5 ms·

Groan here we go again. > Oh, yeah, just fine, not a hitch: Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. https://www.who.int

Groan here we go again. > Oh, yeah, just fine, not a hitch: Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution > The solution being: Ignore it, I guess? I mentioned the solutions but didn't provide a link. here you go. https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html > And we fight wars for peace too. See the literature https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html > Not if you count the mining aspect. Nuclear has rock bottom full lifecycle carbon emissions of 12 gCO₂-eq/kWh, including mining. C.f. 11 for wind, 40 for solar, 490 for gas, 800+ for coal. Hard to beat. > Wind and solar are now 3 times cheaper or more You're comparing the worst US nuclear builds with wind/solar without storage, transmission, overbuilds needed for storage, etc. LCOE is not an appropriate metric for systems costs. Never was. Lazard are a bunch of kooks. Look at Hualong One costs. Details on cost comparison for deeply decarbonized grid here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006

jmyeet 4y ago
> Groan here we go again. Yeah, we do with more pro-nuclear propaganda and outright falsehoods (again). > Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. No, it doesn't. Here's the exact quote from your source: > The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution is associated with 7 million premature deaths annually. Not "die from" but "is associated with". What does that mean? "Associated with" here means "reduces the life expectancy", basically. That's a far cry from "dies from". The primary relationship with mortality seems to come from particulates. Some of these are natural (eg sand in deserts), some of it isn't (eg cooking fires). It also includes motor vehicle exhausts. To give you a sense of the level of bullshit going on here, other conditions are getting attributed to air pollution [1]: > They linked nine causes of death with the pollution: cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lung cancer and pneumonia. One study estimates 100,000 Americans die every year from air pollution [2]. That just doesn't pass the smell test and shows you what's going on: it's attributing air pollution to certain medical conditions and then counting deaths from those conditions are air pollution deaths. Exaggerations and outright lies do your cause a massive disservice. Pro-nuclear propaganda doesn't address these issues: 1. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without significant government subsidies; 2. Nuclear power plant falsely reduce costs by externalizing significant costs such as the processing of fuel, the processing of fuel processing waste, maintenance, inspection (eg by the NRC), switching out fuel, processing nuclear fuel, the time-to-build or the failure modes of nuclear plants. Lest we forget, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is 1,000 square miles 35 years later. If these next-generation LWRs are so economical, why isn't someone building them at scale? The standard response is political opposition but what about China? I swear nuclear fan boys are just as delusional as climate deniers. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/us-air-pollution-deaths-study-jama https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/us-air-p... [2]: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-08/100-000-americans-die-from-air-pollution-study-finds https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-0...
- blubbi 4y ago
  "As of June 2021, China has a total nuclear power generation capacity of 49.6 GW from 50 reactors, with additional 17.1 GW under construction" (1) Fair enough, I have not checked whether those are the previously mentioned lwrs, but I would argue that those numbers are definitely "scale" (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
- mathlover2 4y ago
  > One study estimates 100,000 Americans die every year from air pollution That's still a lot more deaths than commercial nuclear fusion has been associated with in the US. It's also, incidentally, a lot of deaths. > 1. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without significant government subsidies. This is a non-sequitur. Just because something needs government subsidies doesn't make it bad. Things like the Internet, modern solar energy, and the USPS were built with either massive initial subsidies or even complete government involvement throughout their ongoing lifetimes. That doesn't make them bad. > 2. Nuclear power plant falsely reduce costs by externalizing significant costs such as the processing of fuel, the processing of fuel processing waste, maintenance, inspection (eg by the NRC), switching out fuel, processing nuclear fuel, the time-to-build or the failure modes of nuclear plants. Lest we forget, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is 1,000 square miles 35 years later. Versus coal and oil plants, which externalize the costs of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, comparing a shoddily built and designed Soviet plant to modern Western ones isn't a good comparison. > If these next-generation LWRs are so economical, why isn't someone building them at scale? The standard response is political opposition but what about China? In the West, it's negative perception that largely predates widespread public awareness of climate change. As for China, it looks like China's getting in on the nuclear game too, precisely because of air pollution concerns. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... > delusional as climate deniers Yeah, no. Even if us supporters of nuclear power are wrong, we don't need to be compared to people who are on the level of flat earthers.
  - jmyeet 4y ago
einpoklum 4y ago
> Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. Are you comparing to coal-fired plants? I'm talking about solar and wind. As for fossil fuels, the expected deaths and environmental from nuclear accidents are - well, TBH, I don't know the math for that, but I would expect it would be on the order of magnitude of the extra deaths from fossil fuel electricity generation. > I mentioned the solutions I will actually look into that. However, the website says: "Finland ... No other country has yet reached the implementation phase of final disposal. ... final disposal of high-level spent nuclear fuel has not yet been launched anywhere." So, that's not what's being used so far. This company's new approach - maybe it's great, I don't know, but it needs to last thousands of years, right? That's a very high bar - and a significant maintenance and hazard-management burden going forward. > Lazard are a bunch of kooks. That's a pretty strong claim. But - since I'm not an expert, I can't outright dismiss it. They're a popular source for a "bunch of kooks"... care to elaborate? > Look at Hualong One costs. I would look into them, if I could.

jmyeet 4y ago

> Groan here we go again. Yeah, we do with more pro-nuclear propaganda and outright falsehoods (again). > Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. No, it doesn't. Here's the exact quote from your source: > The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution is associated with 7 million premature deaths annually. Not "die from" but "is associated with". What does that mean? "Associated with" here means "reduces the life expectancy", basically. That's a far cry from "dies from". The primary relationship with mortality seems to come from particulates. Some of these are natural (eg sand in deserts), some of it isn't (eg cooking fires). It also includes motor vehicle exhausts. To give you a sense of the level of bullshit going on here, other conditions are getting attributed to air pollution [1]: > They linked nine causes of death with the pollution: cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lung cancer and pneumonia. One study estimates 100,000 Americans die every year from air pollution [2]. That just doesn't pass the smell test and shows you what's going on: it's attributing air pollution to certain medical conditions and then counting deaths from those conditions are air pollution deaths. Exaggerations and outright lies do your cause a massive disservice. Pro-nuclear propaganda doesn't address these issues: 1. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without significant government subsidies; 2. Nuclear power plant falsely reduce costs by externalizing significant costs such as the processing of fuel, the processing of fuel processing waste, maintenance, inspection (eg by the NRC), switching out fuel, processing nuclear fuel, the time-to-build or the failure modes of nuclear plants. Lest we forget, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is 1,000 square miles 35 years later. If these next-generation LWRs are so economical, why isn't someone building them at scale? The standard response is political opposition but what about China? I swear nuclear fan boys are just as delusional as climate deniers. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/us-air-pollution-deaths-study-jama https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/us-air-p... [2]: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-08/100-000-americans-die-from-air-pollution-study-finds https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-0...

blubbi 4y ago
"As of June 2021, China has a total nuclear power generation capacity of 49.6 GW from 50 reactors, with additional 17.1 GW under construction" (1) Fair enough, I have not checked whether those are the previously mentioned lwrs, but I would argue that those numbers are definitely "scale" (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
mathlover2 4y ago
> One study estimates 100,000 Americans die every year from air pollution That's still a lot more deaths than commercial nuclear fusion has been associated with in the US. It's also, incidentally, a lot of deaths. > 1. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without significant government subsidies. This is a non-sequitur. Just because something needs government subsidies doesn't make it bad. Things like the Internet, modern solar energy, and the USPS were built with either massive initial subsidies or even complete government involvement throughout their ongoing lifetimes. That doesn't make them bad. > 2. Nuclear power plant falsely reduce costs by externalizing significant costs such as the processing of fuel, the processing of fuel processing waste, maintenance, inspection (eg by the NRC), switching out fuel, processing nuclear fuel, the time-to-build or the failure modes of nuclear plants. Lest we forget, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is 1,000 square miles 35 years later. Versus coal and oil plants, which externalize the costs of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, comparing a shoddily built and designed Soviet plant to modern Western ones isn't a good comparison. > If these next-generation LWRs are so economical, why isn't someone building them at scale? The standard response is political opposition but what about China? In the West, it's negative perception that largely predates widespread public awareness of climate change. As for China, it looks like China's getting in on the nuclear game too, precisely because of air pollution concerns. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... > delusional as climate deniers Yeah, no. Even if us supporters of nuclear power are wrong, we don't need to be compared to people who are on the level of flat earthers.
- jmyeet 4y ago

einpoklum 4y ago

> Now show me list of the 8 million people who die per year from air pollution. Are you comparing to coal-fired plants? I'm talking about solar and wind. As for fossil fuels, the expected deaths and environmental from nuclear accidents are - well, TBH, I don't know the math for that, but I would expect it would be on the order of magnitude of the extra deaths from fossil fuel electricity generation. > I mentioned the solutions I will actually look into that. However, the website says: "Finland ... No other country has yet reached the implementation phase of final disposal. ... final disposal of high-level spent nuclear fuel has not yet been launched anywhere." So, that's not what's being used so far. This company's new approach - maybe it's great, I don't know, but it needs to last thousands of years, right? That's a very high bar - and a significant maintenance and hazard-management burden going forward. > Lazard are a bunch of kooks. That's a pretty strong claim. But - since I'm not an expert, I can't outright dismiss it. They're a popular source for a "bunch of kooks"... care to elaborate? > Look at Hualong One costs. I would look into them, if I could.