3 ms·

Yes I read the study. That's why I linked to it. The problem is that in reality the question we need to solve TODAY is global warming and waiting for "subseque

Yes I read the study. That's why I linked to it. The problem is that in reality the question we need to solve TODAY is global warming and waiting for "subsequent plants" which may or may not come and be finished in decades while renewable energies advance in light speed compared to nuclear technology, the whole issue becomes ridiculous. And it shows. It already makes no sense to build nuclear reactors. It will make less sense with every subsequent year. The only reason states throw actual money on it is because parts required to build a reactor are also needed elsewhere (military). See UK. I can totally understand that but let's be honest about it and not pretend that it's about fighting global warming or "green" tech because nuclear is neither.

Manuel_D 5y ago
Hydroelectric storage plants take about as much time to build as nuclear plants. And they're not cheap, either, costing billions of dollars [1]. The difference is that we'd need to build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve 100% electricity generation. We'd need to build about 400 times as many hydroelectric storage plants than we have right now just to make one day's worth of electricity storage (12.5 TWh vs 25 GWh storage presently). Nuclear power is responsible for more green energy production than solar and wind combined. I'm really baffled as to how one can convince themselves that nuclear power is ineffective in combating climate change. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
- Krasnol 5y ago
  Good that we don't have to rely on only hydroelectric storage eh? Just like we don't have to rely on solar or wind only. Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry. The fact that there is yet more nuclear energy out there than renewable and true green energy is no argument for nuclear energy. At some point we had more horses than cars but that didn't make cars worse. This weird twisting is sickening. I've shown with those studies above that investment into nuclear doesn't only waste money, it actually harms the fight against global warming. Even giving you an actual local scenario. This is investment into the future instead of the past.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    > Good that we don't have to rely on only hydroelectric storage eh? Just like we don't have to rely on solar or wind only. If scalable alternatives exist, it'd be good to mention what you plan to use and how you plan to scale it. > Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry. The entirety of th US's nuclear waste fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. Alleging that people who disagree with you are part of some kind of conspiracy is not a good way to make your point. Nuclear power remains the only non intermittent form of carbon free energy generation, besides geographically limited things like geothermal and hydroelectric power. If nuclear power harms the fight against global warming, why does France (nuclear power leader) have about 1/5th the carbon intensity of electricity then Germany (renewables leader)? 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...

Manuel_D 5y ago

Hydroelectric storage plants take about as much time to build as nuclear plants. And they're not cheap, either, costing billions of dollars [1]. The difference is that we'd need to build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve 100% electricity generation. We'd need to build about 400 times as many hydroelectric storage plants than we have right now just to make one day's worth of electricity storage (12.5 TWh vs 25 GWh storage presently). Nuclear power is responsible for more green energy production than solar and wind combined. I'm really baffled as to how one can convince themselves that nuclear power is ineffective in combating climate change. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...

Krasnol 5y ago
Good that we don't have to rely on only hydroelectric storage eh? Just like we don't have to rely on solar or wind only. Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry. The fact that there is yet more nuclear energy out there than renewable and true green energy is no argument for nuclear energy. At some point we had more horses than cars but that didn't make cars worse. This weird twisting is sickening. I've shown with those studies above that investment into nuclear doesn't only waste money, it actually harms the fight against global warming. Even giving you an actual local scenario. This is investment into the future instead of the past.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > Good that we don't have to rely on only hydroelectric storage eh? Just like we don't have to rely on solar or wind only. If scalable alternatives exist, it'd be good to mention what you plan to use and how you plan to scale it. > Nuclear power whitewashing won't make it "green". This Astro-Turf crap is fuelled by ignorance of the dirt this technology leaves behind for future generations and greed of a few remaining participants in this dying industry. The entirety of th US's nuclear waste fits in a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. Alleging that people who disagree with you are part of some kind of conspiracy is not a good way to make your point. Nuclear power remains the only non intermittent form of carbon free energy generation, besides geographically limited things like geothermal and hydroelectric power. If nuclear power harms the fight against global warming, why does France (nuclear power leader) have about 1/5th the carbon intensity of electricity then Germany (renewables leader)? 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-...