7 ms·

> The cost of climate change clearly far outweighs the cost of nuclear plants and waste. Um, yes until you factor in failure rates due to incompetence + natura

> The cost of climate change clearly far outweighs the cost of nuclear plants and waste. Um, yes until you factor in failure rates due to incompetence + natural failure. Chernobyl, look it up, massive cost, massive loss of land, death/cancer rate of all exposed nearly 100%. Until you can solve the "corrupt bureaucrat cuts corners he doesn't understand" problem, and also demonstrate that the failure of a single reactor doesn't cascade and cause every reactor to blow (if you increase the density of reactor distribution a single fallout has the potential to cascade to every reactor). I remain skeptical about the fuel waste issue being solved, I've heard that a number of times and its not exactly been true, what is usually meant is that the fuel can be re-used somewhat indefinitely, after being repurposed in special containment facilities, not that the spent fuel safety issue is resolved. And, it won't even solve the climate change issue - even after going 100% electricity and/or renewable fuels, we still have a considerable chemical infrastructure to resolve, and we still have the heat waste issue to resolve (making things electrical doesn't solve energy and chemical expenditure affecting weather patterns, albeit it is better than pumping CO2), an infrastructure which will need to be utilized to create said nuclear reactors. Climate change will slowly roast us all to death, a nuclear failure will, instantly fry us all to molten pulp, I know which one I prefer.

fastball 4y ago
> Death rate 100% Pretty sure the death rate is 100% for exposure to literally anything given enough time...
matkoniecz 4y ago
> Climate change will slowly roast us all to death, a nuclear failure will, instantly fry us all to molten pulp, I know which one I prefer. If you believe that even the worst nuclear accident at power plant will "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" in any appreciable range (while climate change is worldwide), the you are mistaken > death/cancer rate of all exposed nearly 100%. It is completely untrue. Even among https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators it is not true.
- smaudet 4y ago
  > If you believe that even the worst nuclear accident at power plant will "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" in any appreciable range (while climate change is worldwide), the you are mistaken I am not wrong, in a world dotted with miniature fission reactors, as the most extreme pro-fission people would like to favor. If you can build one in space, and it powers the whole earth, that's obviously a very different story than building them every city block. I am also not wrong about the effects of radiation on the human body, when used as a bomb nuclear weapons literally melt people into goo, ofc with a reactor there are various safeguards but the thing causing the flesh-melt is still occurring, so maybe less instantaneous melt and more gradual boils and blisters leading to severe internal cancers as your cascade of nuclear reactors around the city all blow in a beautiful chain reaction... > It is completely untrue. Even among https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators it is not true. It's not untrue if you define exposed, not to be disingenuous, but those actually exposed to the reactor meltdown, did not survive. Those experiencing second hand exposure in e.g. the town, obviously did not all drop dead, but had increased risk of cancer, death, and those globally exposed, well many fewer dead or at risk of cancer. So unfortunately when speaking so imprecisely it actually is true, just not in the way you imagine. Even your wikipedia article admits among the liquidators the death rate was almost at least 20% by some estimates, and I would presume these people are wearing some protective equipment, so calling them "exposed" is somewhat disingenous in and of itself...
  - nl 4y ago
    I'm sorry. I'm probably more antinuclear than you but a lot of the things you are saying are just ignorant. For example nuclear bombs melting flesh is because of the extreme heat, nothing that is unique to the nuclear process. You'd be a more effective advocate for anti-nuclear viewpoints by learning some stuff first.
    - smaudet 4y ago
      Ok, well would you mind linking some good starting materials? And I think you maybe are more ignorant than you care to admit as well: "is that a very appreciable fraction of the energy liberated goes into radiant heat and light" https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp17.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_ch... To me that doesn't sound like "oh man the temperature in the room just went up", more like "oh man I just got a really bad sunburn".
jeltz 4y ago
So how do you think that we should solve energy storage? Both batteries and dams are dangerous and can lead to disasters. Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has.
- freemint 4y ago
  Batteries are dangerous? What do you mean by that? > Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has. And this solely due to one incident under communism where damn was not maintained.
  - justforthisandn 4y ago
  - reddog 4y ago
    Well the 2900 people who died in the Johnstown dam failure immediatly come to mind. But its much, much worse than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure If had the same risk management mindset for dams as we do for nuclear, we would also be banning hydroelectic.
- smaudet 4y ago
  Well first of all energy storage, is not production, but as you asked: 1) Reduced need for energy storage. Right to repair for everything, write code that is efficient and lower power, distributed systems which don't require complex centralized systems to run. Taxes on unused compute cycles to help create incentives for this, perhaps. 2) For actual energy storage, something like the sand heat system recently put into use in Scandinavia, or the mechanical earth dams (store energy in potential energy mass, less dangerous than an actual water dam, a lot easier to build). For immediate electric storage at scale you can do e.g. saline water storage tanks which hold mild electric charge, who knows maybe there is some inert chemistry which could be devised for a safer transportable version of a lithium ion battery... 3) For energy production, I am a long time advocate of geothermal. There's no real downside, besides digging holes and I guess maybe a well collapse, but you're limited to loss of whatever is in the whole/immediate surrounding in the case of a cave in, there are no engineering problems to solve except pumping water around, which is a well known task. Solar/wind for ships, airplanes, space vehicles, electric/hydrogen for storage/consumption scenarios where the grid is not accessible (remote locations e.g. the poles, alaska, siberia, African/Asian planes)

fastball 4y ago

> Death rate 100% Pretty sure the death rate is 100% for exposure to literally anything given enough time...

matkoniecz 4y ago

> Climate change will slowly roast us all to death, a nuclear failure will, instantly fry us all to molten pulp, I know which one I prefer. If you believe that even the worst nuclear accident at power plant will "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" in any appreciable range (while climate change is worldwide), the you are mistaken > death/cancer rate of all exposed nearly 100%. It is completely untrue. Even among https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators it is not true.

smaudet 4y ago
> If you believe that even the worst nuclear accident at power plant will "instantly fry us all to molten pulp" in any appreciable range (while climate change is worldwide), the you are mistaken I am not wrong, in a world dotted with miniature fission reactors, as the most extreme pro-fission people would like to favor. If you can build one in space, and it powers the whole earth, that's obviously a very different story than building them every city block. I am also not wrong about the effects of radiation on the human body, when used as a bomb nuclear weapons literally melt people into goo, ofc with a reactor there are various safeguards but the thing causing the flesh-melt is still occurring, so maybe less instantaneous melt and more gradual boils and blisters leading to severe internal cancers as your cascade of nuclear reactors around the city all blow in a beautiful chain reaction... > It is completely untrue. Even among https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators it is not true. It's not untrue if you define exposed, not to be disingenuous, but those actually exposed to the reactor meltdown, did not survive. Those experiencing second hand exposure in e.g. the town, obviously did not all drop dead, but had increased risk of cancer, death, and those globally exposed, well many fewer dead or at risk of cancer. So unfortunately when speaking so imprecisely it actually is true, just not in the way you imagine. Even your wikipedia article admits among the liquidators the death rate was almost at least 20% by some estimates, and I would presume these people are wearing some protective equipment, so calling them "exposed" is somewhat disingenous in and of itself...
- nl 4y ago
  I'm sorry. I'm probably more antinuclear than you but a lot of the things you are saying are just ignorant. For example nuclear bombs melting flesh is because of the extreme heat, nothing that is unique to the nuclear process. You'd be a more effective advocate for anti-nuclear viewpoints by learning some stuff first.
  - smaudet 4y ago
    Ok, well would you mind linking some good starting materials? And I think you maybe are more ignorant than you care to admit as well: "is that a very appreciable fraction of the energy liberated goes into radiant heat and light" https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_chp17.html https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/med/med_ch... To me that doesn't sound like "oh man the temperature in the room just went up", more like "oh man I just got a really bad sunburn".

jeltz 4y ago

So how do you think that we should solve energy storage? Both batteries and dams are dangerous and can lead to disasters. Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has.

freemint 4y ago
Batteries are dangerous? What do you mean by that? > Dams failing have killed way more people than nuclear ever has. And this solely due to one incident under communism where damn was not maintained.
- justforthisandn 4y ago
- reddog 4y ago
  Well the 2900 people who died in the Johnstown dam failure immediatly come to mind. But its much, much worse than that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure If had the same risk management mindset for dams as we do for nuclear, we would also be banning hydroelectic.
smaudet 4y ago
Well first of all energy storage, is not production, but as you asked: 1) Reduced need for energy storage. Right to repair for everything, write code that is efficient and lower power, distributed systems which don't require complex centralized systems to run. Taxes on unused compute cycles to help create incentives for this, perhaps. 2) For actual energy storage, something like the sand heat system recently put into use in Scandinavia, or the mechanical earth dams (store energy in potential energy mass, less dangerous than an actual water dam, a lot easier to build). For immediate electric storage at scale you can do e.g. saline water storage tanks which hold mild electric charge, who knows maybe there is some inert chemistry which could be devised for a safer transportable version of a lithium ion battery... 3) For energy production, I am a long time advocate of geothermal. There's no real downside, besides digging holes and I guess maybe a well collapse, but you're limited to loss of whatever is in the whole/immediate surrounding in the case of a cave in, there are no engineering problems to solve except pumping water around, which is a well known task. Solar/wind for ships, airplanes, space vehicles, electric/hydrogen for storage/consumption scenarios where the grid is not accessible (remote locations e.g. the poles, alaska, siberia, African/Asian planes)