3 ms·

Either way, "building dozens of nuclear power plants" is something that should have been done decades ago. Yes, waste handling is a concern for the local envir

Either way, "building dozens of nuclear power plants" is something that should have been done decades ago. Yes, waste handling is a concern for the local environment of a specific area and needs to be taken seriously. But given that climate change is a GLOBAL concern, how much better off would we as a planet have been doing prudent risk management and pressing forward with nuclear power as opposed to listening to the hysterical FUD of people who call themselves "environmentalists?"

Tade0 3y ago
> Either way, "building dozens of nuclear power plants" is something that should have been done decades ago. Great idea. How? Even China, which regularly builds new nuclear power plants, can't do it at a pace sufficient to keep up with wind power, not to mention renewables as a whole. I talking here in terms of reported TWh delivered.
- okeuro49 3y ago
  > Great idea. How? Small modular reactors https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/ https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
  - antonvs 3y ago
    "The Nuclear Fallacy: Why Small Modular Reactors Can’t Compete With Renewable Energy": https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why-small-modular-reactors-cant-compete-with-renewable-energy/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why... > "“Small modular reactors won't achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won't be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won't be cheaper, aren't suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.”
pjc50 3y ago
Hinkley Point C is still not finished. The problem is not so much the waste, but the "black swan": each plant has a failure probability that's low - perhaps 1/10,000 or less - of a disaster that contaminates a very large area around it. The UK was tracking after effects of Chernobyl, two thousand miles away, for two decades after the incident. That has a negative effect on people's willingness to build new plants.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago
  1607 Bristol Channel Flood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods
antonvs 3y ago
Your chosen scapegoat isn't plausible. If the issue was just "people who call themselves environmentalists", we'd be awash in nuclear power plants, because societies globally are pretty notorious for not paying much attention to environmentalists. The real issues are quite different. Environmentalists may have pointed out some of them, but they're just the messenger in that case.
throwaway69123 3y ago
Waste handling is only a problem because of non proliferation laws it’s not a mandatory outcome

Tade0 3y ago

> Either way, "building dozens of nuclear power plants" is something that should have been done decades ago. Great idea. How? Even China, which regularly builds new nuclear power plants, can't do it at a pace sufficient to keep up with wind power, not to mention renewables as a whole. I talking here in terms of reported TWh delivered.

okeuro49 3y ago
> Great idea. How? Small modular reactors https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#/ https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
- antonvs 3y ago
  "The Nuclear Fallacy: Why Small Modular Reactors Can’t Compete With Renewable Energy": https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why-small-modular-reactors-cant-compete-with-renewable-energy/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why... > "“Small modular reactors won't achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won't be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won't be cheaper, aren't suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.”

pjc50 3y ago

Hinkley Point C is still not finished. The problem is not so much the waste, but the "black swan": each plant has a failure probability that's low - perhaps 1/10,000 or less - of a disaster that contaminates a very large area around it. The UK was tracking after effects of Chernobyl, two thousand miles away, for two decades after the incident. That has a negative effect on people's willingness to build new plants.

mikhailfranco 3y ago
1607 Bristol Channel Flood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods

antonvs 3y ago

Your chosen scapegoat isn't plausible. If the issue was just "people who call themselves environmentalists", we'd be awash in nuclear power plants, because societies globally are pretty notorious for not paying much attention to environmentalists. The real issues are quite different. Environmentalists may have pointed out some of them, but they're just the messenger in that case.

throwaway69123 3y ago

Waste handling is only a problem because of non proliferation laws it’s not a mandatory outcome