6 ms·

Nuclear energy isn’t CO2 free and there is still no solution for the nuclear waste. And don’t forget that the plant operating companies themselves didn’t want

by croes 2y ago

Nuclear energy isn’t CO2 free and there is still no solution for the nuclear waste. And don’t forget that the plant operating companies themselves didn’t want to keep the plants.

casenmgreen 2y ago
Nuclear waste in one sense is not a big problem, because it's so compact. If you think of wind, you need to cover vast areas of a country to generate meaningful amounts of energy.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  The material consumption for either wind or solar is around an order of magnitude more than for nuclear.
- tharmas 2y ago
  >Nuclear waste in one sense is not a big problem, because it's so compact. Neither was the exhaust from the first cars.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    But the energy density of nuclear fuels is so fantastic that it remains compact. See https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale
- croes 2y ago
  In other ways it’s a big problem. They still don’t have a final repository for it and you don’t need much to endanger many people. Not to mention that nuclear energy leads to centralization what makes it a valuable target for sabotage.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    Not true. Finland just built a repository. The US one was finished and then shut down for purely political reasons. Wherever it's a problem it is politics. Technically it's a non-problem. And of course temporary storage is also a non-problem, which is why politicians can play stupid games with the final repositories. Oh, and of course we shouldn't be throwing it away in the first place, as it still contains >95% of the energy when we do. We should be recycling the fuel, preferably with reactors that can burn it directly.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    Your point being? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_Chin...
queuep 2y ago
Let’s do coal then!
mpweiher 2y ago
Nuclear energy has a lower CO₂ footprint than wind or solar. Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem, which is why politicians can use it to score publicity points.
- tharmas 2y ago
  >Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem Is that burying it deep underground? Safety? Three-mile island? Chernobyl? The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. I heard the French nuclear program has a 100% safety record. But that could be false to keep the public in board with it. Wouldn't wind and solar be the way to go? U don't need a big centralised for profit energy source.
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    All the nuclear accidents (and Fukushima was a Tsunami that did a lot more damage than that nuclear plant) did far, far less damage than people initially predicted, and even with those entirely avoidable accidents, nuclear is still one of the safest forms of energy generation we have. Wind turbines are significantly more dangerous, never mind fossil fuels. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy See also: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu...
  - LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
    > The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_... < This one, just a few miles away worked according to plan, and was a base for safe operations in all that chaos that ensued, because Fukushima Daichi was planned bad, ignoring hundreds of years of local knowledge, including stone markers which showed how high former tsunamis reached there. And then putting emergency infrastructure below that line, also not installing available systems which would have stopped the hydrogen explosions from happening. Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'. TMI? Shrug. Shit happens. Was there more than a great panic about not that much? Is there a large exclusion zone? Was there ever one? > Is that burying it deep underground? Yes, why not? It's perfectly workable to 'feel good' about it, though not strictly necessary. The Fins do it. The US could have this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... , the opposition against that is ridiculous, considering Nevada is irradiated anyway because of all the nuclear testing there :) Otherwise: Eminent domain! Comply or die!

by croes 2y ago

Nuclear energy isn’t CO2 free and there is still no solution for the nuclear waste. And don’t forget that the plant operating companies themselves didn’t want to keep the plants.

casenmgreen 2y ago

Nuclear waste in one sense is not a big problem, because it's so compact. If you think of wind, you need to cover vast areas of a country to generate meaningful amounts of energy.

mpweiher 2y ago
The material consumption for either wind or solar is around an order of magnitude more than for nuclear.
tharmas 2y ago
>Nuclear waste in one sense is not a big problem, because it's so compact. Neither was the exhaust from the first cars.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  But the energy density of nuclear fuels is so fantastic that it remains compact. See https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale
croes 2y ago
In other ways it’s a big problem. They still don’t have a final repository for it and you don’t need much to endanger many people. Not to mention that nuclear energy leads to centralization what makes it a valuable target for sabotage.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  Not true. Finland just built a repository. The US one was finished and then shut down for purely political reasons. Wherever it's a problem it is politics. Technically it's a non-problem. And of course temporary storage is also a non-problem, which is why politicians can play stupid games with the final repositories. Oh, and of course we shouldn't be throwing it away in the first place, as it still contains >95% of the energy when we do. We should be recycling the fuel, preferably with reactors that can burn it directly.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  Your point being? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Grid_Corporation_of_Chin...

queuep 2y ago

Let’s do coal then!

mpweiher 2y ago

Nuclear energy has a lower CO₂ footprint than wind or solar. Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem, which is why politicians can use it to score publicity points.

tharmas 2y ago
>Nuclear waste is both solved and largely a non-problem Is that burying it deep underground? Safety? Three-mile island? Chernobyl? The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. I heard the French nuclear program has a 100% safety record. But that could be false to keep the public in board with it. Wouldn't wind and solar be the way to go? U don't need a big centralised for profit energy source.
- mpweiher 2y ago
  All the nuclear accidents (and Fukushima was a Tsunami that did a lot more damage than that nuclear plant) did far, far less damage than people initially predicted, and even with those entirely avoidable accidents, nuclear is still one of the safest forms of energy generation we have. Wind turbines are significantly more dangerous, never mind fossil fuels. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy See also: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nu...
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
  > The one in Japan? Ok, earthquake zone so not a good idea anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_... < This one, just a few miles away worked according to plan, and was a base for safe operations in all that chaos that ensued, because Fukushima Daichi was planned bad, ignoring hundreds of years of local knowledge, including stone markers which showed how high former tsunamis reached there. And then putting emergency infrastructure below that line, also not installing available systems which would have stopped the hydrogen explosions from happening. Chernobyl? Human stupidity commited by 'Apparatshiks'. TMI? Shrug. Shit happens. Was there more than a great panic about not that much? Is there a large exclusion zone? Was there ever one? > Is that burying it deep underground? Yes, why not? It's perfectly workable to 'feel good' about it, though not strictly necessary. The Fins do it. The US could have this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r... , the opposition against that is ridiculous, considering Nevada is irradiated anyway because of all the nuclear testing there :) Otherwise: Eminent domain! Comply or die!