4 ms·

Why even make it about nuclears vs coal? Both are bad, both are hazards and both are not green energy.

ceejayoz 8mo ago
Because people are petrified of nuclear but fine with coal. The opposite should be true. I don’t think nuclear is the answer to things. But replacing every ounce of coal used for fuel with nuclear would still be a win.
- Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
  Nuclear energy can be used to generate 24x7 energy as the grid-power to supply energy to a country whereas Solar and Wind require batteries. I think that the last time I checked, when you take into factor the CO2 emissions and everything, Nuclear is the best source of Energy. > I don’t think nuclear is the answer to things I think that I am interested in seeing thorium based reactors or development with that too. That being said, Nuclear feels like the answer to me. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong but I don't think that there is any better form of energy source than nuclear when you factor in everything.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    Batteries are cheaper and faster to make in large quantities. No economy on the planet needs 24/7 peak power production. The times humans work correspond nicely with the times the sun is out.
    - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
      > Batteries are cheaper and faster to make in large quantities. Yes I agree but their extraction at scale is still very C02 Expensive. > No economy on the planet needs 24/7 peak power production. The times humans work correspond nicely with the times the sun is out. With Nuclear energy, let's face it. If you have a nuclear plant running, the input is just some uranium which we have plenty of. Thereotically we have no problem with running at peak power production. You are also forgetting that Sun can be blocked during times of rains and Wind is unpredictable as well. If you can work with solar panels only that's really really great. Unfortunately that's not how the world works or how I see it function :( You are forgetting that markets operate after work and the late night culture and so many other things. You need lights at energy and quite a decent bit. You are also forgetting that if we ever get Electric vehicles then we would need energy during late night as well. A lot of energy in general is still needed during nights and would we be still burning coal for that? With all of this, I am not sure why you'd not like Nuclear?
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > You are also forgetting that Sun can be blocked during times of rains and Wind is unpredictable as well. We already have wires that cross continents to smooth out supply variations. It's exceedingly rare you get no sun and no wind over entire continents for an extended period. > You are forgetting that markets operate after work and the late night culture and so many other things. I'm not forgetting it, they just use less power. You can see this easily in charts of supply/demand throughout the day: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook#section-net-demand-trend https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook#section-net-demand-tren... > A lot of energy in general is still needed during nights and would we be still burning coal for that? Again, batteries.
        Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
        > We already have wires that cross continents to smooth out supply variations. It's exceedingly rare you get no sun and no wind over entire continents for an extended period. I can be wrong but you would probably lose tons of efficiency even within High Voltage DC lines if everyday late night we take energy from different countries. Also this is getting outside of topic of discussion for me because one of the reasons we want Nuclear or Green energy in general is also the environmental plus the sovereign plus the long term affordability plans. Another point from your first comment but if we run peak production in nuclear say in a country A, then the country A can also give power to Country B at late night similar to what you are proposed for solars. > Again, batteries. Once again, within my first comment I raise issue of battery. You mention a comment and I respond and then we get to batteries again. I have no problem with solar at all without batteries but batteries really flip the equation in terms of environmental concerns. My question is plain and simple, Why not Nuclear? I understand, I am not against Solar. Although environmentally, I feel like battery is a valid concern. I am just saying that long term, Nuclear seems to be the better/best option. Why not Nuclear? That is a question which it seems that you may not have answered and that's a discussion worth having as well In my opinion too. We can agree on this, correct?
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > You mention a comment and I respond and then we get to batteries again. Yes. Because they're the answer here. > Also this is getting outside of topic of discussion for me because one of the reasons we want Nuclear or Green energy in general is also the environmental plus the sovereign plus the long term affordability plans. Good luck with nuclear sovereignty, if that's your concern. How many uranium mines are in the UK? > Why not Nuclear? /me gestures at the last 50 years of historical evidence "Why not try nuclear" is like "why not try communism?" for physics nerds. We have tried it.
    - jodrellblank 8mo ago
      Daytime doesn't mean the sun is out; the UK has heavy cloud cover and sunset near 4pm in mid-winter. https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/ shows the UK is currently getting 10% of grid power from Solar at 3:30pm in March.
      - ceejayoz 8mo ago
        Sure. That's why there's the "interconnectors" section further down; the UK can take advantage of the fact that it's rarely simultaneously dark and zero wind across entire continents.
Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
Respectfully, Can you tell me more about it because I genuinely don't know how you think Nuclear energy is bad. It's one of the cleanest forms of energy. Is there any particular reason why you think Nuclear is bad in all honesty as its worth having a discussion here? Why do you feel Nuclear Energy is a hazard? I understand if you feel Chernobyl or any event makes it sound dangerous but rather, Please take a look at this data on the number of death rates per unit of electricity production[0] Oil is roughly 615x more deadly than nuclear. Nuclear, Solar and Wind (the renewables) are all less deadly and are 0.03,0.02 and 0.04 respectively and nuclear is a reliable source of energy source which can be used in actual generation. Nuclear is very much a green energy. I'd like to hear your opinion about it. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
- garbagewoman 8mo ago
  Nuclear plants are great if they actually happen to get built and every person designing and operating them and storing the waste never makes a single mistake
  - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
    > every person designing and operating them and storing the waste never makes a single mistake Even within Chernobyl Disaster, it was a series of mistakes which led to the full scale disaster IIRC so it isn't as if a single mistake Also Thorium based Nuclear Reactors wouldn't have this issue from what I understand as in the idea of explosions or anything, > Nuclear plants are great if they actually happen to get built I get this part but shouldn't this mean that people should be more vocal about support for Nuclear. We are vocal about support for Solar, might as well be vocal about support for Nuclear and Solar both too?
catlifeonmars 8mo ago
What’s wrong with nuclear energy?
- disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
  Its really, really, really expensive to build. And people are (mostly irrationally) terrified of it, which matters in democracies.
- brohee 8mo ago
  Not cost competitive with solar+batteries in many locales (less so the closer to the poles), and no learning curve, if anything a negative learning curve, nuclear never was more expensive than new nuclear. And off course societal (and geopolitical) acceptance issues.
  - catlifeonmars 8mo ago
    The cost competitiveness and societal issues make sense (though I suspect some of the cost is being externalized in terms of materials extraction and manufacturing). I don’t understand what you mean by “no learning curve”. Do you mean that the learning curve is particularly steep for plant operators?
    - brohee 8mo ago
      Sorry, the manufacturing learning curve. The most widgets you make, the cheapest they get. The effect was absolutely stunning for batteries and solar panels (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-of-lithium-ion-battery-cells https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-of-lithium-ion-batt...). We make too few nuclear power plants for them to have a noticeable learning curve, and recently each subsequent one ends up more expensive than the latest, notably because of safety regulation. Korea and I think China had the best success in that regard (and France in the 80s) by being able to make real series, but you don't really see those now except maybe China. More here: https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve
  - glenstein 8mo ago
jodrellblank 8mo ago
Because coal desposits in the ground have bits of Uranium and Thorium which are radioactive, they get concentrated in coal fly ash, and blow out the chimney in the smoke from a coal power plant, and kill people, they leach into the soil and waterways, and kill people. That is, nuclear power plants only kill people by radioactivity in the case of an accident. Coal power plants do it in normal operation. As well as coal dust having a PM2.5 dust problem which kills people. Make it about nuclear vs coal because people say coal is better than nuclear because it's not scary radiation, and it actually is. > "Both are bad" Nuclear generates more power from a Kg of fuel, with less CO2 pollution and fewer deaths. It's not bad, but even if it was bad it's not "both sides", it's much less bad. [yes coal disasters also kill hundreds of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster ]
garbagewoman 8mo ago
Because nuclear is too good to be true, which makes it the preferred ragebait for many, it seems

Because people are petrified of nuclear but fine with coal. The opposite should be true. I don’t think nuclear is the answer to things. But replacing every ounce of coal used for fuel with nuclear would still be a win.

Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
Nuclear energy can be used to generate 24x7 energy as the grid-power to supply energy to a country whereas Solar and Wind require batteries. I think that the last time I checked, when you take into factor the CO2 emissions and everything, Nuclear is the best source of Energy. > I don’t think nuclear is the answer to things I think that I am interested in seeing thorium based reactors or development with that too. That being said, Nuclear feels like the answer to me. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong but I don't think that there is any better form of energy source than nuclear when you factor in everything.
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  Batteries are cheaper and faster to make in large quantities. No economy on the planet needs 24/7 peak power production. The times humans work correspond nicely with the times the sun is out.
  - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
    > Batteries are cheaper and faster to make in large quantities. Yes I agree but their extraction at scale is still very C02 Expensive. > No economy on the planet needs 24/7 peak power production. The times humans work correspond nicely with the times the sun is out. With Nuclear energy, let's face it. If you have a nuclear plant running, the input is just some uranium which we have plenty of. Thereotically we have no problem with running at peak power production. You are also forgetting that Sun can be blocked during times of rains and Wind is unpredictable as well. If you can work with solar panels only that's really really great. Unfortunately that's not how the world works or how I see it function :( You are forgetting that markets operate after work and the late night culture and so many other things. You need lights at energy and quite a decent bit. You are also forgetting that if we ever get Electric vehicles then we would need energy during late night as well. A lot of energy in general is still needed during nights and would we be still burning coal for that? With all of this, I am not sure why you'd not like Nuclear?
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      > You are also forgetting that Sun can be blocked during times of rains and Wind is unpredictable as well. We already have wires that cross continents to smooth out supply variations. It's exceedingly rare you get no sun and no wind over entire continents for an extended period. > You are forgetting that markets operate after work and the late night culture and so many other things. I'm not forgetting it, they just use less power. You can see this easily in charts of supply/demand throughout the day: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook#section-net-demand-trend https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook#section-net-demand-tren... > A lot of energy in general is still needed during nights and would we be still burning coal for that? Again, batteries.
      - Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
        > We already have wires that cross continents to smooth out supply variations. It's exceedingly rare you get no sun and no wind over entire continents for an extended period. I can be wrong but you would probably lose tons of efficiency even within High Voltage DC lines if everyday late night we take energy from different countries. Also this is getting outside of topic of discussion for me because one of the reasons we want Nuclear or Green energy in general is also the environmental plus the sovereign plus the long term affordability plans. Another point from your first comment but if we run peak production in nuclear say in a country A, then the country A can also give power to Country B at late night similar to what you are proposed for solars. > Again, batteries. Once again, within my first comment I raise issue of battery. You mention a comment and I respond and then we get to batteries again. I have no problem with solar at all without batteries but batteries really flip the equation in terms of environmental concerns. My question is plain and simple, Why not Nuclear? I understand, I am not against Solar. Although environmentally, I feel like battery is a valid concern. I am just saying that long term, Nuclear seems to be the better/best option. Why not Nuclear? That is a question which it seems that you may not have answered and that's a discussion worth having as well In my opinion too. We can agree on this, correct?
        ceejayoz 8mo ago
        > You mention a comment and I respond and then we get to batteries again. Yes. Because they're the answer here. > Also this is getting outside of topic of discussion for me because one of the reasons we want Nuclear or Green energy in general is also the environmental plus the sovereign plus the long term affordability plans. Good luck with nuclear sovereignty, if that's your concern. How many uranium mines are in the UK? > Why not Nuclear? /me gestures at the last 50 years of historical evidence "Why not try nuclear" is like "why not try communism?" for physics nerds. We have tried it.
  - jodrellblank 8mo ago
    Daytime doesn't mean the sun is out; the UK has heavy cloud cover and sunset near 4pm in mid-winter. https://grid.iamkate.com/ https://grid.iamkate.com/ shows the UK is currently getting 10% of grid power from Solar at 3:30pm in March.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      Sure. That's why there's the "interconnectors" section further down; the UK can take advantage of the fact that it's rarely simultaneously dark and zero wind across entire continents.

Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago

Respectfully, Can you tell me more about it because I genuinely don't know how you think Nuclear energy is bad. It's one of the cleanest forms of energy. Is there any particular reason why you think Nuclear is bad in all honesty as its worth having a discussion here? Why do you feel Nuclear Energy is a hazard? I understand if you feel Chernobyl or any event makes it sound dangerous but rather, Please take a look at this data on the number of death rates per unit of electricity production[0] Oil is roughly 615x more deadly than nuclear. Nuclear, Solar and Wind (the renewables) are all less deadly and are 0.03,0.02 and 0.04 respectively and nuclear is a reliable source of energy source which can be used in actual generation. Nuclear is very much a green energy. I'd like to hear your opinion about it. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

garbagewoman 8mo ago
Nuclear plants are great if they actually happen to get built and every person designing and operating them and storing the waste never makes a single mistake
- Imustaskforhelp 8mo ago
  > every person designing and operating them and storing the waste never makes a single mistake Even within Chernobyl Disaster, it was a series of mistakes which led to the full scale disaster IIRC so it isn't as if a single mistake Also Thorium based Nuclear Reactors wouldn't have this issue from what I understand as in the idea of explosions or anything, > Nuclear plants are great if they actually happen to get built I get this part but shouldn't this mean that people should be more vocal about support for Nuclear. We are vocal about support for Solar, might as well be vocal about support for Nuclear and Solar both too?

catlifeonmars 8mo ago

What’s wrong with nuclear energy?

disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
Its really, really, really expensive to build. And people are (mostly irrationally) terrified of it, which matters in democracies.
brohee 8mo ago
Not cost competitive with solar+batteries in many locales (less so the closer to the poles), and no learning curve, if anything a negative learning curve, nuclear never was more expensive than new nuclear. And off course societal (and geopolitical) acceptance issues.
- catlifeonmars 8mo ago
  The cost competitiveness and societal issues make sense (though I suspect some of the cost is being externalized in terms of materials extraction and manufacturing). I don’t understand what you mean by “no learning curve”. Do you mean that the learning curve is particularly steep for plant operators?
  - brohee 8mo ago
    Sorry, the manufacturing learning curve. The most widgets you make, the cheapest they get. The effect was absolutely stunning for batteries and solar panels (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-of-lithium-ion-battery-cells https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/price-of-lithium-ion-batt...). We make too few nuclear power plants for them to have a noticeable learning curve, and recently each subsequent one ends up more expensive than the latest, notably because of safety regulation. Korea and I think China had the best success in that regard (and France in the 80s) by being able to make real series, but you don't really see those now except maybe China. More here: https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve https://ourworldindata.org/learning-curve
- glenstein 8mo ago

jodrellblank 8mo ago

Because coal desposits in the ground have bits of Uranium and Thorium which are radioactive, they get concentrated in coal fly ash, and blow out the chimney in the smoke from a coal power plant, and kill people, they leach into the soil and waterways, and kill people. That is, nuclear power plants only kill people by radioactivity in the case of an accident. Coal power plants do it in normal operation. As well as coal dust having a PM2.5 dust problem which kills people. Make it about nuclear vs coal because people say coal is better than nuclear because it's not scary radiation, and it actually is. > "Both are bad" Nuclear generates more power from a Kg of fuel, with less CO2 pollution and fewer deaths. It's not bad, but even if it was bad it's not "both sides", it's much less bad. [yes coal disasters also kill hundreds of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster ]

garbagewoman 8mo ago

Because nuclear is too good to be true, which makes it the preferred ragebait for many, it seems