4 ms·

I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary: myself. In the short and medium term, it's obvious that wind and solar are going to help us avoid the worst of the c

I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary: myself. In the short and medium term, it's obvious that wind and solar are going to help us avoid the worst of the climate crisis. In the long term, we might need something more to reverse climate change. Existing nuclear fission energy capacity might be a short term stopgap. It's just clearly not sustainable because inherently too risky: - military/terror/nuclear proliferation risk - uninsurable accident risk - long-lived waste risk - uranium sourcing geopolitical risk Nuclear fusion however should be able to avoid most of these risks. All of this could be moot of course if dangerous idiots like Vladimir decide to solve the problem by killing a sufficiently large fraction of humanity. I'm cautiously optimistic though that a better solution is possible.

gmueckl 5y ago
The German green party had made it part of their program to stop all research into all kinds of "nuclear" technologies, explicitly listing fusion research as something to be stopped. I think that this passage has been removed again, but the whole thing still serves as a good indicator for the sentiments here.
- danuker 5y ago
  They do not mention fusion, but they are still clearly against fission: > Wir vollenden den Atomausstieg und bekennen uns zum verabredeten Pfad der Endlagersuche mit höchsten Sicherheitsstandards bei größtmöglicher Transparenz und Beteiligung der Bevölkerung. Der Rückbau der bestehenden Atomkraftwerke muss schleunigst und ohne Zeitverzögerung auf höchstem Sicherheitsniveau erfolgen. Die Atomfabriken in Gronau und Lingen wollen wir schnellstmöglich schließen Auch in der EU werden wir den Einstieg in den Atomausstieg vorantreiben. https://www.gruene.de/themen/energie https://www.gruene.de/themen/energie Google Translation: > We are completing the nuclear phase-out and are committed to the agreed path of searching for a repository with the highest safety standards and the greatest possible transparency and participation of the population. The dismantling of the existing nuclear power plants must be carried out as quickly as possible and without any delay at the highest level of safety. We want to close the nuclear factories in Gronau and Lingen as quickly as possible. In the EU, too, we will promote the phase-out of nuclear power. I believe it is misguided. Fission is a great intermediary technology, which killed way less people than coal, oil, and gas per energy produced, including the nuclear accidents. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#nuclear-energy-and-renewables-are-far-far-safer-than-fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#nuclear-... Shutting down fission before finding a solution for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is nuts, and results in emergency fuel burning (gas and coal).
  - modo_mario 5y ago
    >They do not mention fusion I believe they've spoken against it in the EP.
  - freemint 5y ago
    The last time I checked the sun is shining 24/7.
    - regularfry 5y ago
      A useful distinction if one migrates between locations in the Arctic and Antarctic Circles that are never clouded, possibly. Anyone else has to deal with pesky details like weather and night-time.
panick21_ 5y ago
So much misconceptions in this opinion. It seems you dupped by the anti-nuclear lobby and the pro-fusion lobby. Non of the things you suggest are even remotely true. - Fusion are as big a proliferation risk, and existing fusion reactors and GenIV reactors that are being built are very small proliferation risk. - Fusion would be equally uninsurable. Practically speaking a accident that leaves the exclusion zone is less likely with a modern GenIV reactor that are currently in regulatory approval. - Nuclear waste of modern reactors (and past reactors) can be broken down burned up. The outcome is waste that needs only a few 100 years of storage and isn't really all dangerous in that time. Its not actually a big practical issue. No deep Geo-1000000 year storage needed. - Literally every country has practically unlimited thorium in the ground. Isolating thorium pretty easy and its a by product of rare earth mining. Non supply of fertile material is a non issue. So once you have actual nuclear reactors running there is no chance of supply issue. And all of this could have been done 40+ years ago as well. Fusion is not needed.
- nautilius 5y ago
  >- Fusion are as big a proliferation risk You either don't understand fusion or proliferation.

gmueckl 5y ago

The German green party had made it part of their program to stop all research into all kinds of "nuclear" technologies, explicitly listing fusion research as something to be stopped. I think that this passage has been removed again, but the whole thing still serves as a good indicator for the sentiments here.

danuker 5y ago
They do not mention fusion, but they are still clearly against fission: > Wir vollenden den Atomausstieg und bekennen uns zum verabredeten Pfad der Endlagersuche mit höchsten Sicherheitsstandards bei größtmöglicher Transparenz und Beteiligung der Bevölkerung. Der Rückbau der bestehenden Atomkraftwerke muss schleunigst und ohne Zeitverzögerung auf höchstem Sicherheitsniveau erfolgen. Die Atomfabriken in Gronau und Lingen wollen wir schnellstmöglich schließen Auch in der EU werden wir den Einstieg in den Atomausstieg vorantreiben. https://www.gruene.de/themen/energie https://www.gruene.de/themen/energie Google Translation: > We are completing the nuclear phase-out and are committed to the agreed path of searching for a repository with the highest safety standards and the greatest possible transparency and participation of the population. The dismantling of the existing nuclear power plants must be carried out as quickly as possible and without any delay at the highest level of safety. We want to close the nuclear factories in Gronau and Lingen as quickly as possible. In the EU, too, we will promote the phase-out of nuclear power. I believe it is misguided. Fission is a great intermediary technology, which killed way less people than coal, oil, and gas per energy produced, including the nuclear accidents. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#nuclear-energy-and-renewables-are-far-far-safer-than-fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy#nuclear-... Shutting down fission before finding a solution for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing is nuts, and results in emergency fuel burning (gas and coal).
- modo_mario 5y ago
  >They do not mention fusion I believe they've spoken against it in the EP.
- freemint 5y ago
  The last time I checked the sun is shining 24/7.
  - regularfry 5y ago
    A useful distinction if one migrates between locations in the Arctic and Antarctic Circles that are never clouded, possibly. Anyone else has to deal with pesky details like weather and night-time.

panick21_ 5y ago

So much misconceptions in this opinion. It seems you dupped by the anti-nuclear lobby and the pro-fusion lobby. Non of the things you suggest are even remotely true. - Fusion are as big a proliferation risk, and existing fusion reactors and GenIV reactors that are being built are very small proliferation risk. - Fusion would be equally uninsurable. Practically speaking a accident that leaves the exclusion zone is less likely with a modern GenIV reactor that are currently in regulatory approval. - Nuclear waste of modern reactors (and past reactors) can be broken down burned up. The outcome is waste that needs only a few 100 years of storage and isn't really all dangerous in that time. Its not actually a big practical issue. No deep Geo-1000000 year storage needed. - Literally every country has practically unlimited thorium in the ground. Isolating thorium pretty easy and its a by product of rare earth mining. Non supply of fertile material is a non issue. So once you have actual nuclear reactors running there is no chance of supply issue. And all of this could have been done 40+ years ago as well. Fusion is not needed.

nautilius 5y ago
>- Fusion are as big a proliferation risk You either don't understand fusion or proliferation.