4 ms·

No, we need to invest more in solar and wind. They're already cheaper and safer than Nuclear, and will only continue to get cheaper. You say that nuclear has k

by shafyy 5y ago

No, we need to invest more in solar and wind. They're already cheaper and safer than Nuclear, and will only continue to get cheaper. You say that nuclear has killed fewer people. That's true, but this is not the main problem of Nuclear. The main problems are 1) that catastrophic events can and will happen in the future. That's why nobody wants to live next to a nuclear power plant. 2) Nuclear waste storage. Why would even invest in nuclear power plants now that it's pretty clear that other alternatives are cheaper and safer? (I'm not saying abandon nuclear power research, there are definitey niche cases where it makes sense, like space exploration).

citrin_ru 5y ago
> 2) Nuclear waste storage. Coal ash is radioactive too and people don't mind to live nearby. There is a lot of irrational in the fear of nuclear power.
kemonocode 5y ago
> The main problems are 1) that catastrophic events can and will happen in the future. That's why nobody wants to live next to a nuclear power plant. The chances for such events are vanishingly low when it comes to modern reactors. Seriously, as hard as it is to believe, we've come so, so far from Chernobyl. Thorium-based reactors are meltdown-proof [0], and Thorium comes with the plus in that it's not as easily weaponizable [1]. > 2) Nuclear waste storage. Thorium reactors also produce less dangerous waste [2], which is great! They're not a panacea by any means- it is still technically possible to make weapons using Thorium reactors even if it's more difficult, and fuel is harder to prepare, but I do think the upsides greatly overcome the downsides. Solar and wind aren't viable everywhere, which is why we need nuclear. The sooner we get over our inveterate fear of it, as difficult as it may be, the better. [0] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090038711.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/200900... [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html#prolif https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html#prolif [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257126696_Abundant_thorium_as_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel_Important_waste_disposal_and_weapon_proliferation_advantages https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257126696_Abundant_...
nomoreplease 5y ago
These arguments have been circular forever. There’s likely not enough materials for solar everywhere, or enough space for wind everywhere, but investing on all forms today is more valuable than continuing to argue
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  What material are we going to run out of for solar? Silicon (sand) is the main ingredient. Running out of space for wind? Huh? Yes obviously we use the best places first but the entire Earth has wind, and almost every land usage can be co sited with wind towers.
  - nomoreplease 5y ago
    More talking about solar+battery, and rare earth metals for battery. Wind can operate day/night
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      Most grid batteries are LiFePO4 which don't use rare earths. Lithium, Iron and Phosphorus are super abundant.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Solar panels are mostly sand. If you somehow run out of some of the trace elements in PV panels you can always build mirrors for solar-thermal. That has the added benefit that it produces power at night, but the drawback that it costs a bit more than PV.

by shafyy 5y ago

citrin_ru 5y ago

> 2) Nuclear waste storage. Coal ash is radioactive too and people don't mind to live nearby. There is a lot of irrational in the fear of nuclear power.

kemonocode 5y ago

> The main problems are 1) that catastrophic events can and will happen in the future. That's why nobody wants to live next to a nuclear power plant. The chances for such events are vanishingly low when it comes to modern reactors. Seriously, as hard as it is to believe, we've come so, so far from Chernobyl. Thorium-based reactors are meltdown-proof [0], and Thorium comes with the plus in that it's not as easily weaponizable [1]. > 2) Nuclear waste storage. Thorium reactors also produce less dangerous waste [2], which is great! They're not a panacea by any means- it is still technically possible to make weapons using Thorium reactors even if it's more difficult, and fuel is harder to prepare, but I do think the upsides greatly overcome the downsides. Solar and wind aren't viable everywhere, which is why we need nuclear. The sooner we get over our inveterate fear of it, as difficult as it may be, the better. [0] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090038711.pdf https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/200900... [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html#prolif https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html#prolif [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257126696_Abundant_thorium_as_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel_Important_waste_disposal_and_weapon_proliferation_advantages https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257126696_Abundant_...

nomoreplease 5y ago

These arguments have been circular forever. There’s likely not enough materials for solar everywhere, or enough space for wind everywhere, but investing on all forms today is more valuable than continuing to argue

bryanlarsen 5y ago
What material are we going to run out of for solar? Silicon (sand) is the main ingredient. Running out of space for wind? Huh? Yes obviously we use the best places first but the entire Earth has wind, and almost every land usage can be co sited with wind towers.
- nomoreplease 5y ago
  More talking about solar+battery, and rare earth metals for battery. Wind can operate day/night
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    Most grid batteries are LiFePO4 which don't use rare earths. Lithium, Iron and Phosphorus are super abundant.
adrianN 5y ago
Solar panels are mostly sand. If you somehow run out of some of the trace elements in PV panels you can always build mirrors for solar-thermal. That has the added benefit that it produces power at night, but the drawback that it costs a bit more than PV.