5 ms·

To everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear

by toshk 6y ago

To everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear plant next to it?

paholg 6y ago
Sure.
aksss 6y ago
I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.
- toshk 6y ago
  :) fair play to you. At least the real estate prices will be good. I won't go for low risk when it comes to nuclear and not let my family grow up next to it. Only no risk would be acceptable to me when it comes to nuclear, quite some tail risk in this case.
  - aksss 6y ago
    Let’s keep in mind that not doing nuclear is subjecting you and your family (and subsequent generations) to the long term issue of ever-increasing CO2 output. While waiting for workable battery tech at 3% avg y/y improvement - which means a looong wait for truly reliable at-scale FF displacement. The promise of renewables is great, but planning for a battery miracle in the short term is no plan at all. IF we appropriately monetize the cost of going deeper into fossil fuels every day (which is what the globe is doing right now, still), I think the risk of nuclear is put in a better context. So it seems to me we’re talking about the global risks of continuing on current track or localized risk of nuclear plant accident. Out of 440 operable on-grid plants, how many accidents have you heard of that would have impacted you or your family? I don’t think “no-risk” exists for any power gen tech, fwiw. There are always going to be trade-offs.
    - addicted 6y ago
      Do people even read the ariticles they respond to? For interviewee points to the fact that new nuclear is significantly more expensive than solar and wind. In fact, even existing nuclear’s base running costs are higher. And here’s the kicker. Solar/wind + existing battery tech is also cheaper than nuclear. And we don’t even need battery until solar/wind generation has increased by an order of magnitude. So $1 spent on nuclear will do a lot less to reduce CO2 than $1 spent on wind/solar. Further, that $1 spent on nuclear will still take up to a decade to start helping reduce CO2, while the solar/wind options will likely be active within a year or so. The article may be wrong about all these facts, but in a response to it one needs to at least show why they are wrong instead of pretending the claims were never made.
      - aksss 6y ago
        I think what you’re missing is that solar+wind can’t do what nuclear can, which is supply reliable power 24/7.
        bigfudge 6y ago
        Solar+wind+storage could though. Plus, what never gets factored into this, is a sane discussion about industrial uses. Switching off industrial users in extreme events (light winds/cloudy for multiple weeks) has a cost, but that could also be factored in to the costs of relative power strategies. We already have these kind of contracts — perhaps we should be more aggressive in pursuing that?
        aksss 6y ago
        > Solar+wind+storage could though There is no storage solution for this. How do you store daily power needs of a large metro area x 3 days? Batteries? Thermal? The capacity isn't there today for a viable installation. Maybe in rural areas that can give up a ton of land mass for a relatively low population.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- vcdimension 6y ago
  I cannot understand how anyone would prefer an enormous grey concrete building with a large exclusion zone and large cooling towers blocking the skyline, to otherwise untouched natural or agricultural landscape dotted with wind turbines. Wind turbines allow you to enjoy more of the countryside because they take up very little space (you can walk around them). Furthermore, they seem to be quieter: https://youtu.be/zKgN2G9d0dc https://youtu.be/zKgN2G9d0dc https://youtu.be/hEMImNj_c44 https://youtu.be/hEMImNj_c44
  - Hammershaft 6y ago
    When you compare the energy densities & land required there is nothing at all enormous about a nuclear plant. It is by far the most space efficient energy source we have (especially once you factor in the upstream footprint of mining & shipping ops)
    - vcdimension 6y ago
      That depends on how you measure land use; are you counting the amount of space that becomes otherwise unusable, i.e. the relatively small area occupied by the towers, or the entire area of the fields in which the wind turbines are placed? (which can still be used for other things like agriculture). Personally I think wind turbines look quite majestic, and I like to see them when I go for a drive in the countryside. This isn't directly related to the original question of living next to a nuclear power plant vs a wind farm, but as you mentioned, nuclear power stations require large mining operations to supply them with uranium (you have to mine a lot of land for a small amount of uranium), whereas wind turbines do not. And finally, wind turbines can be erected in the sea where they don't displace any land at all.
      - lazide 6y ago
        You don’t need to mine much land to get very large amounts of uranium - they tend to be underground mines, and produce a truly staggering amount of energy by mass mined. Tailings can be problematic - but even the largest uranium mines have had tiny tailings piles compared to even small wind farm footprints.
- bigfudge 6y ago
  Aesthetically, I'd offer a counterpoint that incredibly high aspect ratio white carbon wings are quite beautiful, relative to monolithic concrete blocks. They are also approachable in the landscape (I love mountain biking beneath them). I agree with your point that nimbyism shouldn't be a relevant factor in new build decisions though. The real issue is not whether you would want to live next to a new nuclear reactor, but whether you would want to live next to one in the process of being decommissioned at minimum cost contracts (or pay for the same, which is not being factored in to operating expenses). Or, live next to one of the wholly inadequate storage facilities for the hottest waste which we still have little idea what to do with.
samatman 6y ago
Yes.
Hammershaft 6y ago
If it is replacing the asthmatic toxins from fossil fuel (almost everywhere in the world), then absolutely yes.
grogenaut 6y ago
I grew up in St. Louis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St... was relatively close. No one cared. There were several coal plants a lot closer that were a lot dirtier. (https://www.google.com/maps/search/Alton+Power+Plant/@38.9130359,-90.2936839,1275m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!2m7!3m6!1sAlton+Power+Plant!2sSt.+Louis,+MO!3s0x87d8b4a9faed8ef9:0xbe39eaca22bbe05b!4m2!1d-90.1994042!2d38.6270025 https://www.google.com/maps/search/Alton+Power+Plant/@38.913... https://www.google.com/maps/place/Labadie+Power+Plant+Rd,+Boles+Township,+MO+63055/@38.5569619,-90.839972,1999m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x87d936c0a1691a27:0x805d5e2f83b35d78!8m2!3d38.543404!4d-90.8426416 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Labadie+Power+Plant+Rd,+Bo...) Notice how they're right on the river right upstream from St. Louis. But we also had much worse things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Spring_Ordnance_Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Spring_Ordnance_Works (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5670478/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5670478/), Sauget Superfund (https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727066-28.stm https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727066-28.stm), Monsanto Headquarters, https://www.builtstlouis.net/ammo.html https://www.builtstlouis.net/ammo.html Now I live in Seattle. I'd much rather that Callaway plant was where the Handford site is than have the Hanford Site there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
betwixthewires 6y ago
I wouldn't mind if it were one of the modern meltdown resistant designs.
pezezin 6y ago
I grew up 70 km away from a nuclear power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant), and I spent the last two years living 3 km away from a nuclear reprocessing plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Nuclear_Fuel_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Nuclear_Fuel_Limited), and I never gave a damn about it. So the answer is yes.

by toshk 6y ago

To everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear plant next to it?

paholg 6y ago

Sure.

aksss 6y ago

I would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.

toshk 6y ago
:) fair play to you. At least the real estate prices will be good. I won't go for low risk when it comes to nuclear and not let my family grow up next to it. Only no risk would be acceptable to me when it comes to nuclear, quite some tail risk in this case.
- aksss 6y ago
  Let’s keep in mind that not doing nuclear is subjecting you and your family (and subsequent generations) to the long term issue of ever-increasing CO2 output. While waiting for workable battery tech at 3% avg y/y improvement - which means a looong wait for truly reliable at-scale FF displacement. The promise of renewables is great, but planning for a battery miracle in the short term is no plan at all. IF we appropriately monetize the cost of going deeper into fossil fuels every day (which is what the globe is doing right now, still), I think the risk of nuclear is put in a better context. So it seems to me we’re talking about the global risks of continuing on current track or localized risk of nuclear plant accident. Out of 440 operable on-grid plants, how many accidents have you heard of that would have impacted you or your family? I don’t think “no-risk” exists for any power gen tech, fwiw. There are always going to be trade-offs.
  - addicted 6y ago
    Do people even read the ariticles they respond to? For interviewee points to the fact that new nuclear is significantly more expensive than solar and wind. In fact, even existing nuclear’s base running costs are higher. And here’s the kicker. Solar/wind + existing battery tech is also cheaper than nuclear. And we don’t even need battery until solar/wind generation has increased by an order of magnitude. So $1 spent on nuclear will do a lot less to reduce CO2 than $1 spent on wind/solar. Further, that $1 spent on nuclear will still take up to a decade to start helping reduce CO2, while the solar/wind options will likely be active within a year or so. The article may be wrong about all these facts, but in a response to it one needs to at least show why they are wrong instead of pretending the claims were never made.
    - aksss 6y ago
      I think what you’re missing is that solar+wind can’t do what nuclear can, which is supply reliable power 24/7.
      - bigfudge 6y ago
        Solar+wind+storage could though. Plus, what never gets factored into this, is a sane discussion about industrial uses. Switching off industrial users in extreme events (light winds/cloudy for multiple weeks) has a cost, but that could also be factored in to the costs of relative power strategies. We already have these kind of contracts — perhaps we should be more aggressive in pursuing that?
        aksss 6y ago
        > Solar+wind+storage could though There is no storage solution for this. How do you store daily power needs of a large metro area x 3 days? Batteries? Thermal? The capacity isn't there today for a viable installation. Maybe in rural areas that can give up a ton of land mass for a relatively low population.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
vcdimension 6y ago
I cannot understand how anyone would prefer an enormous grey concrete building with a large exclusion zone and large cooling towers blocking the skyline, to otherwise untouched natural or agricultural landscape dotted with wind turbines. Wind turbines allow you to enjoy more of the countryside because they take up very little space (you can walk around them). Furthermore, they seem to be quieter: https://youtu.be/zKgN2G9d0dc https://youtu.be/zKgN2G9d0dc https://youtu.be/hEMImNj_c44 https://youtu.be/hEMImNj_c44
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  When you compare the energy densities & land required there is nothing at all enormous about a nuclear plant. It is by far the most space efficient energy source we have (especially once you factor in the upstream footprint of mining & shipping ops)
  - vcdimension 6y ago
    That depends on how you measure land use; are you counting the amount of space that becomes otherwise unusable, i.e. the relatively small area occupied by the towers, or the entire area of the fields in which the wind turbines are placed? (which can still be used for other things like agriculture). Personally I think wind turbines look quite majestic, and I like to see them when I go for a drive in the countryside. This isn't directly related to the original question of living next to a nuclear power plant vs a wind farm, but as you mentioned, nuclear power stations require large mining operations to supply them with uranium (you have to mine a lot of land for a small amount of uranium), whereas wind turbines do not. And finally, wind turbines can be erected in the sea where they don't displace any land at all.
    - lazide 6y ago
      You don’t need to mine much land to get very large amounts of uranium - they tend to be underground mines, and produce a truly staggering amount of energy by mass mined. Tailings can be problematic - but even the largest uranium mines have had tiny tailings piles compared to even small wind farm footprints.
bigfudge 6y ago
Aesthetically, I'd offer a counterpoint that incredibly high aspect ratio white carbon wings are quite beautiful, relative to monolithic concrete blocks. They are also approachable in the landscape (I love mountain biking beneath them). I agree with your point that nimbyism shouldn't be a relevant factor in new build decisions though. The real issue is not whether you would want to live next to a new nuclear reactor, but whether you would want to live next to one in the process of being decommissioned at minimum cost contracts (or pay for the same, which is not being factored in to operating expenses). Or, live next to one of the wholly inadequate storage facilities for the hottest waste which we still have little idea what to do with.

samatman 6y ago

Yes.

Hammershaft 6y ago

If it is replacing the asthmatic toxins from fossil fuel (almost everywhere in the world), then absolutely yes.

grogenaut 6y ago

I grew up in St. Louis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St... was relatively close. No one cared. There were several coal plants a lot closer that were a lot dirtier. (https://www.google.com/maps/search/Alton+Power+Plant/@38.9130359,-90.2936839,1275m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m8!2m7!3m6!1sAlton+Power+Plant!2sSt.+Louis,+MO!3s0x87d8b4a9faed8ef9:0xbe39eaca22bbe05b!4m2!1d-90.1994042!2d38.6270025 https://www.google.com/maps/search/Alton+Power+Plant/@38.913... https://www.google.com/maps/place/Labadie+Power+Plant+Rd,+Boles+Township,+MO+63055/@38.5569619,-90.839972,1999m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x87d936c0a1691a27:0x805d5e2f83b35d78!8m2!3d38.543404!4d-90.8426416 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Labadie+Power+Plant+Rd,+Bo...) Notice how they're right on the river right upstream from St. Louis. But we also had much worse things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Spring_Ordnance_Works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weldon_Spring_Ordnance_Works (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5670478/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5670478/), Sauget Superfund (https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727066-28.stm https://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06276/727066-28.stm), Monsanto Headquarters, https://www.builtstlouis.net/ammo.html https://www.builtstlouis.net/ammo.html Now I live in Seattle. I'd much rather that Callaway plant was where the Handford site is than have the Hanford Site there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

betwixthewires 6y ago

I wouldn't mind if it were one of the modern meltdown resistant designs.

pezezin 6y ago

I grew up 70 km away from a nuclear power plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant), and I spent the last two years living 3 km away from a nuclear reprocessing plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Nuclear_Fuel_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Nuclear_Fuel_Limited), and I never gave a damn about it. So the answer is yes.