3 ms·

Less coal is good for the environment, as is less nuclear. Or was Fukushima good for the environment? Of course you realize this for both, you wouldn't otherwis

Less coal is good for the environment, as is less nuclear. Or was Fukushima good for the environment? Of course you realize this for both, you wouldn't otherwise make up that they replaced nuclear with coal, and ignore mentioning Fukushima even once.

fsflover 5y ago
> as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987. The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974. I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact which you are unable to accept. Let's come back to our examples. Possibility 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. Why is coal not at 0%? Because the renewables are not enough to cover the energy usage! This is why coal is still there. In other words, coal (partially, along with the renewables) replaced the removed nuclear, despite they both are used less.
- locallost 5y ago
  I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". > Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument. There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.
    - locallost 5y ago
      Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced nuclear, what replaced the coal? It has to be nuclear, no?
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > It has to be nuclear, no? No, it can be renewables. > the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.
        locallost 5y ago
        There are 100 black, 100 brown and 100 green balls. We take out 50 black and brown balls, and replace them with 100 green balls. But wait, actually the brown balls replaced the black balls because that's the idea I like. But liking has nothing to do with math. Something that decreased needs a replacement, it cannot be a replacement itself, since it was already there. You don't even understand how insurance works. Added costs or whatever have no influence on the potential payout after an accident would occur. When even something nuclear proponents call benign like Fukushima costs $200B to cleanup imagine how much Chernobyl would cost today. We are easily talking trillions. Insurances are not lobby driven business like nuclear plants, whose main business model is dumping external costs on the public. E.g. nuclear waste, accident cleanup etc.
        fsflover 5y ago
        The difference from your balls is that different "colors" have real-world, serious consequences. When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls", you effectively endorse the latter ones. This is not just a theoretical thing. Due to this choice, millions and millions of tons of CO2 and a lot of radiation were released into the environment and billions of euro put into the pockets of the coal lobby. > like nuclear plants, whose main business model is dumping external costs on the public. Actually, this is even more true for the coal. According to available statistics, coal results in more deaths, more CO2, more damage. I admit that I don't know how the insurance works. Where do all those costs for nuclear insurance come from, while the coal insurance is cheap and more damaging?
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". You may have a different opinion on the semantics. It doesn't matter much. What matters is the wrong choice which led to unnecessary CO2 and radiation in the air (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Damage_to_human_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Damage_to_human_health). > Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument. There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.

fsflover 5y ago

> as is less nuclear This is false: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26603464 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26673987. The Fukushima and Chernobyl are included in all statistics for nuclear. Even then, it's the most safe, green energy source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874421 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24324974. I did not make up that coal replaced nuclear. It's the fact which you are unable to accept. Let's come back to our examples. Possibility 1. Coal 45% to 25%, nuclear 10% to 0%. Why is coal not at 0%? Because the renewables are not enough to cover the energy usage! This is why coal is still there. In other words, coal (partially, along with the renewables) replaced the removed nuclear, despite they both are used less.

locallost 5y ago
I already asked and got no answer: if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? If coal replaced nuclear, what replaced the missing coal? Nuclear? Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument.
- fsflover 5y ago
  > if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". > Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument. There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.
  - locallost 5y ago
    Of course there is a difference, that's why somebody posted the estimate (in another comment) that the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. You can call it any way you want, but the question remains. If there is less coal use now than before, and coal was used to replace the reduced nuclear, what replaced the coal? It has to be nuclear, no?
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > It has to be nuclear, no? No, it can be renewables. > the insurance of one nuclear power plant would be around 70 billion per year. And we know from another recent story, that people doing those estimates are really good at math. The insurance takes into account huge costs unreasonably added by politicians. This is not what you should look at for a scientifically sound comparison.
      - locallost 5y ago
        There are 100 black, 100 brown and 100 green balls. We take out 50 black and brown balls, and replace them with 100 green balls. But wait, actually the brown balls replaced the black balls because that's the idea I like. But liking has nothing to do with math. Something that decreased needs a replacement, it cannot be a replacement itself, since it was already there. You don't even understand how insurance works. Added costs or whatever have no influence on the potential payout after an accident would occur. When even something nuclear proponents call benign like Fukushima costs $200B to cleanup imagine how much Chernobyl would cost today. We are easily talking trillions. Insurances are not lobby driven business like nuclear plants, whose main business model is dumping external costs on the public. E.g. nuclear waste, accident cleanup etc.
        fsflover 5y ago
        The difference from your balls is that different "colors" have real-world, serious consequences. When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls", you effectively endorse the latter ones. This is not just a theoretical thing. Due to this choice, millions and millions of tons of CO2 and a lot of radiation were released into the environment and billions of euro put into the pockets of the coal lobby. > like nuclear plants, whose main business model is dumping external costs on the public. Actually, this is even more true for the coal. According to available statistics, coal results in more deaths, more CO2, more damage. I admit that I don't know how the insurance works. Where do all those costs for nuclear insurance come from, while the coal insurance is cheap and more damaging?
- fsflover 5y ago
  > if both coal and nuclear are down, can we say that nuclear replaced coal, or did coal only replace nuclear? IMHO it depends on the purpose of the decrease. If it's about green energy, then removing the nuclear while keeping the coal is a wrong choice (see links above), and the remaining coal was chosen to be kept instead of the remaining nuclear. I would call it "coal replaced nuclear". You may have a different opinion on the semantics. It doesn't matter much. What matters is the wrong choice which led to unnecessary CO2 and radiation in the air (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Damage_to_human_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Damage_to_human_health). > Nuclear is so green, the japanese people will shell out $200B for the cleanup of the mess. So much for that argument. There is a difference between an anecdote and reliable statistics.