2 ms·

Those 31 people really make a difference on, umm let me check [1], "three to four million deaths per year". Not to dismiss undercounting in general. I may thin

by lucb1e 6y ago

Those 31 people really make a difference on, umm let me check [1], "three to four million deaths per year". Not to dismiss undercounting in general. I may think that nuclear fission is a good option to expand today, but it's not like a religion that I identify with. It's possible I've been using wrong figures and therefore my conclusion is wrong. But then do point out where the missing deaths (or cancer cases, etc.) per produced TWh are or I will continue to believe it's better to expand nuclear fission than to keep using fossil fuels with vague hopes for "let's build solar and wind in undefined locations with magic storage technologies, and hopefully some breakthroughs here and there." (--most climate action plans that look beyond 2025) [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy "Eliminating fossil fuels could cut premature deaths from air pollution by around two-thirds. That’s three to four million deaths per year."

flor1s 6y ago
Nuclear has its fair share of NIMBY-ism (especially regarding storage of waste), also benefits from "magic" energy storage technologies (so you can run them at higher efficiency) and is also reliant on breakthroughs (technological and regulatory) here and there to support many people's arguments why it's such great technology. If both solutions didn't have up and down-sides there wouldn't be such long discussions on HN about it.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  In particular, powering the world with nuclear instead of fossil fuels means commercializing either breeder reactors or seawater uranium extraction.
ncmncm 6y ago
If you are treating Soviet casualty reports at face value, I don't know what to say. Comparisons to coal and oil are not interesting; those sources will fall away as they become increasingly uncompetitive. Wind is being installed all over the world in multi-use locations, including offshore shared with boats, and onshore shared with farms and ranches. There has been absolutely no shortage of viable sites, and there will not be. Solar is also compatible with multiple uses, although there has been little need for it. Many locations benefit from solar roofing. I daresay you have seen plenty of parking lots roofed with solar, and a great many more without, yet. Similarly, hydro and municipal reservoirs, and canals, where reduced insolation means reduced evaporation. Anyone suggesting a shortage of sites that would actively welcome solar installations has no globe. Even on farmland, numerous crops benefit from partial shade. I haven't see that yet, because there has been absolutely no shortage of other sites. Thus, "undefined locations" is not honest. We can easily see exactly where they are being installed, with no need to guess or wonder abstractly. Multiple storage methods are known, all low-tech, with the only open question being which ones will end up cheapest to deploy. Underground compressed air and gravity storage have been demonstrated. Production of ammonia from air and water may end up, not cheapest, but most valuable. I trust you will not repeat these canards. They do you no credit. Nuclear is uncompetitive today, and getting moreso every day, as costs of wind and solar continue their free fall. Geothermal may ultimately come to challenge them, particularly for baseline load. You can, if you like, think of geothermal as nuclear power without the huge decommissioning cost commitment.

by lucb1e 6y ago

flor1s 6y ago

Nuclear has its fair share of NIMBY-ism (especially regarding storage of waste), also benefits from "magic" energy storage technologies (so you can run them at higher efficiency) and is also reliant on breakthroughs (technological and regulatory) here and there to support many people's arguments why it's such great technology. If both solutions didn't have up and down-sides there wouldn't be such long discussions on HN about it.

pfdietz 6y ago
In particular, powering the world with nuclear instead of fossil fuels means commercializing either breeder reactors or seawater uranium extraction.

ncmncm 6y ago

If you are treating Soviet casualty reports at face value, I don't know what to say. Comparisons to coal and oil are not interesting; those sources will fall away as they become increasingly uncompetitive. Wind is being installed all over the world in multi-use locations, including offshore shared with boats, and onshore shared with farms and ranches. There has been absolutely no shortage of viable sites, and there will not be. Solar is also compatible with multiple uses, although there has been little need for it. Many locations benefit from solar roofing. I daresay you have seen plenty of parking lots roofed with solar, and a great many more without, yet. Similarly, hydro and municipal reservoirs, and canals, where reduced insolation means reduced evaporation. Anyone suggesting a shortage of sites that would actively welcome solar installations has no globe. Even on farmland, numerous crops benefit from partial shade. I haven't see that yet, because there has been absolutely no shortage of other sites. Thus, "undefined locations" is not honest. We can easily see exactly where they are being installed, with no need to guess or wonder abstractly. Multiple storage methods are known, all low-tech, with the only open question being which ones will end up cheapest to deploy. Underground compressed air and gravity storage have been demonstrated. Production of ammonia from air and water may end up, not cheapest, but most valuable. I trust you will not repeat these canards. They do you no credit. Nuclear is uncompetitive today, and getting moreso every day, as costs of wind and solar continue their free fall. Geothermal may ultimately come to challenge them, particularly for baseline load. You can, if you like, think of geothermal as nuclear power without the huge decommissioning cost commitment.