5 ms·

It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. Yes, the engineers and scientists all say thos

It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. Yes, the engineers and scientists all say those accidents can't ever happen. Then they do. And again. And again. Fukushima wasn't even "that bad" but terribly expensive and inconvenient.

nix23 5y ago
It's sad that people want to risk a big chunk of their lungs due to daily coal smog.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion: I live in Germany and there is no deadly smog in Germany. I'm too lazy to look up if our air pollution is generally better or worse than in France, but in general, air pollution here is driven by traffic, not coal plants. Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable, both because of recurring accidents leading to political issues and because of the unsolved waste storage problem. The bottom line: We want to go to mostly renewable energy sources, and the shortest path leads, unfortunately, through more fossil fuels. We need to increase energy production. We would also need to replace our old nuclear power plants with something. If we replace those with new nuclear power, we will eventually have to decommission and replace those (and deal with all the waste). Coal plants are easier and faster to ramp up and ramp down. I don't like it. But there it is.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    > As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion I wouldn't care about Germany's problem if German politicians weren't trying to export it to their neighbours, whether by lobbying for energy transition credits not to be usable for nuclear, or by fucking up the spot power exchange. > I'm too lazy to look up Too lazy to look up actual figures, but not lazy enough not to post about it :(
  - nix23 5y ago
    >Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable But Coal is? https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-coal-plant-exposed-as-europes-single-worst-air-polluter/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-c... >German coal plant exposed as Europe’s single worst air polluter There is a nice map of NO2 pollution, and just Paris is worse..the rest of france looks pretty clean. >I'm too lazy to look up Yeah maybe next time don't be that lazy before wrinting something? And maybe of some interest: https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Coal is not sustainable, but easier to replace. Point is: Air quality in Germany isn't really that much of an issue, certainly there is no significant difference to France, while Germany has more industry and a higher GDP.
      - nix23 5y ago
        https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html#:~:text=5%20pollution%20from%20coal%20plants,in%20Romania%2C%20Bulgaria%20and%20Greece https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut.... 34000 death/year in europe, not even Chernobyl had like 4000 over all? But hey Air quality i not a issue in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/ https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-... 3000 death/year alone in germany https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/repor... >>Only 50 premature deaths in France in 2013 could be traced to domestic coal-fired plants. The remaining 1,330 were cross-border, the majority from German plants. But hey too lazy to look it up, right?
        bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Europe has a population of 746.4 million. So no, 34000 deaths/year that are attributable to air pollution, or 3000 of about 80 Million, is not a big deal, considering that both air pollution and coal power are currently a necessary evil to keep the economy running. The economy is what keeps all those people alive, by the way. Cut that economy by even a few percent and it will cost many more lives. And those lazy comparisons somehow imply you could replace all that pollution with nuclear power, over night, or even at all. You can't. Some industries depend on burning coal, so are even harder to switch. Transportation is nearly all fossil fueled, so that would take a decade or two to electrify. All that takes extra energy investment (burning CO2 etc) to realize. And then you need to ramp up nuclear power. With all the problems that come with it. Probably have to relax some safety regulations to encourage the industry to grow quickly enough. Germany is a free, democratically run country. Nobody wants to have a nuclear facility in their vicinity, much less a long term storage. People aren't stupid, they know accidents are extremely rare, but if they do happen, they pay the full price. And even long before, their property prices plummet. And after several "this will never happen accidents" actually happened, "there will be no accidents" doesn't hold all that much weight with the people. All that alone makes it virtually impossible to start new projects.
  - hyperman1 5y ago
    I always heard the Ruhr industrial zone was one of the biggest air polluters of Western Europe. What's the status today?
namdnay 5y ago
A coal plant is an ongoing accident all day every day. When do "these accidents" happen again and again? France hasn't had a single nuclear disaster in 50 years of operation Fukushima is a pretty good demonstration that even when everything goes wrong, the consequences aren't that bad.
- brettermeier 5y ago
  Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than coal...
  - namdnay 5y ago
    > and some always will no? why would they? > And what about the trash The whole of France produces less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material. Hardly a big issue finding somewhere to safely bury that. > I don't think it's greener energy than coal ? of course it is, coal is insanely dangerous, germany burning coal is killing people every day. And then there's the impact on global warming
    - foobarawayquux 5y ago
      I was curious about that quote "less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material" and looked it up: Based on the orano group marketing site: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio... it's 200 grams per inhabitant in France, which is 67 million. 200 grams * population of france in metric tons is 13.4 t That's quite good, even if it isn't 10 tons. Of course you still need a location for the short-lived (~300 year) nuclear waste.
      - namdnay 5y ago
        https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exactitude-chiffres#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20la%20masse%20totale%20de,de%20moins%20de%2010%20tonnes https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-ex....
MrDresden 5y ago
The cost in human lives related to coal exhaust is of multiple factors higher than that of nuclear. The potential for an extraordinary damage is there in the old nuclear plants, yes. However, closing them down with no plans to build newer ones (with evolved designes) is just giving in to scare tactics. At this point, we need all the low emission tech we have. That includes nuclear.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  You might feel different if you live in a smaller country and all the infrastructure, including long term storage (usually called "temporary storage") is right next to you. At the moment, nuclear power is an incalculable credit card. We can reduce emissions by building more nuclear power, but the bill will eventually come due because it is so hard to get rid of it. I'd be for new nuclear power technologies that produce less waste. But the current technologies really aren't sustainable. Coal isn't sustainable either, but at least you can stop it more quickly.
  - MrDresden 5y ago
    I understand what you mean. However I would rather take the uncertain potential damage in the future, rather than the certain quantifiable damage today. There are (and have existed since even before the first commercial plants were ever built) plans and designs for reactors which work on different principals than those we have built in the last 70 years (for example liquid salt reactors). Some of these are currently being prototyped further today. There is also the potential for the stored up waste from the last 70 years of nuclear power production to be used in so called breeder reactors. All of these options however are not without flaws, and do produce toxic waste products (just with much shorter and manageable half lives). Nuclear power does though require long term planning by politicians (and a bit of a backbone), which given the current fear of this technology is sadly unlikely to materialize in time. And to address the point about coal being easier to move away from; how exactly would you suggest we do that? While fantastic, wind and solar energy is not as reliably as coal or nuclear. Hydro is very selectively available, and geothermal is relatively in its infancy. Even the giant solar panel project that Malaysia is planning to build in Australia (one of the most solar irradiated place on the planet) and which will be one of the largest in the world, is only expected to supply around 20% of their energy needs. However much one may disslike it, the fact is that there simply is at current no drop in replacement for coal & natural gas burning other than nuclear.
pyrale 5y ago
> It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. The current alternative is losing large parts of the whole planet due to climate change. Even if we don't factor the extreme events it creates, air pollution from coal kills more each year than all nuclear events related to power generation ever. I mean, sure, there are significant drawbacks to nuclear power, but that's like talking about lead paint issues in a burning house.
otikik 5y ago
Give this a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak The TLDR is: 7 million people die anually from air pollution. Fukushima and Chernobil combined don't even put a dent on that. And solar+wind alone is not enough.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares. Things do go wrong, and it's ridiculous to believe the required scale up would be possible with the current high regulatory standards. Especially with some of the major polluters not being known for their absence of corruption...
  - otikik 5y ago
    > You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. It can replace most of coal-based electricity generators. It cannot replace everything. It needs solar, wind, and whatever else we can come up with (recycling, increases in efficiency, etc.) > And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares Waste is also discussed on the video, near the end. Coal's waste goes directly into the atmosphere, where it does harm and cannot be easily captured back. Things are already "going wrong" with that. When solar panels end in landfills, they bring a lot of heavy metals (like cadmium). If "things go wrong" those also are a nightmare. So, yeah: we are already on an environmentalist nightmare. The question is what do we do from here.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Radioactive material in the ground water or food cycle would be much worse than anything related to coal burning. And there are several ways for it to get there unless there is an iron tight fist of regulation and compliance. Even then, it has happened. And your argument assumes replacing all fossil fuel with nuclear power, which means all the developing countries, all the dictatorships etc handling lots of radioactive material. I'm sure they'll all be responsible with it and not let anything spill over to other countries, right? And that's even assuming best intentions. I'm not a fan of fossil fuels. I'm grudgingly on board with my countries plan because nuclear power is no sustainable option for us. Both politically and technologically. We can get rid of coal plants a lot faster than we can decommission nuclear plants and store the waste...

nix23 5y ago

It's sad that people want to risk a big chunk of their lungs due to daily coal smog.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion: I live in Germany and there is no deadly smog in Germany. I'm too lazy to look up if our air pollution is generally better or worse than in France, but in general, air pollution here is driven by traffic, not coal plants. Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable, both because of recurring accidents leading to political issues and because of the unsolved waste storage problem. The bottom line: We want to go to mostly renewable energy sources, and the shortest path leads, unfortunately, through more fossil fuels. We need to increase energy production. We would also need to replace our old nuclear power plants with something. If we replace those with new nuclear power, we will eventually have to decommission and replace those (and deal with all the waste). Coal plants are easier and faster to ramp up and ramp down. I don't like it. But there it is.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > As Germany is vilified so much in this discussion I wouldn't care about Germany's problem if German politicians weren't trying to export it to their neighbours, whether by lobbying for energy transition credits not to be usable for nuclear, or by fucking up the spot power exchange. > I'm too lazy to look up Too lazy to look up actual figures, but not lazy enough not to post about it :(
- nix23 5y ago
  >Nuclear power, in its current form is not sustainable But Coal is? https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-coal-plant-exposed-as-europes-single-worst-air-polluter/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/air-pollution/news/german-c... >German coal plant exposed as Europe’s single worst air polluter There is a nice map of NO2 pollution, and just Paris is worse..the rest of france looks pretty clean. >I'm too lazy to look up Yeah maybe next time don't be that lazy before wrinting something? And maybe of some interest: https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Coal is not sustainable, but easier to replace. Point is: Air quality in Germany isn't really that much of an issue, certainly there is no significant difference to France, while Germany has more industry and a higher GDP.
    - nix23 5y ago
      https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollution-deaths-coal-plants-b1826079.html#:~:text=5%20pollution%20from%20coal%20plants,in%20Romania%2C%20Bulgaria%20and%20Greece https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/air-pollut.... 34000 death/year in europe, not even Chernobyl had like 4000 over all? But hey Air quality i not a issue in Germany. https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-deaths-in-germany/ https://energytransition.org/2013/05/coal-power-causes-3000-... 3000 death/year alone in germany https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/repor... >>Only 50 premature deaths in France in 2013 could be traced to domestic coal-fired plants. The remaining 1,330 were cross-border, the majority from German plants. But hey too lazy to look it up, right?
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Europe has a population of 746.4 million. So no, 34000 deaths/year that are attributable to air pollution, or 3000 of about 80 Million, is not a big deal, considering that both air pollution and coal power are currently a necessary evil to keep the economy running. The economy is what keeps all those people alive, by the way. Cut that economy by even a few percent and it will cost many more lives. And those lazy comparisons somehow imply you could replace all that pollution with nuclear power, over night, or even at all. You can't. Some industries depend on burning coal, so are even harder to switch. Transportation is nearly all fossil fueled, so that would take a decade or two to electrify. All that takes extra energy investment (burning CO2 etc) to realize. And then you need to ramp up nuclear power. With all the problems that come with it. Probably have to relax some safety regulations to encourage the industry to grow quickly enough. Germany is a free, democratically run country. Nobody wants to have a nuclear facility in their vicinity, much less a long term storage. People aren't stupid, they know accidents are extremely rare, but if they do happen, they pay the full price. And even long before, their property prices plummet. And after several "this will never happen accidents" actually happened, "there will be no accidents" doesn't hold all that much weight with the people. All that alone makes it virtually impossible to start new projects.
- hyperman1 5y ago
  I always heard the Ruhr industrial zone was one of the biggest air polluters of Western Europe. What's the status today?

namdnay 5y ago

A coal plant is an ongoing accident all day every day. When do "these accidents" happen again and again? France hasn't had a single nuclear disaster in 50 years of operation Fukushima is a pretty good demonstration that even when everything goes wrong, the consequences aren't that bad.

brettermeier 5y ago
Sure they are, nuclear consequences are worst if they really blow up, and some always will. And what about the trash... I don't think it's greener energy than coal...
- namdnay 5y ago
  > and some always will no? why would they? > And what about the trash The whole of France produces less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material. Hardly a big issue finding somewhere to safely bury that. > I don't think it's greener energy than coal ? of course it is, coal is insanely dangerous, germany burning coal is killing people every day. And then there's the impact on global warming
  - foobarawayquux 5y ago
    I was curious about that quote "less than 10 tons of long-term radioactive material" and looked it up: Based on the orano group marketing site: https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radioactive-waste-in-france https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/all-about-radio... it's 200 grams per inhabitant in France, which is 67 million. 200 grams * population of france in metric tons is 13.4 t That's quite good, even if it isn't 10 tons. Of course you still need a location for the short-lived (~300 year) nuclear waste.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-exactitude-chiffres#:~:text=Ainsi%2C%20la%20masse%20totale%20de,de%20moins%20de%2010%20tonnes https://www.sfen.org/rgn/dechets-radioactifs-verite-faits-ex....

MrDresden 5y ago

The cost in human lives related to coal exhaust is of multiple factors higher than that of nuclear. The potential for an extraordinary damage is there in the old nuclear plants, yes. However, closing them down with no plans to build newer ones (with evolved designes) is just giving in to scare tactics. At this point, we need all the low emission tech we have. That includes nuclear.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
You might feel different if you live in a smaller country and all the infrastructure, including long term storage (usually called "temporary storage") is right next to you. At the moment, nuclear power is an incalculable credit card. We can reduce emissions by building more nuclear power, but the bill will eventually come due because it is so hard to get rid of it. I'd be for new nuclear power technologies that produce less waste. But the current technologies really aren't sustainable. Coal isn't sustainable either, but at least you can stop it more quickly.
- MrDresden 5y ago
  I understand what you mean. However I would rather take the uncertain potential damage in the future, rather than the certain quantifiable damage today. There are (and have existed since even before the first commercial plants were ever built) plans and designs for reactors which work on different principals than those we have built in the last 70 years (for example liquid salt reactors). Some of these are currently being prototyped further today. There is also the potential for the stored up waste from the last 70 years of nuclear power production to be used in so called breeder reactors. All of these options however are not without flaws, and do produce toxic waste products (just with much shorter and manageable half lives). Nuclear power does though require long term planning by politicians (and a bit of a backbone), which given the current fear of this technology is sadly unlikely to materialize in time. And to address the point about coal being easier to move away from; how exactly would you suggest we do that? While fantastic, wind and solar energy is not as reliably as coal or nuclear. Hydro is very selectively available, and geothermal is relatively in its infancy. Even the giant solar panel project that Malaysia is planning to build in Australia (one of the most solar irradiated place on the planet) and which will be one of the largest in the world, is only expected to supply around 20% of their energy needs. However much one may disslike it, the fact is that there simply is at current no drop in replacement for coal & natural gas burning other than nuclear.

pyrale 5y ago

> It's sad that people want to risk giving up a good chunk of their country for a while due to a nuclear accident. The current alternative is losing large parts of the whole planet due to climate change. Even if we don't factor the extreme events it creates, air pollution from coal kills more each year than all nuclear events related to power generation ever. I mean, sure, there are significant drawbacks to nuclear power, but that's like talking about lead paint issues in a burning house.

otikik 5y ago

Give this a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak The TLDR is: 7 million people die anually from air pollution. Fukushima and Chernobil combined don't even put a dent on that. And solar+wind alone is not enough.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares. Things do go wrong, and it's ridiculous to believe the required scale up would be possible with the current high regulatory standards. Especially with some of the major polluters not being known for their absence of corruption...
- otikik 5y ago
  > You can't replace most of air pollution with nuclear power. It can replace most of coal-based electricity generators. It cannot replace everything. It needs solar, wind, and whatever else we can come up with (recycling, increases in efficiency, etc.) > And increasing nuclear fuel and waste production to anywhere near the necessary levels should give any environmentalist nightmares Waste is also discussed on the video, near the end. Coal's waste goes directly into the atmosphere, where it does harm and cannot be easily captured back. Things are already "going wrong" with that. When solar panels end in landfills, they bring a lot of heavy metals (like cadmium). If "things go wrong" those also are a nightmare. So, yeah: we are already on an environmentalist nightmare. The question is what do we do from here.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Radioactive material in the ground water or food cycle would be much worse than anything related to coal burning. And there are several ways for it to get there unless there is an iron tight fist of regulation and compliance. Even then, it has happened. And your argument assumes replacing all fossil fuel with nuclear power, which means all the developing countries, all the dictatorships etc handling lots of radioactive material. I'm sure they'll all be responsible with it and not let anything spill over to other countries, right? And that's even assuming best intentions. I'm not a fan of fossil fuels. I'm grudgingly on board with my countries plan because nuclear power is no sustainable option for us. Both politically and technologically. We can get rid of coal plants a lot faster than we can decommission nuclear plants and store the waste...