4 ms·

Great, we're looking at deaths till the point of generation. 4.5 billion years, is the half life of uranium. Come back to me with stats then.... https://en.wi

Great, we're looking at deaths till the point of generation. 4.5 billion years, is the half life of uranium. Come back to me with stats then.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster We're going to be pouring money into that shit show for probably a 1000 years, and an exclusion zone for 20,000. So if you want to move next to Fukushima or Chernobyl you can preach safe nuclear from there, other wise stop the nonsene. The same companies that kill people with coal, and gas lines, and Power lines (lookin at you PGE) dont need to run nuclear plants. They are untrustworthy.

arcticbull 3y ago
This really smacks of Brandolini's law, or the "bullshit asymmetry principle" where debunking claims takes much more effort than making them. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
mech422 3y ago
iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde over the past 30 years is stored on-site. The waste is currently stored in cement-and-steel containers that take up a space the size of a football field." - seems pretty small for a 30 year life time, maybe a couple of tons / year ? 1) https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde-generating-station-the-nations-largest-nuclear-power-plant/ https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde...
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  Lets round up its generate to 4gw Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally. SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year. 400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated. Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after dar, so needs storage. In a pure nuclear set up, you still need storage, because it isnt responsive (you can't just crank them up and down like a dimmer) ... Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... so we either need on site generation or a more complex grid, and probably because of safety, both. It's not a question of IF we have an accident but when, and more plants doesn't make them safer it just lowers the time between accidents... We aren't building more nuclear for a good reason. I does not make ANY sense to do so, the cost and complexity is too high for too little power.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - defrost 3y ago
    With the disclaimer that I'm pro solar your accident based argument is weak as it ignores all accidents in resource mining for renewable infrastructure .. which will only increase as to date renewables make up only a fraction of the energy still generated by coal which is due to be replaced. Make no mistake, accidents (death and injury) in resource mining (non nuclear) greatly outweigh the total deaths and injuries due to just uranium mining | processing and nuclear power accidents. Lithium for batteries has barely started compared to where it is headed and we already see waste storage issues (Lynas, Malaysia) for large volumes of acids and associated low level radioactive waste. Again, I'm pro renewables, but as an exploration geophysict who has worked on global mining databases I can state as fact that these (as do all things) come at a cost - and accident free is not a reality. You're making a purely emotive argument based on feels sans actual real world data.
    - mech422 3y ago
      not who you responded to but... Do we even have enough lithium etc. to produce all the solar panels (and batteries for ev's ??) we're gonna need ? P.S. - good point on the dangers of mining!
      - defrost 3y ago
        It's highly probable we will have enough economically viable lithium from ground mining, we have "known measured reserves" that are less than we need (but have been explored, drilled, and modelled) and an excess of indicated resources (which are places trace tested that look a lot like other places with good reserves, but have not yet been drilled). Then there's seawater (which always gets bought up but isn't really a thing yet). More to the bigger picture, it's not just lithium - Vanadium redox batteries are better for grid storage where light nimble weight for a mobile vehicle doesn't matter so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery Not to mention other ongoing battery research and forms of energy storage (thermal mass, hydrogen, ammonia, etc) that make sense in an abundance of renewable energy that may soon arrive.
samtho 3y ago
The amount of spent uranium that will need to stored is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of energy that is produced in contrast to the waste that is produced by any other non-renewable source. It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust - deeper than anything save for mining, encased in concrete, and buried over where it would be most unlikely that anything will touch it ever again.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >>> It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us Sweden got their shit together, but they dont have much in the way of power and their site has massive cost over runs. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste... But, even underground, on the time scale were talking about, its complicated: https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-term-thinking-and-nuclear-waste/ https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-...
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    > IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) It wasn't an issue at Fukushima, it's not currently an issue in the US, and the reason Yucca Mountain isn't being developed is FUD and politics, not technical. Note that the vast majority of nuclear waste isn't high-level waste, but rather low-level - tools, clothes, etc.
mech422 3y ago
Sorry - it wouldn't let me reply to your last comment... >> Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... Wouldn't that be true of any power source? If you do a full shutdown, the power to run everything has to come from somewhere? (Palo Verde handle maintenance shutdowns by having 3 reactors, 2 running and 1 down for refuel/maintenance). Also, given the death tolls from any major hydro dam failing, I'd guess the numbers would be a wash (pun intended). More specifically, why would we assume things won't get safer over time? As for solar - how much space we can dedicate to it near cities could become a problem? and some places aren't really well suited to it (nor are some places suited to nuclear or hydro). According to other comments it also seems to be getting more expensive, and installs are slowing down. I don't have a problem with solar, hydro OR nuclear ... Hell, I used to live near one of those methane producing garbage dumps, IIRC. I think the future is gonna require a balance. I

arcticbull 3y ago

This really smacks of Brandolini's law, or the "bullshit asymmetry principle" where debunking claims takes much more effort than making them. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

mech422 3y ago

iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde over the past 30 years is stored on-site. The waste is currently stored in cement-and-steel containers that take up a space the size of a football field." - seems pretty small for a 30 year life time, maybe a couple of tons / year ? 1) https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde-generating-station-the-nations-largest-nuclear-power-plant/ https://chamberbusinessnews.com/2019/10/25/inside-palo-verde...

zer00eyz 3y ago
Lets round up its generate to 4gw Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally. SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year. 400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated. Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after dar, so needs storage. In a pure nuclear set up, you still need storage, because it isnt responsive (you can't just crank them up and down like a dimmer) ... Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... so we either need on site generation or a more complex grid, and probably because of safety, both. It's not a question of IF we have an accident but when, and more plants doesn't make them safer it just lowers the time between accidents... We aren't building more nuclear for a good reason. I does not make ANY sense to do so, the cost and complexity is too high for too little power.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- defrost 3y ago
  With the disclaimer that I'm pro solar your accident based argument is weak as it ignores all accidents in resource mining for renewable infrastructure .. which will only increase as to date renewables make up only a fraction of the energy still generated by coal which is due to be replaced. Make no mistake, accidents (death and injury) in resource mining (non nuclear) greatly outweigh the total deaths and injuries due to just uranium mining | processing and nuclear power accidents. Lithium for batteries has barely started compared to where it is headed and we already see waste storage issues (Lynas, Malaysia) for large volumes of acids and associated low level radioactive waste. Again, I'm pro renewables, but as an exploration geophysict who has worked on global mining databases I can state as fact that these (as do all things) come at a cost - and accident free is not a reality. You're making a purely emotive argument based on feels sans actual real world data.
  - mech422 3y ago
    not who you responded to but... Do we even have enough lithium etc. to produce all the solar panels (and batteries for ev's ??) we're gonna need ? P.S. - good point on the dangers of mining!
    - defrost 3y ago
      It's highly probable we will have enough economically viable lithium from ground mining, we have "known measured reserves" that are less than we need (but have been explored, drilled, and modelled) and an excess of indicated resources (which are places trace tested that look a lot like other places with good reserves, but have not yet been drilled). Then there's seawater (which always gets bought up but isn't really a thing yet). More to the bigger picture, it's not just lithium - Vanadium redox batteries are better for grid storage where light nimble weight for a mobile vehicle doesn't matter so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery Not to mention other ongoing battery research and forms of energy storage (thermal mass, hydrogen, ammonia, etc) that make sense in an abundance of renewable energy that may soon arrive.

samtho 3y ago

The amount of spent uranium that will need to stored is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of energy that is produced in contrast to the waste that is produced by any other non-renewable source. It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust - deeper than anything save for mining, encased in concrete, and buried over where it would be most unlikely that anything will touch it ever again.

zer00eyz 3y ago
>>> It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us Sweden got their shit together, but they dont have much in the way of power and their site has massive cost over runs. https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste-storage-site/ https://www.politico.eu/article/sweden-approve-nuclear-waste... But, even underground, on the time scale were talking about, its complicated: https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-term-thinking-and-nuclear-waste/ https://longnow.org/ideas/the-other-10000-year-project-long-...
- arcticbull 3y ago
  > IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) It wasn't an issue at Fukushima, it's not currently an issue in the US, and the reason Yucca Mountain isn't being developed is FUD and politics, not technical. Note that the vast majority of nuclear waste isn't high-level waste, but rather low-level - tools, clothes, etc.

mech422 3y ago

Sorry - it wouldn't let me reply to your last comment... >> Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... Wouldn't that be true of any power source? If you do a full shutdown, the power to run everything has to come from somewhere? (Palo Verde handle maintenance shutdowns by having 3 reactors, 2 running and 1 down for refuel/maintenance). Also, given the death tolls from any major hydro dam failing, I'd guess the numbers would be a wash (pun intended). More specifically, why would we assume things won't get safer over time? As for solar - how much space we can dedicate to it near cities could become a problem? and some places aren't really well suited to it (nor are some places suited to nuclear or hydro). According to other comments it also seems to be getting more expensive, and installs are slowing down. I don't have a problem with solar, hydro OR nuclear ... Hell, I used to live near one of those methane producing garbage dumps, IIRC. I think the future is gonna require a balance. I