3 ms·

I got to know, do the pro nuclear crowd really want to live down wind of a nuclear power plant when they will be run by the same business processes and deregula

I got to know, do the pro nuclear crowd really want to live down wind of a nuclear power plant when they will be run by the same business processes and deregulation that lead to this disaster, Fukushima, the BP oil rig disaster, etc?

alanbernstein 4y ago
I got to know, do the pro coal crowd really want to live down wind of a coal power plant when they will be run by the same business processes and deregulation that lead to this disaster, Fukushima, the BP oil rig disaster, etc?
- wnevets 4y ago
  Coal is dying on it's own, the free market has decided. I have zero problem living down wind of solar panels and wind turbines
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Coal is only "dying" in areas with access to cheap natural gas. It's currently not being replaced by renewables. Developing countries still build a lot of coal plants. Total global electricity generation from coal has nearly doubled since year 2000. In absolute terms the amount of new coal based electricity from coal increased by almost 5TWh from 2000 to 2021, about twice as much as wind+solar combined. (Also natural gas based electricity grew by 3.5TWh in the same period). As long as Russia is being sanctioned and Canada refuses to export their NG, I expect coal to continue to grow. Maybe someday in the future, wind+solar can provide stable electricity supply without relying on fossil fuels for the non-windy cloudy days (and nights). Like nuclear has been able to since the 70s. Nobody knows exactly when, though. But simply based on the mining capacity of critical minerals, it's really unlikely to happen within 20 years at a large scale. The world is simply not planning enough mines.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The 'pro nuclear' crowd that say idiotic shit like this are the pro coal crowd.
ALittleLight 4y ago
I think something like 20% of electricity in the US currently comes from nuclear. It's an extremely safe source of power - proven out over decades. So, yes, it's perfectly safe to live near a nuclear power plant.
- johncalvinyoung 4y ago
  I live and work within sight of the vapor plume from a major nuclear station. Visited the station (admittedly, the visitor side of the control center nowhere near the reactor) as a schoolkid. Living here doesn't worry me, and I really think we should be developing more nuclear power.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
They don't. They don't believe the nuclear reactors will be built (especially when there's 20 years to sabotage them), just that diverting the money that is going into renewables is better for their coal shares.
trashtester 4y ago
I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than almost any other type of large scale power plant, including wind and hydro (assuming I was downstream to the hydro). Being afraid of a nuclear plant is like being afraid of flying. In fact, flying is way, way more dangerous. Even if you ONLY consider radiation exposure, a few hours in a plane per year will eclipse the increase in exposure the average person living next to a nuclear plant will receive.
- wnevets 4y ago
  And what makes it so safe the tech or the government regulations?
  - trashtester 4y ago
    The government regulations that were in place in 1970, combined with the tech from that time, makes most western style reactors, even from back then, incredibly safe. More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then.
    - wnevets 4y ago
      > More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then. Does that mean you believe there is too much regulations for nuclear power? That would also mean you would want to see less regulations?
      - trashtester 4y ago
        Yes, and yes. Specifically, I would prefer if all energy types were regulated according to the same principles when it came to risk/harm tolerance, emission rates, etc. If a coal plant is allowed to emit X Bq/GWh, every other plant types should have the same limit. Or even better, if you add all polutants together, one should calculate total expected harm (in terms of X * deaths/GWh + Y * disease/GWh + Z * Global Warming contribution, or something) and either set a ceiling on total harm, or add a tax on each power plant based on total expected harm caused. This wouldn't necessarily mean that the regulations would be written using fewer words, but it would/should lead to an optimal balance between cost of energy and the harm caused. The current system seems to lead to both harm and price levels that are much higher than they need to be.

alanbernstein 4y ago

I got to know, do the pro coal crowd really want to live down wind of a coal power plant when they will be run by the same business processes and deregulation that lead to this disaster, Fukushima, the BP oil rig disaster, etc?

wnevets 4y ago
Coal is dying on it's own, the free market has decided. I have zero problem living down wind of solar panels and wind turbines
- trashtester 4y ago
  Coal is only "dying" in areas with access to cheap natural gas. It's currently not being replaced by renewables. Developing countries still build a lot of coal plants. Total global electricity generation from coal has nearly doubled since year 2000. In absolute terms the amount of new coal based electricity from coal increased by almost 5TWh from 2000 to 2021, about twice as much as wind+solar combined. (Also natural gas based electricity grew by 3.5TWh in the same period). As long as Russia is being sanctioned and Canada refuses to export their NG, I expect coal to continue to grow. Maybe someday in the future, wind+solar can provide stable electricity supply without relying on fossil fuels for the non-windy cloudy days (and nights). Like nuclear has been able to since the 70s. Nobody knows exactly when, though. But simply based on the mining capacity of critical minerals, it's really unlikely to happen within 20 years at a large scale. The world is simply not planning enough mines.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The 'pro nuclear' crowd that say idiotic shit like this are the pro coal crowd.

ALittleLight 4y ago

I think something like 20% of electricity in the US currently comes from nuclear. It's an extremely safe source of power - proven out over decades. So, yes, it's perfectly safe to live near a nuclear power plant.

johncalvinyoung 4y ago
I live and work within sight of the vapor plume from a major nuclear station. Visited the station (admittedly, the visitor side of the control center nowhere near the reactor) as a schoolkid. Living here doesn't worry me, and I really think we should be developing more nuclear power.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

They don't. They don't believe the nuclear reactors will be built (especially when there's 20 years to sabotage them), just that diverting the money that is going into renewables is better for their coal shares.

trashtester 4y ago

I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than almost any other type of large scale power plant, including wind and hydro (assuming I was downstream to the hydro). Being afraid of a nuclear plant is like being afraid of flying. In fact, flying is way, way more dangerous. Even if you ONLY consider radiation exposure, a few hours in a plane per year will eclipse the increase in exposure the average person living next to a nuclear plant will receive.

wnevets 4y ago
And what makes it so safe the tech or the government regulations?
- trashtester 4y ago
  The government regulations that were in place in 1970, combined with the tech from that time, makes most western style reactors, even from back then, incredibly safe. More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then.
  - wnevets 4y ago
    > More recent tech makes it even easier to achieve safety, which would have made it even cheaper, had it not been for the excessive regulations (and other forms of red tape) that have been added since then. Does that mean you believe there is too much regulations for nuclear power? That would also mean you would want to see less regulations?
    - trashtester 4y ago
      Yes, and yes. Specifically, I would prefer if all energy types were regulated according to the same principles when it came to risk/harm tolerance, emission rates, etc. If a coal plant is allowed to emit X Bq/GWh, every other plant types should have the same limit. Or even better, if you add all polutants together, one should calculate total expected harm (in terms of X * deaths/GWh + Y * disease/GWh + Z * Global Warming contribution, or something) and either set a ceiling on total harm, or add a tax on each power plant based on total expected harm caused. This wouldn't necessarily mean that the regulations would be written using fewer words, but it would/should lead to an optimal balance between cost of energy and the harm caused. The current system seems to lead to both harm and price levels that are much higher than they need to be.