3 ms·

The problem is that nuclear plants only need to fail once to have global catastrophic consequences. Chernobyl was so catastrophic that Gorbachev blamed the Sovi

by Salgat 4y ago

The problem is that nuclear plants only need to fail once to have global catastrophic consequences. Chernobyl was so catastrophic that Gorbachev blamed the Soviet Union's collapse on it. Solar and other renewable energy sources can never even remotely approach this level of environmental risk.

throw0101c 4y ago
> The problem is that nuclear plants only need to fail once to have global catastrophic consequences. As opposed to many other reliable generation types which have global catastrophic consequences† while running normally. And by "reliable" I mean can consistently provide power more that 50% of the time: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factors_by_energy_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto... † E.g., climate change.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > And by "reliable" I mean can consistently provide power more that 50% of the time: Compare it dollar for dollar. You can get a lot of curtailment, oversupply, and storage for $12/W Also if you look at France, nuclear's not doing so hot on the availability front.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > Also if you look at France, nuclear's not doing so hot on the availability front. Meanwhile, in Ontario, Canada, where I live, nuclear+hydro generate base load 24/7 with little issue: * https://ieso.ca/en/Power-Data https://ieso.ca/en/Power-Data
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Candu's actually solve most of the problems the PWR constantly lies about. If people were proposing building those (and demonstrating that they weren't even more expensive) I don't see the issue. They're hardly the super-100%-reliable baseload advertised, or anything approaching 'too cheap to meter' though.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Solar and wind can never even approach a fraction of the baseline power requirements either. Of course, it takes a significant amount diesel fuel, energy, and mining to make EV related equipment, too.

by Salgat 4y ago

throw0101c 4y ago

> The problem is that nuclear plants only need to fail once to have global catastrophic consequences. As opposed to many other reliable generation types which have global catastrophic consequences† while running normally. And by "reliable" I mean can consistently provide power more that 50% of the time: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factors_by_energy_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_facto... † E.g., climate change.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> And by "reliable" I mean can consistently provide power more that 50% of the time: Compare it dollar for dollar. You can get a lot of curtailment, oversupply, and storage for $12/W Also if you look at France, nuclear's not doing so hot on the availability front.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > Also if you look at France, nuclear's not doing so hot on the availability front. Meanwhile, in Ontario, Canada, where I live, nuclear+hydro generate base load 24/7 with little issue: * https://ieso.ca/en/Power-Data https://ieso.ca/en/Power-Data
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Candu's actually solve most of the problems the PWR constantly lies about. If people were proposing building those (and demonstrating that they weren't even more expensive) I don't see the issue. They're hardly the super-100%-reliable baseload advertised, or anything approaching 'too cheap to meter' though.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

Solar and wind can never even approach a fraction of the baseline power requirements either. Of course, it takes a significant amount diesel fuel, energy, and mining to make EV related equipment, too.