3 ms·

> I support eventually decommissioning existing fission power plants. But that's inconsistent with the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using elsewhere in th

by 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.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    If you believe every nuclear power plant is a latent Chernobyl, reducing their absolute number is the priority. In that world, given a choice between a fixed and declining number of old plants, or, a potentially-rising number of new plants, the first is safer. (If you never build new plants, the upper limit is known. If you permit new construction, even with demolition, the limit is unbounded.) Of course, as you point out, treating all plants equivalently like this isn’t substantiated by the data. But within that toy model, the conclusion holds.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Yes the first is safer but it's still wildly unsafe in this model. If you're not advocating very hard for rapid shutdowns then you're not being consistent. The choice isn't between old nuclear and new nuclear. If those are the "two evils" then that's missing some important options.
      - reaperman 3y ago
        Replacing existing reactors costs billions of dollars that can be spent on saving people from other issues like heart disease or put towards fusion development (we don't even really need fusion research anymore, SPARC/ARC are nearly proven). Replacing costs more per expected life saved than not building in the first place. Replacing is like 5 times more expensive than building alternatives in the first place. The extra money can save people/environment in other ways.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        That's not the question. The question was: If we take it as given that we shouldn't build new reactors because they're extremely dangerous, shouldn't we just as zealous about shutting down existing reactors? If solar is cheaper than new nuclear plants that's cool and all but doesn't change the danger levels.
        reaperman 3y ago
        You’re not understanding. This is a discussion about baseload power. Situation: We need more baseload power. Option 1) Build a nuclear fission plant. Costs $10 billion. Option 2) Build a combination of pumped water storage, solid oxide fuel cells, or battery storage to store excess wind and solar. Costs $12 billion. Option 3) Tear down existing nuclear plants ($5 billion PER demolition), continue paying on their existing loans, and then build $12 billion of energy storage plus billions more additional wind and solar installation. Cost: $20 billion For expected x lives/farmland saved, it may be reasonable to spend $2 billion more but not spend $10 billion more for the same effect. That’s not internally inconsistent, your view just doesn’t encapsulate the ability to spend the other $8 billion or so on medical advancements or environmental rehabilitation efforts or fusion development. Or it fails to acknowledge to difference in cost between decommissioning vs not building in the first place.

by pdonis 3y ago

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.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  If you believe every nuclear power plant is a latent Chernobyl, reducing their absolute number is the priority. In that world, given a choice between a fixed and declining number of old plants, or, a potentially-rising number of new plants, the first is safer. (If you never build new plants, the upper limit is known. If you permit new construction, even with demolition, the limit is unbounded.) Of course, as you point out, treating all plants equivalently like this isn’t substantiated by the data. But within that toy model, the conclusion holds.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Yes the first is safer but it's still wildly unsafe in this model. If you're not advocating very hard for rapid shutdowns then you're not being consistent. The choice isn't between old nuclear and new nuclear. If those are the "two evils" then that's missing some important options.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      Replacing existing reactors costs billions of dollars that can be spent on saving people from other issues like heart disease or put towards fusion development (we don't even really need fusion research anymore, SPARC/ARC are nearly proven). Replacing costs more per expected life saved than not building in the first place. Replacing is like 5 times more expensive than building alternatives in the first place. The extra money can save people/environment in other ways.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        That's not the question. The question was: If we take it as given that we shouldn't build new reactors because they're extremely dangerous, shouldn't we just as zealous about shutting down existing reactors? If solar is cheaper than new nuclear plants that's cool and all but doesn't change the danger levels.
        reaperman 3y ago
        You’re not understanding. This is a discussion about baseload power. Situation: We need more baseload power. Option 1) Build a nuclear fission plant. Costs $10 billion. Option 2) Build a combination of pumped water storage, solid oxide fuel cells, or battery storage to store excess wind and solar. Costs $12 billion. Option 3) Tear down existing nuclear plants ($5 billion PER demolition), continue paying on their existing loans, and then build $12 billion of energy storage plus billions more additional wind and solar installation. Cost: $20 billion For expected x lives/farmland saved, it may be reasonable to spend $2 billion more but not spend $10 billion more for the same effect. That’s not internally inconsistent, your view just doesn’t encapsulate the ability to spend the other $8 billion or so on medical advancements or environmental rehabilitation efforts or fusion development. Or it fails to acknowledge to difference in cost between decommissioning vs not building in the first place.