7 ms·

I’d prefer to see continuing or additional tax credits for solar and battery storage directly to the consumer. This would dovetail nicely with an infrastructure

I’d prefer to see continuing or additional tax credits for solar and battery storage directly to the consumer. This would dovetail nicely with an infrastructure plan by making the incentives higher for panels made in the U.S.A. Keeping the incentives directly to the consumer would take a good deal of the chances of corruption and back room deals out of the equation I.E. the Solyndra scandal.

xwdv 5y ago
Someone once told me don’t make the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- tharne 5y ago
  We're not talking about the perfect vs. the good here. We're talking about a power source (nuclear) that can result in virtually unlimited harm to human life in cases of serious failure vs. power sources that, while not as well-developed, are much lower-risk long-term.
  - asd4232 5y ago
    Nuclear is still better than coal and gas. At this rate we will never limit temperature below 2.1C pre-industrial, so anything that gets helps getting rid of fossil fuels ASAP is a good deal. Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.
    - tharne 5y ago
      > Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. The problem with statements like this is that we don't actually know what a worst case scenario truly looks like. The day before Chernobyl, the worst-cast scenario, by definition, not as bad as Chernobyl. Similarly, the engineers who built Fukishima were aware of tsunamis and earthquakes and built the plant to withstand what was considered the worst case scenario at the time. Then an even worse case scenario happened.
      - adrianN 5y ago
        It's fairly simple to find an upper bound for the damage a nuclear incident can cause. Take all the radioactive material in the reactor and put it in the most dangerous location, like the air or an underground aquifer. I don't understand why you think that the worst case scenario somehow got worse after Chernobyl.
    - roamerz 5y ago
      Wasn’t that bad. Wow. Maybe in a Excel spreadsheet kind of way it wasn’t that bad but what a horrific experience for those involved - humans, animals and the environment.
  - xwdv 5y ago
    Ah yes, unlimited harm to human life in cases of failure, versus the unlimited harm to human life and planet earth that comes guaranteed everyday with the use of coal and gas.
    - tharne 5y ago
      Don't put up a straw man. Folks who question the safety of nuclear are not advocating for coal and gas, they're advocating for increased investment in myriad other clean energy sources. Suggesting that anyone who questions nuclear is advocating for coal and gas is a bad faith argument.
      - FredPret 5y ago
        There are no other clean technologies that can deliver power at scale on their own. Solar and wind and hydro takes up immense amounts of what should be undisturbed natural environment. Solar and wind needs storage, in the form of hydro or batteries. Nuclear is a proven, safe tech that pumps out steady, squeaky-clean energy. People imagine that it’s dangerous because of high-profile accidents but don’t see the daily small catastrophes caused by every other tech. Nuclear wins, hands down. It’s just such a no-brainer. It’s like we’re back in the days of Edison and Tesla and AC vs DC.
tharne 5y ago
100%. We should be promoting energy sources that don't have catastrophic outcomes when somebody inevitably makes a serious operational error.
- axoltl 5y ago
  We have come a long way since the RBMK reactors in use at Chernobyl. Generation III reactors are significantly safer than the older nuclear reactors. They are now passively safe, in that they shut themselves down without operator intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
  - rangoon626 5y ago
    You are correct. And there’s other good research going on too, but people like this won’t hear it.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    My major beef with nuclear is the water impact [1], not waste fuel - latter of which we have good solutions to. Not to mention exclusion zones. If all Nuclear had desalination, it still wouldn't offset it's waste heat capture problem which ruins downstream ecologies. [1] https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consumption/ https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...
- rangoon626 5y ago
  Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs. Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars). Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk. It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.
thescriptkiddie 5y ago
Why not both?

xwdv 5y ago

Someone once told me don’t make the perfect be the enemy of the good.

tharne 5y ago
We're not talking about the perfect vs. the good here. We're talking about a power source (nuclear) that can result in virtually unlimited harm to human life in cases of serious failure vs. power sources that, while not as well-developed, are much lower-risk long-term.
- asd4232 5y ago
  Nuclear is still better than coal and gas. At this rate we will never limit temperature below 2.1C pre-industrial, so anything that gets helps getting rid of fossil fuels ASAP is a good deal. Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. Several natural disasters in the 2000's have killed way more than it did.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > Also, even worst-case scenario like Chernobyl ultimately wasn't that bad. The problem with statements like this is that we don't actually know what a worst case scenario truly looks like. The day before Chernobyl, the worst-cast scenario, by definition, not as bad as Chernobyl. Similarly, the engineers who built Fukishima were aware of tsunamis and earthquakes and built the plant to withstand what was considered the worst case scenario at the time. Then an even worse case scenario happened.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      It's fairly simple to find an upper bound for the damage a nuclear incident can cause. Take all the radioactive material in the reactor and put it in the most dangerous location, like the air or an underground aquifer. I don't understand why you think that the worst case scenario somehow got worse after Chernobyl.
  - roamerz 5y ago
    Wasn’t that bad. Wow. Maybe in a Excel spreadsheet kind of way it wasn’t that bad but what a horrific experience for those involved - humans, animals and the environment.
- xwdv 5y ago
  Ah yes, unlimited harm to human life in cases of failure, versus the unlimited harm to human life and planet earth that comes guaranteed everyday with the use of coal and gas.
  - tharne 5y ago
    Don't put up a straw man. Folks who question the safety of nuclear are not advocating for coal and gas, they're advocating for increased investment in myriad other clean energy sources. Suggesting that anyone who questions nuclear is advocating for coal and gas is a bad faith argument.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      There are no other clean technologies that can deliver power at scale on their own. Solar and wind and hydro takes up immense amounts of what should be undisturbed natural environment. Solar and wind needs storage, in the form of hydro or batteries. Nuclear is a proven, safe tech that pumps out steady, squeaky-clean energy. People imagine that it’s dangerous because of high-profile accidents but don’t see the daily small catastrophes caused by every other tech. Nuclear wins, hands down. It’s just such a no-brainer. It’s like we’re back in the days of Edison and Tesla and AC vs DC.

tharne 5y ago

100%. We should be promoting energy sources that don't have catastrophic outcomes when somebody inevitably makes a serious operational error.

axoltl 5y ago
We have come a long way since the RBMK reactors in use at Chernobyl. Generation III reactors are significantly safer than the older nuclear reactors. They are now passively safe, in that they shut themselves down without operator intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
- rangoon626 5y ago
  You are correct. And there’s other good research going on too, but people like this won’t hear it.
- r00fus 5y ago
  My major beef with nuclear is the water impact [1], not waste fuel - latter of which we have good solutions to. Not to mention exclusion zones. If all Nuclear had desalination, it still wouldn't offset it's waste heat capture problem which ruins downstream ecologies. [1] https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consumption/ https://monarchpartnership.co.uk/nuclear-power-water-consump...
rangoon626 5y ago
Which ones are those? As far as I can see, ALL “clean energy” has some trade offs. Mining lithium is a horrible, polluting process that wastes tons of fresh water. One thing to put small quantities into phones and computers. Another to suggest that they should be used for all cars (unless the end goal is to have only the super rich driving cars). Solar panels involve mining coal (so much more moving away from the coal economy) and quartz, and will pile up as toxic junk after 10 years or so. Wind turbines can’t be repurposed after their useful and short (comparatively) life and will pile up as junk. It’s not even a question of “don’t have catastrophic outcomes”, it’s a question of a slow-moving guaranteed catastrophic outcome, or the possibility of a fast catastrophic outcome.

thescriptkiddie 5y ago

Why not both?