4 ms·

There exists a group of folks who claim nuclear isn't green and is going to 'kill the planet'. The alternative to nuclear is to either use fuels with a massive

There exists a group of folks who claim nuclear isn't green and is going to 'kill the planet'. The alternative to nuclear is to either use fuels with a massive carbon footprint, or introduce a level of energy suffering on the population that is beyond the pale. You are exactly right - this is the only way.

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
- adastra22 4y ago
  Yup.
- NoraCodes 4y ago
  I don't think that this is the general belief of most anti-nuclear activists, and certainly not most people who don't believe in nuclear as a solution. Many are concerned about waste disposal, accident potential, and proliferation. These are all valid concerns, even though their figures and arguments tend to be out of date.
- ncmncm 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ncmncm 4y ago
cycomanic 4y ago
Funnily the rhetoric of nuclear proponents is always exclusively aimed against renewables not fossil fuels. They know if not for ideological/political reasons/influence no nuclear plants will be build because it is just too expensive. If I can build double (now, the difference is rapidly increasing) the capacity using wind or solar why should I build nuclear? People who propose to do otherwise are the ones who are insane. Just look at wind power in Sweden they only really invested in wind in the last 3 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Sweden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Sweden
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  This is false. Build all the solar, wind whatever you want. Doing so while ignoring the low return on energy security alone is a fools errand. I’ve sat through meetings where carbon credits have been touted as the greatest weapon to transition the world away from fossil fuels. Carbon credits. I’ve heard very reliable stories from China about business entities solely set up to generate unbelievable volumes of carbon credits to take advantage of this accounting trick. I think the opposition you see is to the counterproductive moves of the past two or three decades where enormous amounts of money have been thrown at present renewable strategies and the world is worse off from an energy perspective.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  Because you need to build 3x as much to have a safety net that the system will be operational and produce electricity with the same stability as a Nuclear Reactor, and that says nothing on the cost of storage.
- brabel 4y ago
  When you think a large group proposing something is collectively insane, it usually means you simply don't understand their argument. Surely, you know that wind power has had a lot of trouble expanding in Sweden due to huge opposition from every community against building wind turbines on their land. Everyone likes the idea of wind power until they try to build a huge turbine on their backyard. Sun power, in Sweden, in winter, is clearly not going to cut it... even in the southern areas that still get a little bit of sun in winter, you don't get nearly enough power. Hydropower is great and Sweden produces lots of it, but again, highly unlikely it can build new damns with the current regulations. The only options left seem to be coal and nuclear. I hope you don't propose to just use coal. Nuclear power, while expensive to build, is reliable and plenty. No one proposing that it should be one of the options for countries like Sweden is insane.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Sweden has about the best options possible for a renewable powered grid. 40-50% of the electricity comes from hydro currently, simply transition that to be less baseload and more dispatchable, and Sweden now has days of storage. Couple that with off-shore wind in one of the windiest places on earth[1] together with solar during the summer wind lulls and you have all you need. This is why storage is not being built in Sweden, energy is simply too abundant and cheap. [1]: https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en

gadflyinyoureye 4y ago

adastra22 4y ago
Yup.
NoraCodes 4y ago
I don't think that this is the general belief of most anti-nuclear activists, and certainly not most people who don't believe in nuclear as a solution. Many are concerned about waste disposal, accident potential, and proliferation. These are all valid concerns, even though their figures and arguments tend to be out of date.
ncmncm 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ncmncm 4y ago

cycomanic 4y ago

Funnily the rhetoric of nuclear proponents is always exclusively aimed against renewables not fossil fuels. They know if not for ideological/political reasons/influence no nuclear plants will be build because it is just too expensive. If I can build double (now, the difference is rapidly increasing) the capacity using wind or solar why should I build nuclear? People who propose to do otherwise are the ones who are insane. Just look at wind power in Sweden they only really invested in wind in the last 3 years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Sweden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Sweden

DisjointedHunt 4y ago
This is false. Build all the solar, wind whatever you want. Doing so while ignoring the low return on energy security alone is a fools errand. I’ve sat through meetings where carbon credits have been touted as the greatest weapon to transition the world away from fossil fuels. Carbon credits. I’ve heard very reliable stories from China about business entities solely set up to generate unbelievable volumes of carbon credits to take advantage of this accounting trick. I think the opposition you see is to the counterproductive moves of the past two or three decades where enormous amounts of money have been thrown at present renewable strategies and the world is worse off from an energy perspective.
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
Because you need to build 3x as much to have a safety net that the system will be operational and produce electricity with the same stability as a Nuclear Reactor, and that says nothing on the cost of storage.
brabel 4y ago
When you think a large group proposing something is collectively insane, it usually means you simply don't understand their argument. Surely, you know that wind power has had a lot of trouble expanding in Sweden due to huge opposition from every community against building wind turbines on their land. Everyone likes the idea of wind power until they try to build a huge turbine on their backyard. Sun power, in Sweden, in winter, is clearly not going to cut it... even in the southern areas that still get a little bit of sun in winter, you don't get nearly enough power. Hydropower is great and Sweden produces lots of it, but again, highly unlikely it can build new damns with the current regulations. The only options left seem to be coal and nuclear. I hope you don't propose to just use coal. Nuclear power, while expensive to build, is reliable and plenty. No one proposing that it should be one of the options for countries like Sweden is insane.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Sweden has about the best options possible for a renewable powered grid. 40-50% of the electricity comes from hydro currently, simply transition that to be less baseload and more dispatchable, and Sweden now has days of storage. Couple that with off-shore wind in one of the windiest places on earth[1] together with solar during the summer wind lulls and you have all you need. This is why storage is not being built in Sweden, energy is simply too abundant and cheap. [1]: https://globalwindatlas.info/en https://globalwindatlas.info/en