5 ms·

> Nuclear technology is safe enough "enough" is a point of view, is your, so ok for you, not enough for me. Fukushima was not enough safe, but again, for me. An

by effed3 3y ago

> Nuclear technology is safe enough "enough" is a point of view, is your, so ok for you, not enough for me. Fukushima was not enough safe, but again, for me. And there are many others "not enough" situations others than 3 famous. > storage of the waste is non-issue.. To me, is not a volumetric problem, but for time ad long term safety. At fukushima disposing of the contaminated water is still a big problem now, imagine the big part of plants, and there is a 90km avoidence zone for many years. Make nuclear really safe maybe can be done, at witch cost? Will stay still in market? I doubt. Probably some nuclear technology will remain and can be used and developed for research and bootstrap, not for supply the whole. > solar and wind are just impractical toys These toys are in lowering cost, rising efficiency and world wide spread and deployment, more than any others technology, and 10 yrs. ago was difficult to think, now is reality, and investing resources on solar/wind/others will make a difference -now-, can be widespread, create more workplaces, where building more nuclear will make some effect to 10 years, and can be done only by few big companies (apart environment issues).

mcpackieh 3y ago
> At fukushima disposing of the contaminated water is still a big problem now, That tritium is a huge nothingburger. They could dump it into the ocean now or store it for a century then dump it; either way it causes no real harm. The amount of tritium they're wringing themselves into knots over is a nonissue.
Detrytus 3y ago
Efficiency of solar and wind isn't the real issue. The problem is: solar only works during a day, and wind farms only work when there's wind. Which makes both of them irregular, unpredictable. It could be mitigated if we had a cheap mass energy storage technology, but we don't (Li-Ion batteries are way too expensive, and hydroelectric storage requires very specific conditions, it cannot be built just anywhere). What we need is a stable supply of energy which is independent of the time of day and the weather. Nuclear can be that.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  If the storage facility is absolute safe against nature and current and future human stupidity and curiosity, yes.
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    guarding a single storage facility is easy: just put a thousand men with machine guns between it and anyone who could possibly try to raid it. Guarding against nature is even easier: we have at least a century worth of climate data, it's not that hard to select one place that is safe from earthquakes, hurricanes, and other disasters.
- effed3 3y ago
  Yes, efficiency is not an issue, but is improving. Storage technology evolve, there are many battery technology, even better than li-ion if fully developed, and storage can be chemical, capturing co2 and making fuels with net zero CO2 pollution, can be thermal, can be even gravitational, hydrogen local storage, and energy can move in grids, to go where is need from where is available, engineering can do this now it there is a true will. If there is a system finely distributed (many systems) for production, transport and storage, in a mix on low to high tecnology, this will make global energy really available and independent of uncertains and variable conditions. Many examples of good offgrid appication exist, done by some guys, Imagine what can be done with true development/investment just tomorrow. And Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere..
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    You make a lot of assumptions here, about the directions in which future technologies can possibly develop. The thing is: if we are making decisions right now, we should make it based on what we know for sure, not based on our hopes and dreams, which might never materialize. In 20 years time, if the technologies you mention do indeed appear, we can re-evaluate our approach. > Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere.. Sun disappears for half of the day, every day. Strong wind is not that common at all, except in few selected areas, like the seaside.

by effed3 3y ago

mcpackieh 3y ago

> At fukushima disposing of the contaminated water is still a big problem now, That tritium is a huge nothingburger. They could dump it into the ocean now or store it for a century then dump it; either way it causes no real harm. The amount of tritium they're wringing themselves into knots over is a nonissue.

Detrytus 3y ago

Efficiency of solar and wind isn't the real issue. The problem is: solar only works during a day, and wind farms only work when there's wind. Which makes both of them irregular, unpredictable. It could be mitigated if we had a cheap mass energy storage technology, but we don't (Li-Ion batteries are way too expensive, and hydroelectric storage requires very specific conditions, it cannot be built just anywhere). What we need is a stable supply of energy which is independent of the time of day and the weather. Nuclear can be that.

Dah00n 3y ago
If the storage facility is absolute safe against nature and current and future human stupidity and curiosity, yes.
- Detrytus 3y ago
  guarding a single storage facility is easy: just put a thousand men with machine guns between it and anyone who could possibly try to raid it. Guarding against nature is even easier: we have at least a century worth of climate data, it's not that hard to select one place that is safe from earthquakes, hurricanes, and other disasters.
effed3 3y ago
Yes, efficiency is not an issue, but is improving. Storage technology evolve, there are many battery technology, even better than li-ion if fully developed, and storage can be chemical, capturing co2 and making fuels with net zero CO2 pollution, can be thermal, can be even gravitational, hydrogen local storage, and energy can move in grids, to go where is need from where is available, engineering can do this now it there is a true will. If there is a system finely distributed (many systems) for production, transport and storage, in a mix on low to high tecnology, this will make global energy really available and independent of uncertains and variable conditions. Many examples of good offgrid appication exist, done by some guys, Imagine what can be done with true development/investment just tomorrow. And Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere..
- Detrytus 3y ago
  You make a lot of assumptions here, about the directions in which future technologies can possibly develop. The thing is: if we are making decisions right now, we should make it based on what we know for sure, not based on our hopes and dreams, which might never materialize. In 20 years time, if the technologies you mention do indeed appear, we can re-evaluate our approach. > Uranium (like fossil fuels) is not everywhere, a shift of geopolitics will affect availability, sun and wind are everywhere, maybe not constant, but hardly vanish for long periods everywhere.. Sun disappears for half of the day, every day. Strong wind is not that common at all, except in few selected areas, like the seaside.