4 ms·

Paris accords: Nuclear energy must be part of a serious US recommitment

13 points by ericdanielski 6y ago

beders 6y ago
No.
- mc32 6y ago
  You’ll have to be more substantive than that. If it hadn’t been for Jane Fonda and her crowd of naysayers like green peace, we would not be in the same predicament we're in. Do, yes, we will need nuclear to supplement renewables.
  - beders 6y ago
    No.
- beders 6y ago
  Ah, let the down-voting begin! Ok, here are the usual points: 1. Solar has become the cheapest power source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit... 2. Uranium mining is dirty and dangerous 3. Uranium transport is dirty and dangerous 4. Producing electricity in a nuclear power plant is dirty and dangerous and produces toxic waste 5. The failure rate of commercial nuclear power plants is almost 1%, which is unacceptable. 6. Decommissioning is very expensive and left to tax payers 7. An incident costs billions in cleanup cost and left to tax payers 8. Nuclear waste disposable in the US is an unsolved problem - and dirty and dangerous - and left to tax payers Why use nuclear? It doesn't make any sense. From a risk or financial perspective. Use renewables. The goodness is in the name. And, yes, you can store that energy, and yes, you can produce a "base load".
  - 8bitsrule 6y ago
    >The failure rate of commercial nuclear power plants is almost [some number] Where [some number] is very likely pulled out-of-a-hat. For decades nuclear got all the benefit of the doubt, and many 'incidents' were helpfully invisible in the media. (Ask France.) There was lots of helpful assurance that the natural environment was already radioactive anyway. In the US, comic books were handed out like candy in the 50s spelling out for enthusiastic Johnnies and Janes what a wonderful future was in store for them. "The U.S. must lead by example and show that nuclear energy is necessary." Dear Dr. Chakraborty: We already did that. India must lead by example.

13 points by ericdanielski 6y ago

beders 6y ago

No.

mc32 6y ago
You’ll have to be more substantive than that. If it hadn’t been for Jane Fonda and her crowd of naysayers like green peace, we would not be in the same predicament we're in. Do, yes, we will need nuclear to supplement renewables.
- beders 6y ago
  No.
beders 6y ago
Ah, let the down-voting begin! Ok, here are the usual points: 1. Solar has become the cheapest power source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit... 2. Uranium mining is dirty and dangerous 3. Uranium transport is dirty and dangerous 4. Producing electricity in a nuclear power plant is dirty and dangerous and produces toxic waste 5. The failure rate of commercial nuclear power plants is almost 1%, which is unacceptable. 6. Decommissioning is very expensive and left to tax payers 7. An incident costs billions in cleanup cost and left to tax payers 8. Nuclear waste disposable in the US is an unsolved problem - and dirty and dangerous - and left to tax payers Why use nuclear? It doesn't make any sense. From a risk or financial perspective. Use renewables. The goodness is in the name. And, yes, you can store that energy, and yes, you can produce a "base load".
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  >The failure rate of commercial nuclear power plants is almost [some number] Where [some number] is very likely pulled out-of-a-hat. For decades nuclear got all the benefit of the doubt, and many 'incidents' were helpfully invisible in the media. (Ask France.) There was lots of helpful assurance that the natural environment was already radioactive anyway. In the US, comic books were handed out like candy in the 50s spelling out for enthusiastic Johnnies and Janes what a wonderful future was in store for them. "The U.S. must lead by example and show that nuclear energy is necessary." Dear Dr. Chakraborty: We already did that. India must lead by example.