8 ms·
To me right now it is the uncertainty of all the things that maybe could go wrong with nuclear power vs the certainty of a global collapse.
by midrus 5y ago
To me right now it is the uncertainty of all the things that maybe could go wrong with nuclear power vs the certainty of a global collapse.
- Accujack 5y agoLike what? And have you researched new generation reactor designs, like molten salt reactors? They address most of the problems with existing reactors, which are for the most part 50 year old technology.
- ncmncm 5y agoIt is always easy to say that unbuilt designs lack problems. What we can be certain of is that, by the time construction of such a plant is completed, wind+solar+storage will be overwhelmingly cheaper. Building out solar is right now the best use of every climate-disaster prevention dollar. In the near future, storage will compete, as iron-air batteries come online, and long-distance transmission. Each dollar spent elsewhere, whether on building or patching nuke plants, or patching or fueling coal plants, brings climate disaster nearer.
- Accujack 5y agoI'm not saying the designs lack problems. Rather, I'm saying that they have addressed the problems you're talking about and are potentially considerably safer than old reactor tech. >In the near future, storage will compete, as iron-air batteries come online, and long-distance transmission. and if this doesn't happen? You're willing to risk our survival? >Each dollar spent elsewhere, whether on building or patching nuke plants, or patching or fueling coal plants, brings climate disaster nearer. You're equating coal plants with nuclear? Wow, you have quite a cognitive bias there. Nuclear plants have 0 carbon emissions, they don't contribute to global warming once constructed, and construction doesn't generate enough carbon to nullify that advantage. Renewables can't meet our needs unless new technologies are developed. Nuclear CAN in its present state, and can do so even better if technological progress is made. Both must be pursued.
- ncmncm 5y agoThere are numerous viable storage technologies, just competing for which will be cheapest. Until that is settled and the variable share reaches a practical limit, the money is better spent on panels. Iron-air battery tech is proven. Now it just needs industrial-scale build-out, which takes time: the factories need to be built before the battery farms. Renewables can, in fact, meet our needs with already mature technology. All that is uncertain is which choices will turn out cheapest. If it were not those batteries, it would be others, or underground compressed air, or molten salt, or liquified air.
- Accujack 5y ago>Renewables can, in fact, meet our needs with already mature technology. No, they cannot. Industrial processes require far more power at all times than can be delivered by renewables. For example, aluminum refining.
- ncmncm 5y agoPractically all aluminum production, for many decades, has in fact been powered by renewables.
- Hypx_ 5y agoActually no. In China they use coal, and this is the predominant way we've been making aluminum in recent years.
- ncmncm 5y agoNonetheless, refining aluminum at industrial scale using renewable energy has been demonstrated successfully for many decades. That somebody uses coal does not negate the fact.
- ncmncm 5y agoNukes and coal share the property that they are overwhelmingly more expensive, just to continue operating, than solar. Each dollar spent on a nuke, or on mining coal, is a dollar not spent building out the solar we need. A dollar spent building a nuke is a dollar that displaces exactly zero coal watts for ten or more years, vs solar that begins to displace coal almost immediately.