3 ms·

> Getting smacked with an asteroid There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me

> Getting smacked with an asteroid There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear. > cheap Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#... > reliable A continental fleet of a renewables's mix is at least as reliable. > zero-emission No, the total lifecycle emissions of nuclear (industrial PWR) is low (10-15 g eqCO2/KWH) but not zero. > electricity available 24/7 A continental fleet of a renewables's mix with storage (vehicle batteries thru V2Gn, green hydrogen, hydro...). In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+total+generation&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Energy+or+Electricity=Electricity+only&Select+a+source=Fossil+fuels&tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+... > More people will die from plane crashes One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future. Note: my own brother was killed during a jetliner crash (Swissair SR111, 1998).

throw0101d 1y ago
>> Getting smacked with an asteroid > There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear. Sure there is (with enough warning); it's just physics: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission > Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard) I live in Ontario, Canada, and renewables are much more expensive than nuclear (Table 2): * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2024... In previous years nuclear was cheaper than (natural/methane) gas: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20231019.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20221021.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2022... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20210422.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2021... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20201013.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2020... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20191022.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2019... To date, nuclear energy has cost the province $58B and has generated 3300 TWh, while our renewable experiment with the Green Energy Act will cost several billion per year over the life of the twenty year contacts and generate 200 TWh. > In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet: Perhaps they should get more nuclear so they burn less fossil fuels. Ontario's mix: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply There are currently plans to expand the nuclear fleet. > One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future. It threatens the people who live >500m underneath the ground once it is buried.
- natmaka 1y ago
  > asteroid We cannot cancel this risk, and we can cancel the risk of nuclear accident by not exploiting nuclear reactor (this is now possible thanks to renewables). > To date, nuclear energy has > while our renewable experiment The LCOE is the gold standard. Comparing an existing fleet of reactors with many hidden costs (indirectly paid for by the taxpayer or the consumer) with the full cost of renewables, and neglecting the cost of any nuclear mishap (accident, waste, decommission...) is a classic trick. In France some even compare the official production cost of the amortized fleet (w/o the investment) to the complete cost of renewables. Yay! > once it is buried Who will bury an industrial nuclear reactor during a major accident, and how will they do it? Where is this even only a plan? Or is it about building it underground, and what about skyrocketing inspection and maintenance costs? Where is this even only a plan? Do your really believe that a broken nuclear reactor vessel vomiting corium will be safe underground, and in such a case why are waste long-term repositories (way less 'active') so difficult and expensive to design and build (as already stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 )?

throw0101d 1y ago

>> Getting smacked with an asteroid > There is nothing we can do about it, therefore comparing this risk the the risk induced by nuclear reactors seems moot to me as we can decide to prefer renewables upon nuclear. Sure there is (with enough warning); it's just physics: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Asteroid_Redirection_Te... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_Redirect_Mission > Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewables', and the gap is widening. Source: LCOE (the gold standard) I live in Ontario, Canada, and renewables are much more expensive than nuclear (Table 2): * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2024... In previous years nuclear was cheaper than (natural/methane) gas: * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20231019.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2023... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20221021.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2022... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20210422.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2021... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20201013.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2020... * https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20191022.pdf https://www.oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-2019... To date, nuclear energy has cost the province $58B and has generated 3300 TWh, while our renewable experiment with the Green Energy Act will cost several billion per year over the life of the twenty year contacts and generate 200 TWh. > In order to generate electricity even France burns non-negligible amounts of fossil fuel since the inception of its nuclear fleet: Perhaps they should get more nuclear so they burn less fossil fuels. Ontario's mix: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply There are currently plans to expand the nuclear fleet. > One can decide whether he will (or not) hop on a plane. A nuclear reactor and its waste threatens everyone, even very remotely and in a distant future. It threatens the people who live >500m underneath the ground once it is buried.

natmaka 1y ago
> asteroid We cannot cancel this risk, and we can cancel the risk of nuclear accident by not exploiting nuclear reactor (this is now possible thanks to renewables). > To date, nuclear energy has > while our renewable experiment The LCOE is the gold standard. Comparing an existing fleet of reactors with many hidden costs (indirectly paid for by the taxpayer or the consumer) with the full cost of renewables, and neglecting the cost of any nuclear mishap (accident, waste, decommission...) is a classic trick. In France some even compare the official production cost of the amortized fleet (w/o the investment) to the complete cost of renewables. Yay! > once it is buried Who will bury an industrial nuclear reactor during a major accident, and how will they do it? Where is this even only a plan? Or is it about building it underground, and what about skyrocketing inspection and maintenance costs? Where is this even only a plan? Do your really believe that a broken nuclear reactor vessel vomiting corium will be safe underground, and in such a case why are waste long-term repositories (way less 'active') so difficult and expensive to design and build (as already stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44517316 )?