective Thanks but I don't need a strawman.
mixermachine 6y ago
How about switching to renewables + batteries? Solar is now as cheap as coal power in China. When you add some batteries you will be fine with no pollution. And no waste your childerns childern (and beyond) have to take care of.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  It's not actually true that batteries and solar are a perfect clean solution - and neither is wind. Better than coal to be sure, but it's not what you're making it out to be. Rare earth metals have to be mined in remote portions of China in dystopian hellscapes. Lithium and other minerals also have to be mined, and leave toxic tailing ponds. Solar panels frequently have cadmium and tellurium, which are also hazardous, and need to be managed. Plastics and composites in wind turbines also cannot be recycled. There are no perfect solutions, and the future will almost certainly require a mixture of kinds of energy.