4 ms·

There is a solution, it's called nuclear power. When will the perceived risk of nuclear power be overtaken by the risks of global warming? Why does it seem li

There is a solution, it's called nuclear power. When will the perceived risk of nuclear power be overtaken by the risks of global warming? Why does it seem like we, as a society, are not capable of making grown-up assessments of this issue?

azinman2 5y ago
That's A solution, but it's not like energy plants are the only source of CO2. They also take many billions to create and many many years, need rare materials that can also be turned into weapons, and need to be located near some large body of water for cooling. It's not like you can just roll that out to the entire world in time even if you started now.
- api 5y ago
  They're by far the main source. Coal burning for electricity is the source of >60% of all fossil CO2 emissions. That's just coal power plants. No oil, no gas, no other sources.
- kergonath 5y ago
  We also need to electrify everything that can be, and use fuel cells for what can not. The capital issue really is political, as not doing it will cost way more in the long run. Pricing adequately carbon emissions would be a first step. Nuclear plants don’t need rare materials, and the waste in current designs cannot be used in a nuclear bomb (well, they could be used in a dirty bomb, but then there are loads of cheap as chips chemicals that are much better for this use). It is true that it is too late now to rely only on that. We still need all the tools we have, and we should build as much reactors as we can, and as much wind turbines (and solar panels where it makes sense) as we can. We are not in a situation where we can prioritise one or the other, otherwise we end up with gas and coal, like in Germany.
breakyerself 5y ago
We need a price on carbon emissions. Probably coupled with subsidies on a per kwh basis for carbon free energy. Different energy sources will be appropriate in different markets. Mandating specific technologies is going to end up being wasteful and inefficient.
my_usernam3 5y ago
I'm a single issue voter on this. Be pro nuclear energy and you're my candidate.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  Wind and solar can get you very far and are significantly cheaper and easier than nuclear, so it only makes sense that we ramp that up to 50%+ of the energy mix immediately, with power lines and natural gas peaker plants in place to smooth out temporal availability. I'm not discounting nuclear and see its value for base load power, and I think anti-nuclear energy people are puritanical idiots and definitely do not want to vote for anyone who is against nuclear, but I get the sneaking suspicion that nuclear power is often mentioned as a way to misdirect away from wind and solar for political reasons which is a shame since these technologies are such easy wins that can be implemented right now.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    Last I looked at this, nuclear is so expensive that wind/solar + batteries are price competitive.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
splistud 5y ago
Okay grownup, assess this. How do we credibly maintain that we can properly maintain stored wastes for centuries, in order to prevent some sort of ecological cataclysm? This is a particularly sensitive question in light of the fact that the overall conversation we are having is concerned with preserving society as we know it? I'm not against nuclear power. But if we are to be adult about it, we need to be clear about the risks (and not pretend that there is a risk in assuming the same type of society in 1500 years). We also need to be clear what it means to take this risk if all we are solving is a 'problem' that our best efforts at modelling CAN NOT REPLICATE, and evidence for which only exist if one cherry-picks the dates.
the_why_of_y 5y ago
This is actually being done in France: Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[4] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[4] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

azinman2 5y ago

That's A solution, but it's not like energy plants are the only source of CO2. They also take many billions to create and many many years, need rare materials that can also be turned into weapons, and need to be located near some large body of water for cooling. It's not like you can just roll that out to the entire world in time even if you started now.

api 5y ago
They're by far the main source. Coal burning for electricity is the source of >60% of all fossil CO2 emissions. That's just coal power plants. No oil, no gas, no other sources.
kergonath 5y ago
We also need to electrify everything that can be, and use fuel cells for what can not. The capital issue really is political, as not doing it will cost way more in the long run. Pricing adequately carbon emissions would be a first step. Nuclear plants don’t need rare materials, and the waste in current designs cannot be used in a nuclear bomb (well, they could be used in a dirty bomb, but then there are loads of cheap as chips chemicals that are much better for this use). It is true that it is too late now to rely only on that. We still need all the tools we have, and we should build as much reactors as we can, and as much wind turbines (and solar panels where it makes sense) as we can. We are not in a situation where we can prioritise one or the other, otherwise we end up with gas and coal, like in Germany.

breakyerself 5y ago

We need a price on carbon emissions. Probably coupled with subsidies on a per kwh basis for carbon free energy. Different energy sources will be appropriate in different markets. Mandating specific technologies is going to end up being wasteful and inefficient.

my_usernam3 5y ago

I'm a single issue voter on this. Be pro nuclear energy and you're my candidate.

fighterpilot 5y ago
Wind and solar can get you very far and are significantly cheaper and easier than nuclear, so it only makes sense that we ramp that up to 50%+ of the energy mix immediately, with power lines and natural gas peaker plants in place to smooth out temporal availability. I'm not discounting nuclear and see its value for base load power, and I think anti-nuclear energy people are puritanical idiots and definitely do not want to vote for anyone who is against nuclear, but I get the sneaking suspicion that nuclear power is often mentioned as a way to misdirect away from wind and solar for political reasons which is a shame since these technologies are such easy wins that can be implemented right now.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Last I looked at this, nuclear is so expensive that wind/solar + batteries are price competitive.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

splistud 5y ago

Okay grownup, assess this. How do we credibly maintain that we can properly maintain stored wastes for centuries, in order to prevent some sort of ecological cataclysm? This is a particularly sensitive question in light of the fact that the overall conversation we are having is concerned with preserving society as we know it? I'm not against nuclear power. But if we are to be adult about it, we need to be clear about the risks (and not pretend that there is a risk in assuming the same type of society in 1500 years). We also need to be clear what it means to take this risk if all we are solving is a 'problem' that our best efforts at modelling CAN NOT REPLICATE, and evidence for which only exist if one cherry-picks the dates.

the_why_of_y 5y ago

This is actually being done in France: Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007.[4] The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[4] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...