3 ms·

>> For all those accidents there is no consensus about the long-term impact on health and the environment > This is like saying there is no consensus about cli

>> For all those accidents there is no consensus about the long-term impact on health and the environment > This is like saying there is no consensus about climate change. No, as there are very few and less and less scientists claiming that climate change cannot be observed. Can you quote one? Even those claiming that anthropogenic causes are negligible are only a tiny and quickly disappearing group, while polemics about the effects of exposure to radionucleides (hormesis, external/internal...) stems many polemics among scientists since at least the 1950's until now. >> At Fukushima cleaning-up > Japanese response was irrational Without even challenging this thesis: the population in Japan is well-known as organized, highly educated, obedient and ready for sacrifice. > since Chernobyl until today, lack of investment in Nuclear has certainly been made up for primarily by coal In many nations (France, the US, Russia...) Chernobyl didn't really impede nuclear development. >> Nuclear waste > That's pretty unlikely if the mine is deep enough The depth of our knowledge about all this is quite limited. Plate tectonics was only accepted during the 1960's... > This is the thing about radioactivity, most people don't know the difference between 100Bq/g, 100Bq/l and 100Bq/m^3. This is tied to uncertainties about long-term effect of low-level exposure. >> Moreover this is also tied to ethic standpoint: do we have the right to let such bad stuff to future generations > This applies to almost everything we do This doesn't preclude the logical conclusion: the cleaner way has a major advantage. > Imagine a world where humanity has already used up all economically available fissile materials as fuel. Maybe we can stop being scared about nuclear war? Even in such a world some will obtain a nuclear weapon, even at a very high price. >> One being that what was deemed adequate safety-wise isn't anymore, leading to new costs. > Obviously paranoia This is subjective. In the 2000's many touted that, obviously, a western-designed reactor, well-built, supervised and exploited by serious people just cannot let any dangerous material wander away, then Fukushima happened. > Even between reactors of the same nominal security class, there is huge variation in cost. I would claim this is due to poor execution, corruption, political medelling, etc. This is indeed part of the causes. > My bet is that France will have lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions than Germany in 2032 and possibly all the way to 2040 Maybe, however since 1999 both nations only further decarbonate thanks to renewables. > nuclear and "renewables" are not mutually exclusive, and if France is able to deploy both, it proves that point. It doesn't prove that a dollar (or euro, for this matter) invested in nuclear stays available for 'renewables', and this doesn't come as a surprise. Therefore lenghty and overbudget nuclear projects delivering clonky plants aren't as efficient as 'renewables'. > most current plants have shown themselves to be safe enough > safety levels should be approximately at a Gen3 level Aren't all current models (EPR, AP1000...) exactly of this kind? > modern technology should be aimed at lowering prices instead of improving safety even further. As far as I know that's exactly the trend since the 2010's, well-illustrated by the quest for SMRs. > and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar (leading to new problems, such a shttps://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/ https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-... ) > Take school (around 12-17 years old) children on school trips to places of high air polution, show them pictures and videos of what air polution is doing to human and animal health. Let them breathe the air near some old dirty coal plant for a few hours. > Then take them to a nuclear plant Don't forget to let them talk to people who lived near Chernobyl and Fukushima during the accidents... > in areas where nuclear is partially accepted, eductation through government controlled channels can absolutely be used In my opinion and whatever the subject such 'education' quickly becomes sheer propaganda and may even transmute into totalitarianism. > to spread mainstream scientific knowledge There are scientists, including nuclear scientists, against nuclear energy (in France: B. Laponche), and many explicitly prefer 'renewables'. > If such an activity can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10% The main aspect of this is trust placed in politicians and science, and from what I see it falls down. More and more think that nobody can understand, and therefore predict, and therefore adequately govern anymore. Many technological 'solutions' were implemented then created a major problem. The real outcome of 'techno-solutionism' is debatable and subjective, it may even be positive, however this defiance seems ubiquitous and government-induced 'education' aiming at countering will IMHO at best fail flat. > we will be that much closer to have fully developed the renewable technolgies needed to make renewables a fully viable approach That's the core of the argument. In my opinion there is nothing new to discover/develop (it could be useful but isn't necessary), only building is needed: production units adequately spread out (to reduce storage needs to a level we can satisfy), powerlines, storage...

trashtester 4y ago
> No, as there are very few and less and less scientists claiming that climate change cannot be observed. Can you quote one? Here is an article that is climate sceptic without being completely crazy : https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-good-for-the-world#:~:text=The%20chief%20benefits%20of%20global,fewer%20droughts%3B%20maybe%20richer%20biodiversity https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-go.... It's not arguing that climate change is not happening, only that the net effect is positive, if the warming is only moderate. > In many nations (France, the US, Russia...) Chernobyl didn't really impede nuclear development. I don't really believe that, Chernobyl certainly seemed to affect the zeitgeist when it happened. But these things are hard to prove one way or another. > Plate tectonics was only accepted during the 1960's... Almost nothing is 100% certain, but the probability that some bedrock formations are stable over the next 1000 years is pretty high (really close to 100%). And minor leakage 800 years from now is unlikely to cause much harm, especially if we have not already blasted each other with nukes before that time. > This is tied to uncertainties about long-term effect of low-level exposure. We actually know quite a lot about this. The LNT model that is often used, is a worst case scenario for dealing with risks too small to measure. Even if it is true, for any individual, such exposure exposes them to a risk that is so small it cannot be measured. One could say "There is no evidence that such small doses are harmful." Another way to put it, is that the risks of such low levels of radiation are smaller than getting a covid vaccine. And that is the worst case scenario. There are also good arguments why even the unmeasurably tiny (but still assumed by LNT) is too pessimistic. Here is a relatively recent paper arguing for dropping the LNT model: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/ Radioactivity exposure below 100mSv is the limit for what leads to measurable increased cancer risks. During the cleanup from Fukushima, only about 174 workers received doses higher than that. In that group, the lifetime expected expected increase in cancer cases is 3 people. (From a baseline of 70 to an increased level of 73). https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-Health-impact.aspx#:~:text=The%20increased%20risk%20of%20cancer,could%20be%20caused%20by%20exposure https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushim.... Compare that to the 15899 deaths from the Tsunami itself, that we never talk about anymore. > This doesn't preclude the logical conclusion: the cleaner way has a major advantage. Two fallacies here: 1) You assume that a better choice is available. That is only true if we will actually go for an alternative policy that is, in the end, cleaner. I don't see the proof of that yet. (Coal can also cause long term harm, and already has.) (Nirvana fallacy) 2) Even if you do end up in a cleaner scenario, you still have to prove that the difference is "major", or leave that word out. > Even in such a world some will obtain a nuclear weapon, even at a very high price. If the price of nuclear weapons go up, I'm all for that. I'm not worried about 1 or 100 or even 1000 nuclear weapons going off 500 years from now. But 1000000 bombs going off at once would be a shame. Oh, and even 100 going off will cause way more damage than some leak in a storage pool. >> Obviously paranoia > This is subjective. In the 2000's many touted that, obviously, a western-designed reactor, well-built, supervised and exploited by serious people just cannot let any dangerous material wander away, then Fukushima happened Whether is paranoia is not subjective, but it may be whether or not it is obvious may be subjective. Whoever promised that western designed reactors would never have a leak, over-promised. Over-promising is risky. But the real damage caused by the leak (from radiation) is low-to-none, even if you just compare to the damage that would have been caused by any alternative cause of electricity over the Fukushima plant's lifetime. This is objectively true. > It doesn't prove that a dollar (or euro, for this matter) invested in nuclear stays available for 'renewables', and this doesn't come as a surprise. Therefore lenghty and overbudget nuclear projects delivering clonky plants aren't as efficient as 'renewables'. I don't think you're right, but let's assume that you are. But what it DOES prove, is that whatever policy France as been conducting has been much more effective in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, even if the French investments in renewables are tiny compared to Germany's. Maybe the French overpaid, but I don't think so. >> most current plants have shown themselves to be safe enough > safety levels should be approximately at a Gen3 level > Aren't all current models (EPR, AP1000...) exactly of this kind? No, there are also Gen 3+ reactors in operation. My claim is that capping the security level at what Gen 3 can provide (or even slightly lower) will make future reactors cheaper, since alternative means can be used to achieve that security (advancements in gen 3+ or gen 4 can be used to compensate from some compromises in gen3 security measues, instead of being added on top of those measures). > Don't forget to let them talk to people who lived near Chernobyl and Fukushima during the accidents... For most kids in the world, travelling to Ukraine or Japan is economically unviable. Also, it's not good education to focus on worst cases. What effect do you think it would have to have school-kids talk with survivors of gang-rape by african immigrants? Maybe we don't want the kind of racism that would generate? > In my opinion and whatever the subject such 'education' quickly becomes sheer propaganda and may even transmute into totalitarianism. There are certainly expamples that favour your prediction. But we have to teach the kids SOMETHING, and I prefer that they learn what is scientifically defensible, instead of what is preferred by some ideology. > There are scientists, including nuclear scientists, against nuclear energy (in France: B. Laponche), and many explicitly prefer 'renewables'. Name a belief, and there will probably be at least 1 scientist believing it. Those who are particularily commited to some religion or ideology may very well support opinions that are far removed from the scientific consensus. B. Laponche doesn't even have an English Wikipedia page, so I have to presume he is not an authority in the field. > The main aspect of this is trust placed in politicians and science, and from what I see it falls down. This is a good point. "Science" has been compromised over the last few years. Which is why there is a need to educate the population, and in particular the youngest generation, about what is real science and who masquerade as science (and who are in-between). Ideologes who use "Science" as a weapon must have their pants pulled down. > That's the core of the argument. In my opinion there is nothing new to discover/develop (it could be useful but isn't necessary), only building is needed: production units adequately spread out (to reduce storage needs to a level we can satisfy), powerlines, storage... You may hold this opinion, but the fact is that it hasn't been done yet. Also, I've yet to see a full-fledged plan that covers all aspects in detail, including cost estimates from anything from storage needs to building and maintaining super-high-voltage grids to enable long-distance transfers. As we speak, the spot price of electricity in Southern Norway is 10-15x higher than Northern Norway, due to limitations of the grid. (about 0.011 vs 0.145 euro/KWh). This difference is entirely due to exports. Further up you claimed that renewables are cheaper than nuclear power. My counter argument that, whether or not you're right, France has already paid the difference. My estimate is that for renewables to be price-competitive as a stable energy source, huge investments in grid-capacity and/or storage is needed, which will bring the price up to a level that is likely to exceed the cost of nuclear, given currently available technology. If storage technology continues to fall exponentially, we will surely/hopefully get there within this century, but I don't fully buy that simply distributing production is enough (until a full economic analysis is presented).

trashtester 4y ago

> No, as there are very few and less and less scientists claiming that climate change cannot be observed. Can you quote one? Here is an article that is climate sceptic without being completely crazy : https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-good-for-the-world#:~:text=The%20chief%20benefits%20of%20global,fewer%20droughts%3B%20maybe%20richer%20biodiversity https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-climate-change-is-go.... It's not arguing that climate change is not happening, only that the net effect is positive, if the warming is only moderate. > In many nations (France, the US, Russia...) Chernobyl didn't really impede nuclear development. I don't really believe that, Chernobyl certainly seemed to affect the zeitgeist when it happened. But these things are hard to prove one way or another. > Plate tectonics was only accepted during the 1960's... Almost nothing is 100% certain, but the probability that some bedrock formations are stable over the next 1000 years is pretty high (really close to 100%). And minor leakage 800 years from now is unlikely to cause much harm, especially if we have not already blasted each other with nukes before that time. > This is tied to uncertainties about long-term effect of low-level exposure. We actually know quite a lot about this. The LNT model that is often used, is a worst case scenario for dealing with risks too small to measure. Even if it is true, for any individual, such exposure exposes them to a risk that is so small it cannot be measured. One could say "There is no evidence that such small doses are harmful." Another way to put it, is that the risks of such low levels of radiation are smaller than getting a covid vaccine. And that is the worst case scenario. There are also good arguments why even the unmeasurably tiny (but still assumed by LNT) is too pessimistic. Here is a relatively recent paper arguing for dropping the LNT model: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043938/ Radioactivity exposure below 100mSv is the limit for what leads to measurable increased cancer risks. During the cleanup from Fukushima, only about 174 workers received doses higher than that. In that group, the lifetime expected expected increase in cancer cases is 3 people. (From a baseline of 70 to an increased level of 73). https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushima/fukushima-2016/Pages/Fukushima-in-2016-Health-impact.aspx#:~:text=The%20increased%20risk%20of%20cancer,could%20be%20caused%20by%20exposure https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/fukushim.... Compare that to the 15899 deaths from the Tsunami itself, that we never talk about anymore. > This doesn't preclude the logical conclusion: the cleaner way has a major advantage. Two fallacies here: 1) You assume that a better choice is available. That is only true if we will actually go for an alternative policy that is, in the end, cleaner. I don't see the proof of that yet. (Coal can also cause long term harm, and already has.) (Nirvana fallacy) 2) Even if you do end up in a cleaner scenario, you still have to prove that the difference is "major", or leave that word out. > Even in such a world some will obtain a nuclear weapon, even at a very high price. If the price of nuclear weapons go up, I'm all for that. I'm not worried about 1 or 100 or even 1000 nuclear weapons going off 500 years from now. But 1000000 bombs going off at once would be a shame. Oh, and even 100 going off will cause way more damage than some leak in a storage pool. >> Obviously paranoia > This is subjective. In the 2000's many touted that, obviously, a western-designed reactor, well-built, supervised and exploited by serious people just cannot let any dangerous material wander away, then Fukushima happened Whether is paranoia is not subjective, but it may be whether or not it is obvious may be subjective. Whoever promised that western designed reactors would never have a leak, over-promised. Over-promising is risky. But the real damage caused by the leak (from radiation) is low-to-none, even if you just compare to the damage that would have been caused by any alternative cause of electricity over the Fukushima plant's lifetime. This is objectively true. > It doesn't prove that a dollar (or euro, for this matter) invested in nuclear stays available for 'renewables', and this doesn't come as a surprise. Therefore lenghty and overbudget nuclear projects delivering clonky plants aren't as efficient as 'renewables'. I don't think you're right, but let's assume that you are. But what it DOES prove, is that whatever policy France as been conducting has been much more effective in limiting greenhouse gas emissions, even if the French investments in renewables are tiny compared to Germany's. Maybe the French overpaid, but I don't think so. >> most current plants have shown themselves to be safe enough > safety levels should be approximately at a Gen3 level > Aren't all current models (EPR, AP1000...) exactly of this kind? No, there are also Gen 3+ reactors in operation. My claim is that capping the security level at what Gen 3 can provide (or even slightly lower) will make future reactors cheaper, since alternative means can be used to achieve that security (advancements in gen 3+ or gen 4 can be used to compensate from some compromises in gen3 security measues, instead of being added on top of those measures). > Don't forget to let them talk to people who lived near Chernobyl and Fukushima during the accidents... For most kids in the world, travelling to Ukraine or Japan is economically unviable. Also, it's not good education to focus on worst cases. What effect do you think it would have to have school-kids talk with survivors of gang-rape by african immigrants? Maybe we don't want the kind of racism that would generate? > In my opinion and whatever the subject such 'education' quickly becomes sheer propaganda and may even transmute into totalitarianism. There are certainly expamples that favour your prediction. But we have to teach the kids SOMETHING, and I prefer that they learn what is scientifically defensible, instead of what is preferred by some ideology. > There are scientists, including nuclear scientists, against nuclear energy (in France: B. Laponche), and many explicitly prefer 'renewables'. Name a belief, and there will probably be at least 1 scientist believing it. Those who are particularily commited to some religion or ideology may very well support opinions that are far removed from the scientific consensus. B. Laponche doesn't even have an English Wikipedia page, so I have to presume he is not an authority in the field. > The main aspect of this is trust placed in politicians and science, and from what I see it falls down. This is a good point. "Science" has been compromised over the last few years. Which is why there is a need to educate the population, and in particular the youngest generation, about what is real science and who masquerade as science (and who are in-between). Ideologes who use "Science" as a weapon must have their pants pulled down. > That's the core of the argument. In my opinion there is nothing new to discover/develop (it could be useful but isn't necessary), only building is needed: production units adequately spread out (to reduce storage needs to a level we can satisfy), powerlines, storage... You may hold this opinion, but the fact is that it hasn't been done yet. Also, I've yet to see a full-fledged plan that covers all aspects in detail, including cost estimates from anything from storage needs to building and maintaining super-high-voltage grids to enable long-distance transfers. As we speak, the spot price of electricity in Southern Norway is 10-15x higher than Northern Norway, due to limitations of the grid. (about 0.011 vs 0.145 euro/KWh). This difference is entirely due to exports. Further up you claimed that renewables are cheaper than nuclear power. My counter argument that, whether or not you're right, France has already paid the difference. My estimate is that for renewables to be price-competitive as a stable energy source, huge investments in grid-capacity and/or storage is needed, which will bring the price up to a level that is likely to exceed the cost of nuclear, given currently available technology. If storage technology continues to fall exponentially, we will surely/hopefully get there within this century, but I don't fully buy that simply distributing production is enough (until a full economic analysis is presented).