3 ms·

Fossil fuels are horrible too, but the disasters they cause we can clean up. We don't just have to stuff it in a mountain and pretend it doesn't exist. We shoul

Fossil fuels are horrible too, but the disasters they cause we can clean up. We don't just have to stuff it in a mountain and pretend it doesn't exist. We should be moving with full force to 100% renewables. Lithium is extremely plentiful on the earth. Today's mining methods -- like all of today's mining -- have more negative environmental impacts than anyone would like, but this is not a reason to go nuclear, it's a reason to regulate the industry and require better practices.

Manuel_D 4y ago
We can clean up nuclear waste. Wash away the radioactive fallout, remove the top layer of soil. The majority of the Fukushima exclusion zone has been cleaned up and resettled. There was no real desire to clean up the Chernobyl exclusion zone because that area was only populated for the purpose of supporting the now defunct power plant. By comparison, how do we go about cleaning up the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels? I'd say the opposite: nuclear waste is much easier to clean up than fossil fuel waste.
- natmaka 4y ago
  The adequacy of Fukushima's ongoing cleanup is disputed, and it will cost $470 to $660 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... AFAIK nobody (here) advocates fossil fuel. Usually it is about nuclear/renewable.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Only $15 billion has actually been spent, the estimates of 470 to 660 are predictions from think tanks and not what has been budgeted. "Renewables" is really wind and solar supplementing fossil fuels. There's no realistic plan for a predominantly intermittent grid without some form of dispatchable source backing periods of non-production. If that happens to be a hydroelectric dam, great. But for most regions that means fossil fuels. So advocating renewables is advocating fossil fuels in effect.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Scope_of_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Sco... : In 2016, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry estimated ((...)) decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). The very amount of backup needed by a renewable-based system can be reduced by adequately spreading-out production units: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Energy storage (hydro... V2G has a huge potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) and curtailment further reduce it. A dispatchable source ('backup') isn't necessarily fossil-fuel-burning: green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines are clean: https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf This very green hydrogen can be produced thanks to (clean!) renewable units overproduction. Even fully-nuclearized France produces around 9% of its electricity thanks to such 'backup' (today: fossil-fuel burning plants). Red surfaces: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... 9% is 33 days per year, that's quite a margin.
      - Manuel_D 4y ago
        Again, estimates are not actual costs. And note that the figures you cite add up to much less than the 660 billion you cited earlier. Hydrogen storage has significant technological barriers. Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility so far. There's no telling when, or if, these barriers will be overcome. France can build more nuclear plants to drive down it's fossil fuel use. But no amount of overproduction will make a solar plant produce electricity at night, or wind turbines on a windless day. For that reason, "renewables" is really renewables plus fossil fuels. While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels and biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) for just under 40% of it's electricity. Not much of a win for renewables.
cowtools 4y ago
>Fossil fuels are horrible too, but the disasters they cause we can clean up. Huh? >We don't just have to stuff it in a mountain and pretend it doesn't exist. What is your problem with the current state of nuclear waste management? Seems pretty safe to me. I mean, you already seem to pretend that background and cosmic radiation doesn't exist. >regulate the industry and require better practices. ... Which will inevitably increase costs.

Manuel_D 4y ago

We can clean up nuclear waste. Wash away the radioactive fallout, remove the top layer of soil. The majority of the Fukushima exclusion zone has been cleaned up and resettled. There was no real desire to clean up the Chernobyl exclusion zone because that area was only populated for the purpose of supporting the now defunct power plant. By comparison, how do we go about cleaning up the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels? I'd say the opposite: nuclear waste is much easier to clean up than fossil fuel waste.

natmaka 4y ago
The adequacy of Fukushima's ongoing cleanup is disputed, and it will cost $470 to $660 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... AFAIK nobody (here) advocates fossil fuel. Usually it is about nuclear/renewable.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Only $15 billion has actually been spent, the estimates of 470 to 660 are predictions from think tanks and not what has been budgeted. "Renewables" is really wind and solar supplementing fossil fuels. There's no realistic plan for a predominantly intermittent grid without some form of dispatchable source backing periods of non-production. If that happens to be a hydroelectric dam, great. But for most regions that means fossil fuels. So advocating renewables is advocating fossil fuels in effect.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Scope_of_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Sco... : In 2016, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry estimated ((...)) decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). The very amount of backup needed by a renewable-based system can be reduced by adequately spreading-out production units: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Energy storage (hydro... V2G has a huge potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) and curtailment further reduce it. A dispatchable source ('backup') isn't necessarily fossil-fuel-burning: green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines are clean: https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf This very green hydrogen can be produced thanks to (clean!) renewable units overproduction. Even fully-nuclearized France produces around 9% of its electricity thanks to such 'backup' (today: fossil-fuel burning plants). Red surfaces: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... 9% is 33 days per year, that's quite a margin.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Again, estimates are not actual costs. And note that the figures you cite add up to much less than the 660 billion you cited earlier. Hydrogen storage has significant technological barriers. Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility so far. There's no telling when, or if, these barriers will be overcome. France can build more nuclear plants to drive down it's fossil fuel use. But no amount of overproduction will make a solar plant produce electricity at night, or wind turbines on a windless day. For that reason, "renewables" is really renewables plus fossil fuels. While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels and biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) for just under 40% of it's electricity. Not much of a win for renewables.

cowtools 4y ago

>Fossil fuels are horrible too, but the disasters they cause we can clean up. Huh? >We don't just have to stuff it in a mountain and pretend it doesn't exist. What is your problem with the current state of nuclear waste management? Seems pretty safe to me. I mean, you already seem to pretend that background and cosmic radiation doesn't exist. >regulate the industry and require better practices. ... Which will inevitably increase costs.