3 ms·

You know what's vastly, profoundly worse for the environment than any nuclear accident? The fossil fuels that nuclear power could have replaced 50 years ago. N

by dTal 4y ago

You know what's vastly, profoundly worse for the environment than any nuclear accident? The fossil fuels that nuclear power could have replaced 50 years ago. No plausible amount of Chernobyls would have collapsed ocean phytoplankton levels, or destroyed the entire Great Barrier Reef.

stareatgoats 4y ago
Agreed we need to move off fossil fuels. Nuclear never had the potential to replace fossile fuels though, not 50 years ago, and not now IMO. Fossil fuels can only be replaced now with recent advances in electrification of transport and industry, and a general awareness about the climate impact that the burning fossil fuels has. The question is where do we get the energy to power this electrification? Through a potentially hazardous, expensive technology like nuclear or through cheap, safe and environmentally friendly, sustainable sources like sun, wind, wave and deep geothermal? The answer will become evident in the next decades, but I know what I'm rooting for at least. And oh, you might like to hear that the entire Great Barrier Reef is not really destroyed, yet. But we need to act soon, in the right direction.
- Gud 4y ago
  Why can't we get the energy from all these sources? Investing in solar, wind, nuclear etc. are not mutually exclusive.
  - stareatgoats 4y ago
    Because nuclear is hazardous, and because of that, also vastly more expensive. The people here that claim it isn't a patently dangerous source of energy are not being honest IMO, maybe not even to themselves.
    - Gud 4y ago
      It is not so dangerous though, it’s one of the safest energy sources together with wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
      - stareatgoats 4y ago
        Oh, please. You say "It is not so dangerous" (note the it is) and then refer to a webpage that makes some handwavy aggregation of deaths and attribute them to this or that source of energy, based on the events up to now. That may or may not be accurate (probably not), the real problem with nuclear is not the disasters that have happened so far (and are still ongoing), it is mainly what potentially can happen. I say so without diminishing the fact that people have heroically sacrificed their health and lives in order to prevent even greater disasters at primarily Chernobyl and Fukushima [0]. Or that we are no longer able to eat wild mushrooms in large swathes of Sweden where I live because of the fallout in 1986, and much of the hunted game, especially wild boar, is not fit for human consumption. [1] It honestly doesn't impress me much when people simply spout the industry talking points seemingly without even considering that there is a risk involved: 'here, look at this website it says "safe"'. The wikipedia entry on the debate is more like what one could expect from otherwise thinking people: there are some pros and grave cons [2]. The pros are in my opinion negligible, now that we have safer and cheaper sources, and nuclear can be scrapped in an orderly fashion, for example by demanding that each plant starts paying their own insurance cost. Which would make the whole thing economically unsustainable because the insurance companies would charge an insane premium. [3] Which says it all really. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-... NB: Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are at the top level 7 of the International Nuclear Event Scale, which is a good reminder that those things that the nuclear industry say can never happen, actually do happen. Anyway, it's just Murphys law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl-33-years-on-radiation-still-impacts-scandinavian-farmers https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
        Gud 4y ago
        So exactly how do you propose we calculate how dangerous nuclear power is except for deaths per TWh up to now? You keep claiming how dangerous it is, yet you post no numbers at all. Perhaps because the numbers don't look so bad? If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with, considering how much life nuclear power has given by keeping us warm and fed, well I consider it a pretty decent trade off. FWIW I work in the energy sector(with wind power no less) and how people can still have such strong anti-nuclear opinions boggles my mind. We need every non-fossil energy source up and running ASAP, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, all of it.
origin_path 4y ago
The Great Barrier Reef is not destroyed, it's in excellent health. From the Australian government: https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/AIMS_LTMP_Report_on%20GBR_coral_status_2021_2022_040822F3.pdf https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/AIMS_LTM... "In 2022 the GBR continues to recover, registering the highest levels of coral cover yet recorded in the Northern and Central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring. While recovery continued on many Southern GBR reefs, regional coral cover declined slightly due to ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorn starfish." The idea that the reef is being destroyed by global warming has been proven false. When examined closely it turns out to be have been based on extremely low quality research. Data about the reef was only collected for short periods of time before scientists became willing to make very long term projections. Another big reason why people incorrectly believe CO2 has destroyed coral health was fraud by scientists: https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologis... Among the papers is a study about coral reef recovery that Dixson published in Science in 2014, and for which the journal issued an Editorial Expression of Concern in February. Science—whose News and Editorial teams operate independently of each other—retracted that paper today. The investigative panel’s draft report, which Science’s News team has seen in heavily redacted form, paints a damning picture of Dixson’s scientific work, which included many studies that appeared to show Earth’s rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. “The Committee was repeatedly struck by a serial pattern of sloppiness, poor record keeping, copying and pasting within spreadsheets, errors within many papers under investigation, and deviation from established animal ethics protocols,” wrote the panel, made up of three UD researchers.

by dTal 4y ago

stareatgoats 4y ago

Agreed we need to move off fossil fuels. Nuclear never had the potential to replace fossile fuels though, not 50 years ago, and not now IMO. Fossil fuels can only be replaced now with recent advances in electrification of transport and industry, and a general awareness about the climate impact that the burning fossil fuels has. The question is where do we get the energy to power this electrification? Through a potentially hazardous, expensive technology like nuclear or through cheap, safe and environmentally friendly, sustainable sources like sun, wind, wave and deep geothermal? The answer will become evident in the next decades, but I know what I'm rooting for at least. And oh, you might like to hear that the entire Great Barrier Reef is not really destroyed, yet. But we need to act soon, in the right direction.

Gud 4y ago
Why can't we get the energy from all these sources? Investing in solar, wind, nuclear etc. are not mutually exclusive.
- stareatgoats 4y ago
  Because nuclear is hazardous, and because of that, also vastly more expensive. The people here that claim it isn't a patently dangerous source of energy are not being honest IMO, maybe not even to themselves.
  - Gud 4y ago
    It is not so dangerous though, it’s one of the safest energy sources together with wind and solar. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
    - stareatgoats 4y ago
      Oh, please. You say "It is not so dangerous" (note the it is) and then refer to a webpage that makes some handwavy aggregation of deaths and attribute them to this or that source of energy, based on the events up to now. That may or may not be accurate (probably not), the real problem with nuclear is not the disasters that have happened so far (and are still ongoing), it is mainly what potentially can happen. I say so without diminishing the fact that people have heroically sacrificed their health and lives in order to prevent even greater disasters at primarily Chernobyl and Fukushima [0]. Or that we are no longer able to eat wild mushrooms in large swathes of Sweden where I live because of the fallout in 1986, and much of the hunted game, especially wild boar, is not fit for human consumption. [1] It honestly doesn't impress me much when people simply spout the industry talking points seemingly without even considering that there is a risk involved: 'here, look at this website it says "safe"'. The wikipedia entry on the debate is more like what one could expect from otherwise thinking people: there are some pros and grave cons [2]. The pros are in my opinion negligible, now that we have safer and cheaper sources, and nuclear can be scrapped in an orderly fashion, for example by demanding that each plant starts paying their own insurance cost. Which would make the whole thing economically unsustainable because the insurance companies would charge an insane premium. [3] Which says it all really. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-... NB: Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are at the top level 7 of the International Nuclear Event Scale, which is a good reminder that those things that the nuclear industry say can never happen, actually do happen. Anyway, it's just Murphys law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc... [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl-33-years-on-radiation-still-impacts-scandinavian-farmers https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
      - Gud 4y ago
        So exactly how do you propose we calculate how dangerous nuclear power is except for deaths per TWh up to now? You keep claiming how dangerous it is, yet you post no numbers at all. Perhaps because the numbers don't look so bad? If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with, considering how much life nuclear power has given by keeping us warm and fed, well I consider it a pretty decent trade off. FWIW I work in the energy sector(with wind power no less) and how people can still have such strong anti-nuclear opinions boggles my mind. We need every non-fossil energy source up and running ASAP, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, all of it.

origin_path 4y ago

The Great Barrier Reef is not destroyed, it's in excellent health. From the Australian government: https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/AIMS_LTMP_Report_on%20GBR_coral_status_2021_2022_040822F3.pdf https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/AIMS_LTM... "In 2022 the GBR continues to recover, registering the highest levels of coral cover yet recorded in the Northern and Central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring. While recovery continued on many Southern GBR reefs, regional coral cover declined slightly due to ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorn starfish." The idea that the reef is being destroyed by global warming has been proven false. When examined closely it turns out to be have been based on extremely low quality research. Data about the reef was only collected for short periods of time before scientists became willing to make very long term projections. Another big reason why people incorrectly believe CO2 has destroyed coral health was fraud by scientists: https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologis... Among the papers is a study about coral reef recovery that Dixson published in Science in 2014, and for which the journal issued an Editorial Expression of Concern in February. Science—whose News and Editorial teams operate independently of each other—retracted that paper today. The investigative panel’s draft report, which Science’s News team has seen in heavily redacted form, paints a damning picture of Dixson’s scientific work, which included many studies that appeared to show Earth’s rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. “The Committee was repeatedly struck by a serial pattern of sloppiness, poor record keeping, copying and pasting within spreadsheets, errors within many papers under investigation, and deviation from established animal ethics protocols,” wrote the panel, made up of three UD researchers.