3 ms·

Renewables are cheap and far less risk-prone. Not going all in on renewables is a footgun for industrial societies.

stuff4ben 4y ago
renewables are not cheap when you factor in decommissioning which nuclear power does. FTFA: "The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that old solar panel disposal to meet 2050 Paris Accords 'will more than double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste.'"
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Nuclear only factors in decommissioning in the way that it gives the responsibility away to future generations...
  - stuff4ben 4y ago
    what does that even mean? Nuclear factors in decommissioning to the cost of running it. Wind and solar have even more limited lifespans than nuclear plus there's the millions of tonnes of waste generated when you decommission them.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    Nuclear waste decommissioned from nuclear plants is very compact, almost completely safe at our current levels of handling it, and a lot of bruhaha around it is strictly political.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      I don't know "compact" makes anything better about it. Germany has been searching for a hole safe and deep enough for it for years. It costs taxpayer money and they still haven't found one. Meanwhile, the stuff is stored near the plants. Which is not safe. Also stuff which has been considered "safely stored" years ago needs to be dug out again. Which again costs taxpayer money.
      - evilos 4y ago
        Dry cask storage on site is absolutely safe. It's dry waste, there's nothing to leak. It sits in reinforced concrete casks that are rated to last over a hundred years. After that, you can just put it in a new cask and repeat. There's not very much of it so you can just keep it at the site.
        Krasnol 4y ago
        Germany alone has 120.000m³ low and mid waste which needs to be stored. However only a small part of it is ready to be stored (in the safe and deep hole Germany still couldn't find). 2016 they had 15.000t of spend fuel. When all the plants are gone, Germany will have 300.000m³ of waste which needs to disappear for a long time in hope that nobody will ever get the idea of digging it out again. No nuclear company will want to have to do with anything of that. They paid some ridiculous amount of money for their subsidized profits, and the taxpayers will have to deal with it for the next thousands of years. Nuclear technology is overdue. There are better, cheaper and cleaner alternatives already out there.
        evilos 4y ago
        Low/mid waste is mostly just normal trash after it sits for a year or two. Going through the trouble and expense of burying all of it like it's spent nuclear fuel is just wasted money. We spend billions of dollars pretending lightly radioactive material is going to kill someone. Not one person has ever died from handling nuclear waste.
        Krasnol 4y ago
        Well I guess the German government should have just asked evilos on the internets and not bother with all those scientists and regulations. Crazy them.
        illiarian 4y ago
        That is exactly what they did. Instead of asking people who know their shit they went ahead with populism, emotions, and scare tactics.
cl0ckt0wer 4y ago
We need to to both, at least until we develop economical energy storage at appropriate scale. That may not ever happen.
carry_bit 4y ago
Nuclear is dense, comes with months worth of storage built-in, and lets smaller countries be self-sufficient for a while without having to rely on other countries.
kulahan 4y ago
Renewables are absolutely not less risk-prone. Per kw generated, nuclear energy is the safest and it's not even kinda close. Renewables also cannot output a steady amount of energy. Maybe there's a massive drought upstream. Maybe there's no wind today. Maybe it's a cloudy day. Nuclear is THE ONLY SOLUTION. We would need such a hilarious, painful amount of renewable energy sources just to survive, let alone thrive. Or, we could just build a few thousand reactors around the world.
- tstrimple 4y ago
  Risk isn't only measured in physical danger, but also financial risk. Which is exactly why for-profit energy companies aren't investing in nuclear. It's economically the worst possible approach when your concern is profit.
  - kulahan 4y ago
    Well no, it's because the upstart cost is insane. I could build a bunch of wind turbines for a few million, or drop BILLIONS into an already-existing reactor design, or even more money into getting a new design approved. If SMRs were more of a thing, a town could build their own power plant for a few million bucks, removing the natural monopoly that exists.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      What about microreactors? > The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requests a pilot program to construct a microreactor for energy resilience by 2027. Also, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office is seeking proposals for a mobile microreactor demonstration > A recent report ... estimates the cost to generate electricity from the first microreactor will be between $0.14/kWh and $0.41/kWh. [...] Future costs are estimated to decrease to between $0.09/kWh and $0.33/kWh. Costs are expected to decrease after demonstration, licensing and initial deployment and will depend on the location and type of owner, whether private or public https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-asked-questions-microreactors/ https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-aske...

renewables are not cheap when you factor in decommissioning which nuclear power does. FTFA: "The International Renewable Energy Agency calculates that old solar panel disposal to meet 2050 Paris Accords 'will more than double the tonnage of all of today’s global plastic waste.'"

Krasnol 4y ago
Nuclear only factors in decommissioning in the way that it gives the responsibility away to future generations...
- stuff4ben 4y ago
  what does that even mean? Nuclear factors in decommissioning to the cost of running it. Wind and solar have even more limited lifespans than nuclear plus there's the millions of tonnes of waste generated when you decommission them.
- illiarian 4y ago
  Nuclear waste decommissioned from nuclear plants is very compact, almost completely safe at our current levels of handling it, and a lot of bruhaha around it is strictly political.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    I don't know "compact" makes anything better about it. Germany has been searching for a hole safe and deep enough for it for years. It costs taxpayer money and they still haven't found one. Meanwhile, the stuff is stored near the plants. Which is not safe. Also stuff which has been considered "safely stored" years ago needs to be dug out again. Which again costs taxpayer money.
    - evilos 4y ago
      Dry cask storage on site is absolutely safe. It's dry waste, there's nothing to leak. It sits in reinforced concrete casks that are rated to last over a hundred years. After that, you can just put it in a new cask and repeat. There's not very much of it so you can just keep it at the site.
      - Krasnol 4y ago
        Germany alone has 120.000m³ low and mid waste which needs to be stored. However only a small part of it is ready to be stored (in the safe and deep hole Germany still couldn't find). 2016 they had 15.000t of spend fuel. When all the plants are gone, Germany will have 300.000m³ of waste which needs to disappear for a long time in hope that nobody will ever get the idea of digging it out again. No nuclear company will want to have to do with anything of that. They paid some ridiculous amount of money for their subsidized profits, and the taxpayers will have to deal with it for the next thousands of years. Nuclear technology is overdue. There are better, cheaper and cleaner alternatives already out there.
        evilos 4y ago
        Low/mid waste is mostly just normal trash after it sits for a year or two. Going through the trouble and expense of burying all of it like it's spent nuclear fuel is just wasted money. We spend billions of dollars pretending lightly radioactive material is going to kill someone. Not one person has ever died from handling nuclear waste.
        Krasnol 4y ago
        Well I guess the German government should have just asked evilos on the internets and not bother with all those scientists and regulations. Crazy them.
        illiarian 4y ago
        That is exactly what they did. Instead of asking people who know their shit they went ahead with populism, emotions, and scare tactics.

cl0ckt0wer 4y ago

We need to to both, at least until we develop economical energy storage at appropriate scale. That may not ever happen.

carry_bit 4y ago

Nuclear is dense, comes with months worth of storage built-in, and lets smaller countries be self-sufficient for a while without having to rely on other countries.

kulahan 4y ago

Renewables are absolutely not less risk-prone. Per kw generated, nuclear energy is the safest and it's not even kinda close. Renewables also cannot output a steady amount of energy. Maybe there's a massive drought upstream. Maybe there's no wind today. Maybe it's a cloudy day. Nuclear is THE ONLY SOLUTION. We would need such a hilarious, painful amount of renewable energy sources just to survive, let alone thrive. Or, we could just build a few thousand reactors around the world.

tstrimple 4y ago
Risk isn't only measured in physical danger, but also financial risk. Which is exactly why for-profit energy companies aren't investing in nuclear. It's economically the worst possible approach when your concern is profit.
- kulahan 4y ago
  Well no, it's because the upstart cost is insane. I could build a bunch of wind turbines for a few million, or drop BILLIONS into an already-existing reactor design, or even more money into getting a new design approved. If SMRs were more of a thing, a town could build their own power plant for a few million bucks, removing the natural monopoly that exists.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    What about microreactors? > The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requests a pilot program to construct a microreactor for energy resilience by 2027. Also, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office is seeking proposals for a mobile microreactor demonstration > A recent report ... estimates the cost to generate electricity from the first microreactor will be between $0.14/kWh and $0.41/kWh. [...] Future costs are estimated to decrease to between $0.09/kWh and $0.33/kWh. Costs are expected to decrease after demonstration, licensing and initial deployment and will depend on the location and type of owner, whether private or public https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-asked-questions-microreactors/ https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-aske...