3 ms·

Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order. It also has to be acceptable to the population. Another

Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order. It also has to be acceptable to the population. Another tall order. You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. Actually, renewable energy is the only way left because nuclear power takes decades to ramp up. Not only do nuclear power plants take years or decades to plan and build according to plan, they almost always go way over time and budget. Both fossil fuel and renewable have a huge advantage in terms of risk over nuclear power (apart from not nuking populated areas): Nuclear power plants irrevocably commit their society to a couple of decades of risk. Unless you pull the plug early and eat the horrendous cost.

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order." Why "forever"? You are aware of the concept, called half life? It means at some point, the waste will be not dangerous anymore. But yes, that will take some time. But if something happens, like an earthquake that makes a previously safe spot unsafe, you can still move it. (And otherwise you could recycle it to reburn it.) But of course, you can argue the moving of the waste, is so expensive, because of activists. So then activists can better argue, that nuclear is so expensive. Hurey. "You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. " What exactly is the lie here? I am using electricity right now, that is generated largely by fossil fuels. That is not good in the long term, no - but it is working right now. I think framing things as lying when it is just something you disagree with, is not the best discussion style, but rather sharing agendas. But asking again directly: what is your proposed idea for riskfree implementation of renewables in germany? "It also has to be acceptable to the population" Because this is also a great issue here. Wind turbines face heavy resistance for example. And monocultures of corn are not great either. Offshore wind parks bring their own set of problems (mostly environmental, but also corrosive costs), and sun on its own would require massive storage and massive deployment of panels, which also have to be manufactured, which takes energy. It is just not so easy. I am very pro renewables. But I rather have nuclear plants for the transition and as backup, than continue burning coal. But I am open for working alternatives.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Fossil fuels are already getting replaced by renewables, biofuels and economizing energy usage. That's a cold hard fact you people seem to ignore. Technology is getting better. In fact, technology around renewables and energy storage seems to be improving more rapidly than in the nuclear field. 1:1 replacement of nuclear with coal is just a convenient lie you people are repeating so stupid people may believe it. You don't understand the downsides of nuclear power. It's not even possible to build new plants in time to stop global warming. Even assuming those plants could be build on time and within budget. Which almost never worked, historically.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    " It's not even possible to build new plants in time to stop global warming." Of course that would be possible. It is a matter of investment and prioritizing. But of course, the biggest problem would be "people like you" (to use your black and white terminology) that would block everything and add extra regulations that do not bring more security, but blockage out of principle. But like I said, going 100 nuclear would not be my plan. I see them as a transition and backup on the way to 100% renewables. What would be your plan? If you would have it your way and all the nuclear plants would have to stop tomorrow. How would you replace them? With what? Can you give a concrete answer here? And it seems you also want to stop all the coal plants. Great. But how to replace them in reality? Can you share concrete numbers and technologies you would use and not just agenda? I don't like to have a coal or nuclear plant in the backyard either. But I also don't like blackouts.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"Yes, long term storage has to be "perfect" in the sense that nothing leaks forever. That's a tall order." Why "forever"? You are aware of the concept, called half life? It means at some point, the waste will be not dangerous anymore. But yes, that will take some time. But if something happens, like an earthquake that makes a previously safe spot unsafe, you can still move it. (And otherwise you could recycle it to reburn it.) But of course, you can argue the moving of the waste, is so expensive, because of activists. So then activists can better argue, that nuclear is so expensive. Hurey. "You are still repeating the lie that fossil fuels are the alternative. " What exactly is the lie here? I am using electricity right now, that is generated largely by fossil fuels. That is not good in the long term, no - but it is working right now. I think framing things as lying when it is just something you disagree with, is not the best discussion style, but rather sharing agendas. But asking again directly: what is your proposed idea for riskfree implementation of renewables in germany? "It also has to be acceptable to the population" Because this is also a great issue here. Wind turbines face heavy resistance for example. And monocultures of corn are not great either. Offshore wind parks bring their own set of problems (mostly environmental, but also corrosive costs), and sun on its own would require massive storage and massive deployment of panels, which also have to be manufactured, which takes energy. It is just not so easy. I am very pro renewables. But I rather have nuclear plants for the transition and as backup, than continue burning coal. But I am open for working alternatives.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Fossil fuels are already getting replaced by renewables, biofuels and economizing energy usage. That's a cold hard fact you people seem to ignore. Technology is getting better. In fact, technology around renewables and energy storage seems to be improving more rapidly than in the nuclear field. 1:1 replacement of nuclear with coal is just a convenient lie you people are repeating so stupid people may believe it. You don't understand the downsides of nuclear power. It's not even possible to build new plants in time to stop global warming. Even assuming those plants could be build on time and within budget. Which almost never worked, historically.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  " It's not even possible to build new plants in time to stop global warming." Of course that would be possible. It is a matter of investment and prioritizing. But of course, the biggest problem would be "people like you" (to use your black and white terminology) that would block everything and add extra regulations that do not bring more security, but blockage out of principle. But like I said, going 100 nuclear would not be my plan. I see them as a transition and backup on the way to 100% renewables. What would be your plan? If you would have it your way and all the nuclear plants would have to stop tomorrow. How would you replace them? With what? Can you give a concrete answer here? And it seems you also want to stop all the coal plants. Great. But how to replace them in reality? Can you share concrete numbers and technologies you would use and not just agenda? I don't like to have a coal or nuclear plant in the backyard either. But I also don't like blackouts.