11 ms·

> renewables produce HUGE amounts of pollution compared to nuclear. It's not even close. There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste.

• ars 14y ago
  > There is hardly anything as destructively polluting as nuclear waste. Oh really? Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive, and there is a LOT more of it. The pollution sent up smoke stacks is also much worse since it's actively spread to people, and there is a lot of it. In contrast nuclear waste is very small, and stays far away from anyone. > they drive it around on rails every couple of years. A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal? > When do you think that will happen? Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people. > Yes. Really.[1] Did you actually read that link yourself? I did - it sounds very low risk to me. Why would you link to something that supports my position? > Ah great, relativism, always enjoy that coming up. I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?" > Yup, and I'd rather NOT pick the one were we put money into a dead-end technology that has the potential of devastating pollution at worst and hardly solvable storage problems at best and instead invest that money in technology that will actually be of use in the future and for the rest of mankind. And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait. Instead of the "potential of devastating pollution" you have devastating pollution right now - and you just want to ignore that? I'll take potential over actual any day. Renewables will be of no use in the future since they can not ever produce enough energy. It doesn't matter how badly you want them to, they just can't do it. It's a dead-end technology. Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.
  • skore 14y ago
    > Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive My apologies, I was indeed talking about radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution. It goes without saying that I'm not terribly happy with how this country is getting into coal lately. So yes, fly ash is definitely a concern as well. I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now. > A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal? Yes, they ship it around and it radiates. Remember - in the US, they recently had to scrap plans for that one site because it meant the fuel had to travel there a long way. I was also off a little - it's pretty much an every year event, but I guess that's still not a threshold trigger for you. Still, again, the real problem here is that nobody really knows where to ship this to and what to do with it once it's there. And how safe it will be the next couple hundred thousand years. > Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people. See - I'm just not really satisfied with that answer and I guess I don't see how anybody can be. Sorry. > Why would you link to something that supports my position? You were asking me to qualify 'horrifying' - seems like we have a different measure there. I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying. > I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?" Nope, sorry, that's not the same. Comparing two things is one thing - Relativism is something else entirely. That branch discussion was about discussing how extracting fuel from the earth is polluting. You qualified that by saying: Hey, there are a lot of things that are polluting, like iron/coal/oil/gas. Yes - I understand that - but that's not adding to the discussion. It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place. No matter which one, you have to keep digging it up to keep it going and that's bad. It's also the crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy. No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually. > And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait. Now I'm not even sure we read the same article anymore. That's not really a defensible statement in light of how widely used this technology already is. Or are you still hung up on solar? > Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner. Dead-end in terms of: "What technological progress does this provide on the side?". Sure, making it "cleaner" may be one form of progress, but I think "green" energy simply has more potential for innovation and collateral technological benefit for everybody.