4 ms·

If you live in an imaginary perfect world, sure. But in the real world not building nuclear power causes actual real contamination from Coal and other fuels.

by ars 3y ago

If you live in an imaginary perfect world, sure. But in the real world not building nuclear power causes actual real contamination from Coal and other fuels. You can shut down the nuclear plants after you finished your wind/solar buildout. Not before. Not to mention a grid with only wind/solar is impossible. Nuclear is a PERFECT complement for them! You are being your own worse enemy by opposing nuclear. The exact thing you don't want is happening because you oppose the one thing that could help.

reaperman 3y ago
I'm not proposing shutting down existing plants. I'm opposing beginning new 20 year construction projects in the USA for new fission plants vs. investing in: - Energy storage - Energy transport - Nuclear fusion, such as ARC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=2414s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=2414s It's the "perfect world" people who think fission plants will never contaminate 100,000 sq. km. of farmland ever again. I'm personally okay with spending a little more money on developing storage technologies. However, I'd also like to quote myself again: > That’s not an argument for “fission is ecologically sustainable”, that’s an argument for “even though it’s not, we should still build dams and fission power plants anyways”. Which is a fine argument. It’s just a different one.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > I'm not proposing shutting down existing plants. This makes no sense if you actually believe the "Chernobyl comparison" claims you have been making. If those claims were actually true, you should be arguing for shutting down every nuclear reactor on the planet, right now. So why aren't you arguing for that? (To be clear, I would still disagree with you, but at least you would be taking a consistent position.) OTOH, if you are reasonable enough to admit that your "Chernobyl comparison" claims do not justify shutting down existing plants, then they don't justify building new plants either. Existing plants are going to be higher risk than any new plants we build in any of the areas you have been posting about.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Sure, I support eventually decommissioning existing fission power plants. When there's something installed to take their place, like stationary electrical storage facilities, solid oxide fuel cells, pumped hydro, fusion power plants, literally anything. Not just creating energy shortages by removing fission with no backup plan for base power. There is a difference between spending 20% more on a new storage technology over a new fission power plant, vs. 120% costs to remove something that's working and replace it with something new. That money can do a lot of good elsewhere.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > I support eventually decommissioning existing fission power plants. But that's inconsistent with the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using elsewhere in this discussion. If every fission plant is a potential Chernobyl, how can you possibly justify waiting to decommission any of them? Of course, if you don't actually believe the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using, then it makes sense that you would be reasonable about existing fission plants. But then you should also be reasonable about building new ones. > There is a difference between spending 20% more on a new storage technology over a new fission power plant What magic "storage technology" is this that will make it unnecessary to build more fission plants as base load power? Please enlighten me. I think you need to improve your understanding of the basic physical facts that underlie the limitations on any "storage technology" other than fuel.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > how can you possibly justify waiting to decommission any of them I’m pro nuclear. But I think they’re choosing the lesser of two evils. (I agree with you that replacing derelict plants with modern ones drastically improves everyone’s safety, but I don’t think they’re arguing in bad faith.)
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        The lesser of what two evils? It seems illogical to me too for "taking a long time to decommission old plants" to be a lesser evil compared to other power generation at the same time that new nuclear plants are a very large evil compared to other power generation. Those two things should be pretty close to each other. Either both should be wildly unacceptable, or both should be lesser evils, or one should be a somewhat lesser evil and the other a somewhat greater but not enormous evil.

by ars 3y ago

reaperman 3y ago

I'm not proposing shutting down existing plants. I'm opposing beginning new 20 year construction projects in the USA for new fission plants vs. investing in: - Energy storage - Energy transport - Nuclear fusion, such as ARC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=2414s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=2414s It's the "perfect world" people who think fission plants will never contaminate 100,000 sq. km. of farmland ever again. I'm personally okay with spending a little more money on developing storage technologies. However, I'd also like to quote myself again: > That’s not an argument for “fission is ecologically sustainable”, that’s an argument for “even though it’s not, we should still build dams and fission power plants anyways”. Which is a fine argument. It’s just a different one.

pdonis 3y ago
> I'm not proposing shutting down existing plants. This makes no sense if you actually believe the "Chernobyl comparison" claims you have been making. If those claims were actually true, you should be arguing for shutting down every nuclear reactor on the planet, right now. So why aren't you arguing for that? (To be clear, I would still disagree with you, but at least you would be taking a consistent position.) OTOH, if you are reasonable enough to admit that your "Chernobyl comparison" claims do not justify shutting down existing plants, then they don't justify building new plants either. Existing plants are going to be higher risk than any new plants we build in any of the areas you have been posting about.
- reaperman 3y ago
  Sure, I support eventually decommissioning existing fission power plants. When there's something installed to take their place, like stationary electrical storage facilities, solid oxide fuel cells, pumped hydro, fusion power plants, literally anything. Not just creating energy shortages by removing fission with no backup plan for base power. There is a difference between spending 20% more on a new storage technology over a new fission power plant, vs. 120% costs to remove something that's working and replace it with something new. That money can do a lot of good elsewhere.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > I support eventually decommissioning existing fission power plants. But that's inconsistent with the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using elsewhere in this discussion. If every fission plant is a potential Chernobyl, how can you possibly justify waiting to decommission any of them? Of course, if you don't actually believe the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using, then it makes sense that you would be reasonable about existing fission plants. But then you should also be reasonable about building new ones. > There is a difference between spending 20% more on a new storage technology over a new fission power plant What magic "storage technology" is this that will make it unnecessary to build more fission plants as base load power? Please enlighten me. I think you need to improve your understanding of the basic physical facts that underlie the limitations on any "storage technology" other than fuel.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > how can you possibly justify waiting to decommission any of them I’m pro nuclear. But I think they’re choosing the lesser of two evils. (I agree with you that replacing derelict plants with modern ones drastically improves everyone’s safety, but I don’t think they’re arguing in bad faith.)
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        The lesser of what two evils? It seems illogical to me too for "taking a long time to decommission old plants" to be a lesser evil compared to other power generation at the same time that new nuclear plants are a very large evil compared to other power generation. Those two things should be pretty close to each other. Either both should be wildly unacceptable, or both should be lesser evils, or one should be a somewhat lesser evil and the other a somewhat greater but not enormous evil.