3 ms·

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. Al

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.
      - 3y ago
- mech422 3y ago
  Dam - now it let me reply - sorry, I responded above

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.
    - 3y ago
mech422 3y ago
Dam - now it let me reply - sorry, I responded above