7 ms·

There's nothing "distasteful" about nuclear power, and renewables are quite unreliable (they only work when there's a sun or wind), so what Spain is doing is ju

There's nothing "distasteful" about nuclear power, and renewables are quite unreliable (they only work when there's a sun or wind), so what Spain is doing is just plain stupidity.

BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
Yes to the first bit, but no to the second bit once you have batteries or other long-term storage, but that's not good for your narrative, now is it? Hate hate hate on all the either/or politics here. We need both (though increasingly less nuclear with time), and we needed it yesterday.
- Detrytus 3y ago
  > once you have batteries or other long-term storage, but that's not good for your narrative, now is it? Well, I'd love to see that happening in my lifetime (I just turned 40, so that leaves like 30-40 more years for some breakthrough to happen). For now it seems that the technology is simply not there yet. EDIT: All of that is to say: I'd like for our policies to be based on the actual technology that we have, not on wishful thinking.
  - edent 3y ago
    I have batteries in my home - 4.8kWh worth. The technology is very real. But, also, we have to plan for tomorrow. We can predict with some degree of certainty how technology will develop. Tomorrow's computers are likely to be faster than today's; so we'll build a broadband network which is capable of exceeding today's demand. It's the same with electricity. Nuclear has had decades to prove itself and come up short every single time. Solar and wind are exceeding expectations. Battery technology is rapidly evolving. Should we base our decisions on today's technology or tomorrow's?
    - midasuni 3y ago
      Given how cheap 20kWh of battery is compared with the total cost of a house it’s shocking that there aren’t building requirements mandating that much storage.
  - BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
    I have ~40 kWH of Franklin battery backup behind my solar panels today. https://www.ecodirect.com/FranklinWH-FHP-13-6-kWh-AC-Battery-p/franklinwh-fhp-apower.htm https://www.ecodirect.com/FranklinWH-FHP-13-6-kWh-AC-Battery... Tell me again how this technology hasn't happened yet?
    - slater 3y ago
      Price. $100/mo. will always win out over that ($11k alone for that battery)
      - BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
        My electric bill in CA was ~$300/month. $3600+/year. Great investment, and no more power failures. But also, OP said this technology doesn't exist. You're pivoting to it exists but you can't afford it. Different question.
        BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
        Downvoted because daring to say consumer power storage technology already exists conflicts with some sort of comforting folksy narrative that it doesn't? How is that in any way "Hacker" like? I thought we were supposed to be the bleeding edge types rapidly adopting the new toys. My bad? Downvote this too because "this isn't reddit" amIRight?
hackerlight 3y ago
I agree that Spain is doing something incredibly stupid but the way you've used "unreliable" is a weasel word. Renewables do the job just fine.
Kon5ole 3y ago
The distasteful part is that you leave a huge bill to future generations (best case) or leave their land uninhabitable (worst case). Take Sellafield in the UK, costs over 2 billion pounds per year for the foreseeable future and generates no power.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  Sellafield produced plutonium for bombs. Spain’s reactors are only generating electricity.
  - Kon5ole 3y ago
    Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. A site like that is needed whenever you have nuclear plants, bombs or not. In the US, the defence budget covers the storage of waste. In Sweden the nuclear fund currently holds 7 billion and the estimated costs for storage are already at 12 billion euros and growing. Future taxpayers will pay the missing 5+ billion, but they will get no electricity from the plants that have been closed already. France's EDF was recently nationalized for over 60 billion euros, which is also paid by taxpayers, not electricity bills. Germanys taxpayers had to pay for the Asse II mine, long after the plants that produced the electricity that generated the waste were closed. So as I said, best case you leave a large cost to future generations. We haven't seen a worst case yet but the fact that Saami people in Lapland had to feed their animals special food because 30 years after Chernobyl gives a hint about what a worst case could mean. There are cheaper, safer, quicker and more stable options than nuclear, especially in Spain.
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      > Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. Let's see what you are trying to do here. If Sellafield handles both civilian and military waste, and Sellafield is bad, it follows that civilian nuclear waste is bad? That's your argument, right? And you see how it actually does not follow, logically speaking. It's like you saying this casino in Las Vegas is bad because there are lots of Mafia guys, and I say, yes, but at Carnegie Hall there are only musicians and ballerinas, and you say, sure but at at this Las Vegas casino there are musicians, ballerinas and Mafia guys, and it's a bad place, so Carnegie Hall must be a bad place too. The vast majority of civilian nuclear power plants don't reprocess their spent fuel, and certainly not on site. They put the spent fuel first in some type of swimming pools with water, to allow them to cool down, and after a few years they put them in some dry casks. The uranium from Sellafield was processed to extract the plutonium. That required huge amounts of chemicals, and there were some leaks. But those leaks are particular to the situation at Sellafield, and not relevant for the situation in Spain or other places that don't do reprocessing.
networkchad 3y ago
[dead]

There's nothing "distasteful" about nuclear power, and renewables are quite unreliable (they only work when there's a sun or wind), so what Spain is doing is just plain stupidity.

BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago

Yes to the first bit, but no to the second bit once you have batteries or other long-term storage, but that's not good for your narrative, now is it? Hate hate hate on all the either/or politics here. We need both (though increasingly less nuclear with time), and we needed it yesterday.

Detrytus 3y ago
> once you have batteries or other long-term storage, but that's not good for your narrative, now is it? Well, I'd love to see that happening in my lifetime (I just turned 40, so that leaves like 30-40 more years for some breakthrough to happen). For now it seems that the technology is simply not there yet. EDIT: All of that is to say: I'd like for our policies to be based on the actual technology that we have, not on wishful thinking.
- edent 3y ago
  I have batteries in my home - 4.8kWh worth. The technology is very real. But, also, we have to plan for tomorrow. We can predict with some degree of certainty how technology will develop. Tomorrow's computers are likely to be faster than today's; so we'll build a broadband network which is capable of exceeding today's demand. It's the same with electricity. Nuclear has had decades to prove itself and come up short every single time. Solar and wind are exceeding expectations. Battery technology is rapidly evolving. Should we base our decisions on today's technology or tomorrow's?
  - midasuni 3y ago
    Given how cheap 20kWh of battery is compared with the total cost of a house it’s shocking that there aren’t building requirements mandating that much storage.
- BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
  I have ~40 kWH of Franklin battery backup behind my solar panels today. https://www.ecodirect.com/FranklinWH-FHP-13-6-kWh-AC-Battery-p/franklinwh-fhp-apower.htm https://www.ecodirect.com/FranklinWH-FHP-13-6-kWh-AC-Battery... Tell me again how this technology hasn't happened yet?
  - slater 3y ago
    Price. $100/mo. will always win out over that ($11k alone for that battery)
    - BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
      My electric bill in CA was ~$300/month. $3600+/year. Great investment, and no more power failures. But also, OP said this technology doesn't exist. You're pivoting to it exists but you can't afford it. Different question.
      - BeefDinnerPurge 3y ago
        Downvoted because daring to say consumer power storage technology already exists conflicts with some sort of comforting folksy narrative that it doesn't? How is that in any way "Hacker" like? I thought we were supposed to be the bleeding edge types rapidly adopting the new toys. My bad? Downvote this too because "this isn't reddit" amIRight?

hackerlight 3y ago

I agree that Spain is doing something incredibly stupid but the way you've used "unreliable" is a weasel word. Renewables do the job just fine.

Kon5ole 3y ago

The distasteful part is that you leave a huge bill to future generations (best case) or leave their land uninhabitable (worst case). Take Sellafield in the UK, costs over 2 billion pounds per year for the foreseeable future and generates no power.

credit_guy 3y ago
Sellafield produced plutonium for bombs. Spain’s reactors are only generating electricity.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. A site like that is needed whenever you have nuclear plants, bombs or not. In the US, the defence budget covers the storage of waste. In Sweden the nuclear fund currently holds 7 billion and the estimated costs for storage are already at 12 billion euros and growing. Future taxpayers will pay the missing 5+ billion, but they will get no electricity from the plants that have been closed already. France's EDF was recently nationalized for over 60 billion euros, which is also paid by taxpayers, not electricity bills. Germanys taxpayers had to pay for the Asse II mine, long after the plants that produced the electricity that generated the waste were closed. So as I said, best case you leave a large cost to future generations. We haven't seen a worst case yet but the fact that Saami people in Lapland had to feed their animals special food because 30 years after Chernobyl gives a hint about what a worst case could mean. There are cheaper, safer, quicker and more stable options than nuclear, especially in Spain.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. Let's see what you are trying to do here. If Sellafield handles both civilian and military waste, and Sellafield is bad, it follows that civilian nuclear waste is bad? That's your argument, right? And you see how it actually does not follow, logically speaking. It's like you saying this casino in Las Vegas is bad because there are lots of Mafia guys, and I say, yes, but at Carnegie Hall there are only musicians and ballerinas, and you say, sure but at at this Las Vegas casino there are musicians, ballerinas and Mafia guys, and it's a bad place, so Carnegie Hall must be a bad place too. The vast majority of civilian nuclear power plants don't reprocess their spent fuel, and certainly not on site. They put the spent fuel first in some type of swimming pools with water, to allow them to cool down, and after a few years they put them in some dry casks. The uranium from Sellafield was processed to extract the plutonium. That required huge amounts of chemicals, and there were some leaks. But those leaks are particular to the situation at Sellafield, and not relevant for the situation in Spain or other places that don't do reprocessing.

networkchad 3y ago

[dead]