4 ms·

You can have other metrics if you want like human deaths / kWh but again nuclear also has the best metrics here. Additionally, climate change is the biggest thr

You can have other metrics if you want like human deaths / kWh but again nuclear also has the best metrics here. Additionally, climate change is the biggest threat to humanity, there's no denying that. > Let's instead invest in a mix of other, already available solutions Like what others? There's none. (If you care about CO2 pollution of course) > b) have simple energy storage solutions Have you missed the part where I said that this storage tech doesn't exist? You can't mention technologies which don't exist and claim that we should use them. Deployment of tech isn't R&D. As an example, the solution being used in the real world seems to be an increase of coal and gas if you look at what Germany has done on the past month

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Bullshit metrics calibrated on a past that doesn't matter. The past risks don't predict the future risks, especially not if the intention is to scale up nuclear power by a factor of ten or so. I don't even think the risks will scale linearly, because that scale-up is impossible with the current regulatory posture that is keeping the risks down. There are already energy storage solutions. To ignore those, to claim categorically those will not improve, seems to be a particularly "convenient" argument.
- realusername 4y ago
  There's no storage solution which can be used for winter for a whole country right now, that's a hard fact. Maybe they'll improve yes (or maybe not) but that's called R&D, not an available solution and you cannot count on it.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    Storing energy for the winter will only be a problem at the very end of phasing out fossil fuels. At some point some gas plants may only run during the winter. But there are also biofuels for example. And there are for example solutions around pumping water into a lake. That sounds like it will work long-term. You make an abysmal job argueing for nuclear power just because not everything works perfectly already. Scaling up nuclear power to the scale required to replace fossil fuels would take decades. Unless the risks are ignored and enhanced extremely, like you seem to be proposing. But there is zero political appetite in the electorates of the world to invest billions into a technology that takes decades to come to fruition, takes more decades to recuperate the investment and can literally blow up in your face any time, especially when some neighbor is angry at you.
    - realusername 4y ago
      All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved. Biofuel is actually a good example, since you mention biofuel as a potential backup strategy (I don't think it will work just because of the scale anyways but that's beside the point, let's imagine that in theory it could work). The costs of creating all this additional infrastructure isn't usually factored in the renewable strategy either, but it should. > can literally blow up in your face any time I don't think you have an understanding on how it really works, it's not a bomb...
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-tracking-tool https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... > I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. > Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Bullshit metrics calibrated on a past that doesn't matter. The past risks don't predict the future risks, especially not if the intention is to scale up nuclear power by a factor of ten or so. I don't even think the risks will scale linearly, because that scale-up is impossible with the current regulatory posture that is keeping the risks down. There are already energy storage solutions. To ignore those, to claim categorically those will not improve, seems to be a particularly "convenient" argument.

realusername 4y ago
There's no storage solution which can be used for winter for a whole country right now, that's a hard fact. Maybe they'll improve yes (or maybe not) but that's called R&D, not an available solution and you cannot count on it.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Storing energy for the winter will only be a problem at the very end of phasing out fossil fuels. At some point some gas plants may only run during the winter. But there are also biofuels for example. And there are for example solutions around pumping water into a lake. That sounds like it will work long-term. You make an abysmal job argueing for nuclear power just because not everything works perfectly already. Scaling up nuclear power to the scale required to replace fossil fuels would take decades. Unless the risks are ignored and enhanced extremely, like you seem to be proposing. But there is zero political appetite in the electorates of the world to invest billions into a technology that takes decades to come to fruition, takes more decades to recuperate the investment and can literally blow up in your face any time, especially when some neighbor is angry at you.
  - realusername 4y ago
    All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved. Biofuel is actually a good example, since you mention biofuel as a potential backup strategy (I don't think it will work just because of the scale anyways but that's beside the point, let's imagine that in theory it could work). The costs of creating all this additional infrastructure isn't usually factored in the renewable strategy either, but it should. > can literally blow up in your face any time I don't think you have an understanding on how it really works, it's not a bomb...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-tracking-tool https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... > I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. > Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project.