5 ms·

> I also don't believe nuclear waste would pose a significant problem. There are many ways of containing waste as well as reducing. And than all you bring up i

> I also don't believe nuclear waste would pose a significant problem. There are many ways of containing waste as well as reducing. And than all you bring up is some technology which is in testing proving OPs argument. Sure there are ways of reducing highly radioactive waste...at the cost of creating more waste you still have to store...and yeah sure you can dispose some of it in the sea. Also it costs a hell lot of money. > Fossil fuels release about 33 billion tonnes annually Nobody questions the bad side of fossils. The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though.

bilekas 4y ago
> The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though. I'm only commenting on a portion of the argument against nuclear based on its waste. The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy from a nuclear reactor Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables I'm personally of the opinion why not both. So I'm biased of course, but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  > The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make the waste less worse for generations. > Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. I don't even get how this is relevant. Especially because of the issue with constantly running nuclear reactors in an old grid clogging it up so cheap renewable energy needs to be turned off. > but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology. Those jumps you make here from unfunded claims about waste disposal over derailing into fossil, whitewashing of that waste and old school baseload myths make me thing you're the one who's afraid of technology.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    > You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. What about the 16% of americans living in apartments? that’s just apartments, not counting condos or other units where you don’t have permission to install things on the roof. what do these people do for power?
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      Are you trolling me? I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. You can put solar everywhere. Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
      - bilekas 4y ago
        Don't take it as a slight. - We're only discussing here > I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. Your previous comments do sign you up very much in favour of anything other than nuclear. > . Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too. It certainly is, but to my previous point of 'per square meter return' .. Are you planning to organise a turbine with the local people of each apartment block ? I sound facetious, but actually I'm not sure you know how energy is delivered. Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built - granted through horrific experiences. That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Thanks to technology we know how to even automate where humans fail. We know how to distribute more efficiently. We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
        Krasnol 4y ago
        > Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. How isn't it when it actually is in Germany? > We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built How so when the waste from those reactors is still stored next to those reactors? > That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Nuclear is not cheap. > We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. It doesn't have to be as "efficient" as your steam engine with generations-waste-extra. It's cheap as hell and it's getting cheaper and better fast. Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past. > Again I reiterate - Why not both ? Because: a) you didn't offer any solution for the waste b) you can spend every dollar only once c) we're right on the path to the new cold war....you should get rid of those rotting vulnerabilities and opt in for decentralised independence.
loup-vaillant 4y ago
The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium. And we went pretty heavy on Nuclear. Overall, I wouldn't say the problem is insignificant. But it is certainly a small problem, compared to building, maintaining, and renewing all the nuke plants themselves.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  > The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium. Which is surely just the fuel. Which itself is a tiny amount of the whole amount of waste a nuclear reactor is responsible for in his lifetime.
  - LorenPechtel 4y ago
    But most of that waste is very low level. It's called "nuclear" waste but it's mostly stuff that is at best mildly contaminated.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      So now that we talked about the most radioactive and least radioactive waste, we might get to the stuff between. The amount is neither small enough to fit "into a single gymnasium" nor can it be ignored. It has to be stored for generations to come. It can not be reprocessed and the amounts are already so high that most nuclear countries on this planet store it in plain sight. Which isn't a solution for generations...it may not even be a solution for decades or years if the world situation escalates further.
      - loup-vaillant 4y ago
        Those things in the middle do sound risky. But what's the alternative really? What energy do we have that (i) scales, and (ii) comes at will? Right now that's mostly nuclear and fossil. Now there's this thing called "global warming", caused by fossil fuels. That thing is poised to displace billions of people as parts of the planet becomes unfit for human life. That means wars, famine, and disease, whose scale will increase with the warming. What's the greater risk? Those mid-level nuclear waste, or the continued use of fossil fuel? Sure we could have energy storage to make wind and solar work, but the costs to make that work at scale without a secondary source are enormous (I believe Jancovici once reported it would multiply the costs of renewable by 6 or so). --- There's no such thing as "clean" energy. It's a tradeof all around. Our problem right now is to find the least bad source of energy. Which by the way depends on the geographical and geopolitical situation of each part of the world. Nuke plants make more sense in France than they do in other countries. Iceland for instance has more geothermal opportunities.

bilekas 4y ago

> The topic is renewables vs. nuclear though. I'm only commenting on a portion of the argument against nuclear based on its waste. The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy from a nuclear reactor Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables I'm personally of the opinion why not both. So I'm biased of course, but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology.

Krasnol 4y ago
> The fact is the waste is negligible. Esspecially so when you consider the return of energy It doesn't matter how much energy it "returns". It doesn't make the waste less worse for generations. > Per square meter of real estate versus most viable renewables You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. I don't even get how this is relevant. Especially because of the issue with constantly running nuclear reactors in an old grid clogging it up so cheap renewable energy needs to be turned off. > but nuclear isn't something to be afraid of. Purely BECAUSE of technology. Those jumps you make here from unfunded claims about waste disposal over derailing into fossil, whitewashing of that waste and old school baseload myths make me thing you're the one who's afraid of technology.
- tekknik 4y ago
  > You can literally put solar on roofs of private buildings...if your local fossil/nuclear lobby allows it. What about the 16% of americans living in apartments? that’s just apartments, not counting condos or other units where you don’t have permission to install things on the roof. what do these people do for power?
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    Are you trolling me? I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. You can put solar everywhere. Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too.
    - bilekas 4y ago
      Don't take it as a slight. - We're only discussing here > I didn't say this is supposed to be the only way of getting power. Your previous comments do sign you up very much in favour of anything other than nuclear. > . Not just on roofs and you might have heard about wind. That's a thing too. It certainly is, but to my previous point of 'per square meter return' .. Are you planning to organise a turbine with the local people of each apartment block ? I sound facetious, but actually I'm not sure you know how energy is delivered. Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built - granted through horrific experiences. That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Thanks to technology we know how to even automate where humans fail. We know how to distribute more efficiently. We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. Again I reiterate - Why not both ?
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        > Renewable's are amazing, the more the merrier. But discarding nuclear over it's waste isn't a genuine argument. How isn't it when it actually is in Germany? > We've gotten better than the 60s/70/80 when old plants were built How so when the waste from those reactors is still stored next to those reactors? > That shouldn't stop us from pursuing cheap energy. Nuclear is not cheap. > We also know how to use solar, wind and aqua. It will never be as efficient as splitting the atom though. It doesn't have to be as "efficient" as your steam engine with generations-waste-extra. It's cheap as hell and it's getting cheaper and better fast. Something you can't say about nuclear. A technology from the past. > Again I reiterate - Why not both ? Because: a) you didn't offer any solution for the waste b) you can spend every dollar only once c) we're right on the path to the new cold war....you should get rid of those rotting vulnerabilities and opt in for decentralised independence.

loup-vaillant 4y ago

The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium. And we went pretty heavy on Nuclear. Overall, I wouldn't say the problem is insignificant. But it is certainly a small problem, compared to building, maintaining, and renewing all the nuke plants themselves.

Krasnol 4y ago
> The figures I have for France (from Jean-Marc Jancovici) are that for the entire history of French nuclear energy, the total volume of long term, high-intensity nuclear waste is that of a single gymnasium. Which is surely just the fuel. Which itself is a tiny amount of the whole amount of waste a nuclear reactor is responsible for in his lifetime.
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  But most of that waste is very low level. It's called "nuclear" waste but it's mostly stuff that is at best mildly contaminated.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    So now that we talked about the most radioactive and least radioactive waste, we might get to the stuff between. The amount is neither small enough to fit "into a single gymnasium" nor can it be ignored. It has to be stored for generations to come. It can not be reprocessed and the amounts are already so high that most nuclear countries on this planet store it in plain sight. Which isn't a solution for generations...it may not even be a solution for decades or years if the world situation escalates further.
    - loup-vaillant 4y ago
      Those things in the middle do sound risky. But what's the alternative really? What energy do we have that (i) scales, and (ii) comes at will? Right now that's mostly nuclear and fossil. Now there's this thing called "global warming", caused by fossil fuels. That thing is poised to displace billions of people as parts of the planet becomes unfit for human life. That means wars, famine, and disease, whose scale will increase with the warming. What's the greater risk? Those mid-level nuclear waste, or the continued use of fossil fuel? Sure we could have energy storage to make wind and solar work, but the costs to make that work at scale without a secondary source are enormous (I believe Jancovici once reported it would multiply the costs of renewable by 6 or so). --- There's no such thing as "clean" energy. It's a tradeof all around. Our problem right now is to find the least bad source of energy. Which by the way depends on the geographical and geopolitical situation of each part of the world. Nuke plants make more sense in France than they do in other countries. Iceland for instance has more geothermal opportunities.