3 ms·

Better a potential bad outcome than directly measurable and ongoing harm, though Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#/media/File:How-many-peopl

by lucb1e 5mo ago

Better a potential bad outcome than directly measurable and ongoing harm, though Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#/media/File:How-many-people-die-from-air-pollution-1-1.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#/media/File:How-... with the different energy mixes at https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/ https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/. I know which european country's energy mix I'd choose if I could just pick one at will (with the caveat that running flat countries on hydro is not going to work, so that's sadly not ubiquitously available) Long term, sure, also France has to transition. Uranium isn't infinite. But an existing reactor? Let's save lives and buy time where we can please :|

teamonkey 5mo ago
It is a really bad idea to half-ass this. A nuclear disaster in Europe would likely kill off any positive sentiment the public has for nuclear power. And that’s ignoring all the physical effects of the disaster.
- lucb1e 5mo ago
  I'm not sure where I proposed to half-ass something?
  - teamonkey 5mo ago
    When the parent said that the reactors may not actually be safe and you said “Better a potential bad outcome than directly measurable and ongoing harm, though“
jacquesm 5mo ago
Almost everybody that trumpets how fantastic France is doing with their nuclear fleet has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity. France was ahead of the game in the 70's, but should have invested a lot more than they did since then. That they installed more than they needed also didn't help, especially not because the energy produced is sold on the open market at a net loss just to keep the reactors operating. And last but not least: they have an ever growing waste problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management_in_Fr... The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing. If they did, they'd be running at an even higher loss. Probably the next generation will be presented the bill for that.
- lucb1e 5mo ago
  > has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: I actually did look into that and am familiar with the page, as well as the waste situation, thank you You've successfully ignored the core point of people are literally dying as we speak from the things we are choosing to continue to do. And not just like five in a mine somewhere, as you would have for solar resources as well, but millions, everywhere, every year It's so weird to read this moral framework where one puts engineering challenges and a risk of brown-outs over so many lives, especially when you include the 150M ~ 1B people that are expected to be uprooted and become climate migrants 25 years from now if we continue like this
  - jacquesm 5mo ago
    Renewables and reduced consumption is the answer, not swapping out one fossil fuel for another, which - incidentally - if you did it at large scale would have massive geopolitical consequences. Your 'people are literally dying' holds zero weight: energy consumption will be what it will be unless we actually do something about that and it is the first - and by far the easiest - thing to address, well before we get to the choice of how to generate the power that we actually need. Our current consumption patterns per individual are simply not sustainable. Apologies for the bad news. Once you've solved that people will still be dying, this time because we waited too long to do something about it. But hopefully fewer people. And switching to nuclear isn't by itself some magic bullet, it will be extremely costly and there will be accidents that will take decades or even centuries to clean up, besides the waste issue. Nuclear proponents are much too prone to seeing it as a silver bullet, which it really is not, it has a whole slew of problems none of which you have even attempted to address. Finland is the only country that actually has the right attitude when it comes to nuclear.
    - Moldoteck 5mo ago
      nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense. reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid. Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans

by lucb1e 5mo ago

teamonkey 5mo ago

It is a really bad idea to half-ass this. A nuclear disaster in Europe would likely kill off any positive sentiment the public has for nuclear power. And that’s ignoring all the physical effects of the disaster.

lucb1e 5mo ago
I'm not sure where I proposed to half-ass something?
- teamonkey 5mo ago
  When the parent said that the reactors may not actually be safe and you said “Better a potential bad outcome than directly measurable and ongoing harm, though“

jacquesm 5mo ago

Almost everybody that trumpets how fantastic France is doing with their nuclear fleet has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity. France was ahead of the game in the 70's, but should have invested a lot more than they did since then. That they installed more than they needed also didn't help, especially not because the energy produced is sold on the open market at a net loss just to keep the reactors operating. And last but not least: they have an ever growing waste problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management_in_Fr... The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing. If they did, they'd be running at an even higher loss. Probably the next generation will be presented the bill for that.

lucb1e 5mo ago
> has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: I actually did look into that and am familiar with the page, as well as the waste situation, thank you You've successfully ignored the core point of people are literally dying as we speak from the things we are choosing to continue to do. And not just like five in a mine somewhere, as you would have for solar resources as well, but millions, everywhere, every year It's so weird to read this moral framework where one puts engineering challenges and a risk of brown-outs over so many lives, especially when you include the 150M ~ 1B people that are expected to be uprooted and become climate migrants 25 years from now if we continue like this
- jacquesm 5mo ago
  Renewables and reduced consumption is the answer, not swapping out one fossil fuel for another, which - incidentally - if you did it at large scale would have massive geopolitical consequences. Your 'people are literally dying' holds zero weight: energy consumption will be what it will be unless we actually do something about that and it is the first - and by far the easiest - thing to address, well before we get to the choice of how to generate the power that we actually need. Our current consumption patterns per individual are simply not sustainable. Apologies for the bad news. Once you've solved that people will still be dying, this time because we waited too long to do something about it. But hopefully fewer people. And switching to nuclear isn't by itself some magic bullet, it will be extremely costly and there will be accidents that will take decades or even centuries to clean up, besides the waste issue. Nuclear proponents are much too prone to seeing it as a silver bullet, which it really is not, it has a whole slew of problems none of which you have even attempted to address. Finland is the only country that actually has the right attitude when it comes to nuclear.
  - Moldoteck 5mo ago
    nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense. reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid. Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans