4 ms·

>nuclear plants have the best energy density per occupied land surface, if you care about reducing ecosystem impact. That allows minimizing used land. and when

by trhway 6y ago

>nuclear plants have the best energy density per occupied land surface, if you care about reducing ecosystem impact. That allows minimizing used land. and when it blows it naturally provides for a huge blossoming ecosystem refuge guaranteed to be free of development for the centuries to come like the Chernobyl zone. Edit in response to the comment below: the false dichotomy. Basically the same old Big Energy tries to blackmail our civilization into nuclear using the threat of coal. No pasaran.

mcny 6y ago
I used to think along the same lines until someone mentioned that we don't need nuclear energy to make large swaths of land uninhabitable. In fact, coal is the answer if you want to create large areas free of humans for a long time. Unlike nuclear, you don't even have to wait for a disaster to happen. It just does it normally.
sunshineforever 6y ago
Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon.
- markvdb 6y ago
  > Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. It's a better than 99%, but only slightly. Over 440 active reactors[1], we're at ~0.68% at INES [1] level 6. That is in a period of exceptional social stability though. We've arguably escaped some rather nasty accidents in the disintegrating USSR. One could also speculate that accidents might be more likely to happen near the end of the reactor's economic life, which for many reactors we haven't seen yet. > The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. It isn't easy to contain for the entire containment period. Humanity doesn't even have a solution for that yet. You're also neglecting other risks, like nuclear proliferation. > Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. The median construction time for a nuclear reactor was 119 months in 2019.[2] It's not a fast transitional technology to renewables. It also doesn't complement renewables very well. There's its limited scaling up and down. There's also the inherent big size of the projects and the management and lobbying hydrocephalus that entials. > It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon. Maybe. What's certain is deploying renewables is certainly cheaper, easier, faster and safer than nuclear for at least 80% of the world's electric energy production right now. Chances are that with the incredibly quick development of storage technology, that number will soon get much closer to 100%. Another option would be to convince Americans, Canadians and Scandinavians to limit their electricity consumption patterns to that of the average western European.[3] [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
  - ben_w 6y ago
    > lobbying hydrocephalus Autocorrupt or a novel biting put-down?
    - markvdb 6y ago
      Put-down. Thank you for the adjectives "novel" and "biting". I'm flattered :-)
- pjc50 6y ago
  The waste fuel is a small component. The overall waste stream from a reactor of everything that's too contaminated to reuse normally is larger. Ironically nuclear accidents are not too bad for the natural environment compared to, say, petrochemical accidents - it's humans they are really bad for with their array of bioaccumulative poisons.

by trhway 6y ago

mcny 6y ago

I used to think along the same lines until someone mentioned that we don't need nuclear energy to make large swaths of land uninhabitable. In fact, coal is the answer if you want to create large areas free of humans for a long time. Unlike nuclear, you don't even have to wait for a disaster to happen. It just does it normally.

sunshineforever 6y ago

Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon.

markvdb 6y ago
> Why is nuclear energy so bad though? 99 percent of the plants dont blow. It's a better than 99%, but only slightly. Over 440 active reactors[1], we're at ~0.68% at INES [1] level 6. That is in a period of exceptional social stability though. We've arguably escaped some rather nasty accidents in the disintegrating USSR. One could also speculate that accidents might be more likely to happen near the end of the reactor's economic life, which for many reactors we haven't seen yet. > The waste fuel is miniscule in size and easy to contain compared amd fossil fuel, which cant be contained. It isn't easy to contain for the entire containment period. Humanity doesn't even have a solution for that yet. You're also neglecting other risks, like nuclear proliferation. > Nuclear seems like a perfect solution to immediately reduce climate impact while we transition to proper renewables. The median construction time for a nuclear reactor was 119 months in 2019.[2] It's not a fast transitional technology to renewables. It also doesn't complement renewables very well. There's its limited scaling up and down. There's also the inherent big size of the projects and the management and lobbying hydrocephalus that entials. > It seems like the semi localized environmental damage of an occasional nuclear accident is far less bad than the constant global damage of carbon. Maybe. What's certain is deploying renewables is certainly cheaper, easier, faster and safer than nuclear for at least 80% of the world's electric energy production right now. Chances are that with the incredibly quick development of storage technology, that number will soon get much closer to 100%. Another option would be to convince Americans, Canadians and Scandinavians to limit their electricity consumption patterns to that of the average western European.[3] [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
- ben_w 6y ago
  > lobbying hydrocephalus Autocorrupt or a novel biting put-down?
  - markvdb 6y ago
    Put-down. Thank you for the adjectives "novel" and "biting". I'm flattered :-)
pjc50 6y ago
The waste fuel is a small component. The overall waste stream from a reactor of everything that's too contaminated to reuse normally is larger. Ironically nuclear accidents are not too bad for the natural environment compared to, say, petrochemical accidents - it's humans they are really bad for with their array of bioaccumulative poisons.