3 ms·

> > > AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK > > Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens > It doesn't

> > > AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK > > Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens > It doesn't imply that it is an adequate way to dispose of it. My point is that ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK with this legal activity happening. > the more someone is or could be impacted, the more we have to take his/her opinion into account How do we take into account the unborn generations? Or the unemployed created by high energy prices?

natmaka 1y ago
> ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK As far as I know ''certain Annex I materials dumping may be permissible if present only as "trace contaminants" or "rapidly rendered harmless"'' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Prevention_of_Marine_Pollution_by_Dumping_of_Wastes_and_Other_Matter#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), that is to say we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... ). > take into account the unborn generations? This is by definition impossible. We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations. > Or the unemployed created by high energy prices? It could be an argument in presence of a consensus promoting a single way to establish the total cost of a given type of energy source. There isn't, and it doesn't come as a surprise as some unpredictable event (nuclear major accident, nuclear waste wandering in some populated area...) may hugely raise the total cost. Moreover the total production cost (LCOE) of renewables is already way (and more and more) below nuclear's, and there is no consensual way to assess the cost of firming those sources (cancelling the effects of 'intermittency' on production). Add the general movement towards decentralization... Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor.
- chickenbig 1y ago
  > we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era Mass of material dumped is not the same as radioactivity or potential harm caused. It looks as if "de minimis" is the key phrase in the convention, in Annex 1.3 . However the IAEA defines "de minimis" in terms of effective dose to people (10 microSieverts/year) per [1] page 14. So point still stands, some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts. If it can be shown that radioactive materials will leach out of the containers very slowly, can this "de minimis" still be met. > We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations. So we should be able to vote on it? > Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor. Intermittent generators also suffer from cannibalisation (duck curve and all of that), hence the need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices. [1] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_244_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_244_web.pd...
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts Doses now tolerated are way below those of ancient dumps. This is a classic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison ) I wrote "we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era" to subsume it. Moreover the whole Linear No-Threshold and bioaccumulation of radioisotopes debate is far from settled, therefore some experts judge even low doses too dangerous. > we should be able to vote on it? IMHO yes. At the very least every citizen paying for it or exposed to some risk has a vote. Direct democracy and referendums let any of them take part, and experts have to convince a majority. > need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices It mainly is an effect of (past and current) massive subsidies granted to other types of energy sources (nuclear, fossil fuels...), the difficult struggle of incoming quickly evolving tech (photovoltaic, wind turbines...) versus amortized plants, and the insufficient amount of energy-storage deployed equipment. All those burdens are (slowly, this is heavy industry stuff) vanishing and it (more and more quickly) becomes perceptible: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

natmaka 1y ago

> ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK As far as I know ''certain Annex I materials dumping may be permissible if present only as "trace contaminants" or "rapidly rendered harmless"'' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Prevention_of_Marine_Pollution_by_Dumping_of_Wastes_and_Other_Matter#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), that is to say we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... ). > take into account the unborn generations? This is by definition impossible. We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations. > Or the unemployed created by high energy prices? It could be an argument in presence of a consensus promoting a single way to establish the total cost of a given type of energy source. There isn't, and it doesn't come as a surprise as some unpredictable event (nuclear major accident, nuclear waste wandering in some populated area...) may hugely raise the total cost. Moreover the total production cost (LCOE) of renewables is already way (and more and more) below nuclear's, and there is no consensual way to assess the cost of firming those sources (cancelling the effects of 'intermittency' on production). Add the general movement towards decentralization... Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor.

chickenbig 1y ago
> we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era Mass of material dumped is not the same as radioactivity or potential harm caused. It looks as if "de minimis" is the key phrase in the convention, in Annex 1.3 . However the IAEA defines "de minimis" in terms of effective dose to people (10 microSieverts/year) per [1] page 14. So point still stands, some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts. If it can be shown that radioactive materials will leach out of the containers very slowly, can this "de minimis" still be met. > We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations. So we should be able to vote on it? > Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor. Intermittent generators also suffer from cannibalisation (duck curve and all of that), hence the need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices. [1] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_244_web.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_244_web.pd...
- natmaka 1y ago
  > some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts Doses now tolerated are way below those of ancient dumps. This is a classic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison ) I wrote "we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era" to subsume it. Moreover the whole Linear No-Threshold and bioaccumulation of radioisotopes debate is far from settled, therefore some experts judge even low doses too dangerous. > we should be able to vote on it? IMHO yes. At the very least every citizen paying for it or exposed to some risk has a vote. Direct democracy and referendums let any of them take part, and experts have to convince a majority. > need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices It mainly is an effect of (past and current) massive subsidies granted to other types of energy sources (nuclear, fossil fuels...), the difficult struggle of incoming quickly evolving tech (photovoltaic, wind turbines...) versus amortized plants, and the insufficient amount of energy-storage deployed equipment. All those burdens are (slowly, this is heavy industry stuff) vanishing and it (more and more quickly) becomes perceptible: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewables-nuclear-line https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...