4 ms·

Being against nuclear only kept the world on coal longer.

by msla 5mo ago

senectus1 5mo ago
only if renewable resources are not considered an option.
- lionkor 5mo ago
  It's a fact that Germany turned off nuclear and subsequently extended the lifetime of brown coal power plants (they still run). Germany has plenty of renewable energy, but that is not a replacement for a steady base supply of power yet.
rectang 5mo ago
And perhaps meaningfully contributed to a reduction in the quantity of radioactive waste products requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.
- mgfist 5mo ago
  Coal power produces more radiation waste into the environment than nuclear power. That's because nuclear power has this amazing quality where all the waste is neatly packaged whereas burning coal just releases it into the air. > requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly. This is fearmongering. Casing waste in big concrete casks is enough. It's so incredibly overblown that we're willing to burn coal and kill people over it.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rectang 5mo ago
    I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades. Will it actually get encased successfully, will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move, will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot… The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. Tragedies of the commons are the rule and eventually all of that waste will be go through periods of mishandling at one time or another.
    - mgfist 5mo ago
      > I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades. Nuclear power plants have been extremely safe for many decades! Fuck, even the worst disasters related to nuclear power plants have killed less people than coal or oil disasters, even including Chernobyl which was a fuck up beyond comparison. > Will it actually get encased successfully Yes, this is literally done and has been done for many decades. > will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move What does that mean? You can live 1 feet away from a cask and receive less radiation than you do from the sun. > will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot… This is a bad argument because all of society relies on our grandchildren upholding present commitments. What happens if our grandchildren stop upholding the electricity grid? They die. What happens if they stop large scale agriculture? They die. And on and on and on. > The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. It's quite literally something society has been doing very successfully for 50+ years.
      - mejutoco 5mo ago
        You argue it is safe. When it is not (Chernobyl, Fukushima) then you argue it kills less people. That is before considering the possibility of these sites being attacked during war (see Zaporizhia in Ukraine) and how centralized they are vs solar. Rectang explained it very well, and all their points stand imo.
        mgfist 5mo ago
        60 deaths attributed to Chernobyl. 1 death attributed to Fukushima. 0 deaths attributed to Three Mile Island. Meanwhile, deaths in the fossil fuel industry total hundreds to thousands every year. Now before you say "but wait, I've seen estimates of thousands of deaths linked to Chernobyl" - then we must also include all the deaths caused from fossil fuel carbon emissions and radiation emissions, which total in the hundreds of thousands every year. > You argue it is safe I do! The fact that a nuclear plant was struck by a tsunami and yet just 1 person died from the radiation fallout is pretty damn amazing. That's about as bad as it gets and yet the result was the same as an oil well accident.
- acidburnNSA 5mo ago
  I always find this sentiment curious for 2 reasons: 1. Radioactive waste gets less toxic over time unlike many toxins like mercury, lead, and cyanide. People seem to emphasize the duration of toxicity for radiation while apparently giving 'forever toxins' a total pass. 2. Short-lived radiation is what's really dangerous. When atoms are decaying fast, they're shooting out energy that can cause real damage fast. Longer-lived radioactive stuff with billion-year half-lives like natural uranium can be held in a gloved hand, no problem. In the extreme, and infinite half life means something is stable and totally safe (radiologically at least). Yet people still want to emphasize that radioactive byproducts of nuclear power have long half lives. I don't really get it.
  - cma 5mo ago
    There were also big proliferation concerns out of 70s era designs.
  - rectang 5mo ago
    I don't trust the coal industry to manage forever chemicals over the long term, and I don't trust the nuclear industry to manage spent nuclear fuel over the long term. The question that matters for both industries is what bad things happen when their stewardship inevitably lapses and the happy path dead-ends. I don't like either answer, so that heightens the urgency of pursuing alternatives with fewer long-lived hazardous byproducts. Neither coal nor nuclear is an acceptable long term solution.
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      It's not just coal and nuclear. We have intentionally set up our society so that the people that own and run corporations are not responsible for the long term damage they cause. They extract the profits, and when the bill comes due for what they have done to the rest of us, limited liability and bankruptcy protects them from what they have done. We did this so that people can buy stock on the market without having to take any responsibility for what they are doing. It's certainly a great funding mechanism, though.
- soperj 5mo ago
  Coal also produces radioactive byproducts. They just release them into the air.
  - rectang 5mo ago
    Brazil nuts and bananas are radioactive too, compared to other foods — but do not pose risks compared to coal ash. Similarly, while coal ash is nasty stuff that kills lots of people, it lacks many of the qualities that make spent nuclear fuel especially difficult to manage even in small amounts. For example, a “dirty bomb” made by packing coal ash around conventional explosives would be far less effective than one made from spent nuclear fuel.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

Being against nuclear only kept the world on coal longer.

by msla 5mo ago

Being against nuclear only kept the world on coal longer.

senectus1 5mo ago

only if renewable resources are not considered an option.

lionkor 5mo ago
It's a fact that Germany turned off nuclear and subsequently extended the lifetime of brown coal power plants (they still run). Germany has plenty of renewable energy, but that is not a replacement for a steady base supply of power yet.

rectang 5mo ago

And perhaps meaningfully contributed to a reduction in the quantity of radioactive waste products requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly.

mgfist 5mo ago
Coal power produces more radiation waste into the environment than nuclear power. That's because nuclear power has this amazing quality where all the waste is neatly packaged whereas burning coal just releases it into the air. > requiring custodianship on a timescale that humans can barely conceive of let alone commit to or execute responsibly. This is fearmongering. Casing waste in big concrete casks is enough. It's so incredibly overblown that we're willing to burn coal and kill people over it.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- rectang 5mo ago
  I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades. Will it actually get encased successfully, will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move, will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot… The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. Tragedies of the commons are the rule and eventually all of that waste will be go through periods of mishandling at one time or another.
  - mgfist 5mo ago
    > I distrust techno-optimist promises to manage ever-growing collections of spent nuclear fuel over millennia. We can hardly trust plant operators to manage it safely over decades. Nuclear power plants have been extremely safe for many decades! Fuck, even the worst disasters related to nuclear power plants have killed less people than coal or oil disasters, even including Chernobyl which was a fuck up beyond comparison. > Will it actually get encased successfully Yes, this is literally done and has been done for many decades. > will it be stored onsite in environmentally sensitive areas because it’s too much trouble to move What does that mean? You can live 1 feet away from a cask and receive less radiation than you do from the sun. > will your children’s children uphold the commitments you foisted on them through the political and economic turbulence in their lifetimes, and if not what happens comparatively when those coal ash heaps and nuclear fuel dumps are left to rot… This is a bad argument because all of society relies on our grandchildren upholding present commitments. What happens if our grandchildren stop upholding the electricity grid? They die. What happens if they stop large scale agriculture? They die. And on and on and on. > The externalities of concentrated radioactive material are not something that our socio-economic institutions are capable of handling at scale. It's quite literally something society has been doing very successfully for 50+ years.
    - mejutoco 5mo ago
      You argue it is safe. When it is not (Chernobyl, Fukushima) then you argue it kills less people. That is before considering the possibility of these sites being attacked during war (see Zaporizhia in Ukraine) and how centralized they are vs solar. Rectang explained it very well, and all their points stand imo.
      - mgfist 5mo ago
        60 deaths attributed to Chernobyl. 1 death attributed to Fukushima. 0 deaths attributed to Three Mile Island. Meanwhile, deaths in the fossil fuel industry total hundreds to thousands every year. Now before you say "but wait, I've seen estimates of thousands of deaths linked to Chernobyl" - then we must also include all the deaths caused from fossil fuel carbon emissions and radiation emissions, which total in the hundreds of thousands every year. > You argue it is safe I do! The fact that a nuclear plant was struck by a tsunami and yet just 1 person died from the radiation fallout is pretty damn amazing. That's about as bad as it gets and yet the result was the same as an oil well accident.
acidburnNSA 5mo ago
I always find this sentiment curious for 2 reasons: 1. Radioactive waste gets less toxic over time unlike many toxins like mercury, lead, and cyanide. People seem to emphasize the duration of toxicity for radiation while apparently giving 'forever toxins' a total pass. 2. Short-lived radiation is what's really dangerous. When atoms are decaying fast, they're shooting out energy that can cause real damage fast. Longer-lived radioactive stuff with billion-year half-lives like natural uranium can be held in a gloved hand, no problem. In the extreme, and infinite half life means something is stable and totally safe (radiologically at least). Yet people still want to emphasize that radioactive byproducts of nuclear power have long half lives. I don't really get it.
- cma 5mo ago
  There were also big proliferation concerns out of 70s era designs.
- rectang 5mo ago
  I don't trust the coal industry to manage forever chemicals over the long term, and I don't trust the nuclear industry to manage spent nuclear fuel over the long term. The question that matters for both industries is what bad things happen when their stewardship inevitably lapses and the happy path dead-ends. I don't like either answer, so that heightens the urgency of pursuing alternatives with fewer long-lived hazardous byproducts. Neither coal nor nuclear is an acceptable long term solution.
  - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
    It's not just coal and nuclear. We have intentionally set up our society so that the people that own and run corporations are not responsible for the long term damage they cause. They extract the profits, and when the bill comes due for what they have done to the rest of us, limited liability and bankruptcy protects them from what they have done. We did this so that people can buy stock on the market without having to take any responsibility for what they are doing. It's certainly a great funding mechanism, though.
soperj 5mo ago
Coal also produces radioactive byproducts. They just release them into the air.
- rectang 5mo ago
  Brazil nuts and bananas are radioactive too, compared to other foods — but do not pose risks compared to coal ash. Similarly, while coal ash is nasty stuff that kills lots of people, it lacks many of the qualities that make spent nuclear fuel especially difficult to manage even in small amounts. For example, a “dirty bomb” made by packing coal ash around conventional explosives would be far less effective than one made from spent nuclear fuel.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]