5 ms·

Ditto for nuclear. Had my fair share of discussion with neckbeards on the Internet touting how incredibly clean nuclear energy is. You know, as long as you lea

by skore 14y ago

Ditto for nuclear. Had my fair share of discussion with neckbeards on the Internet touting how incredibly clean nuclear energy is. You know, as long as you leave out the mining (radon emissions being one of the commonly known issues, the chemicals involved in mining not as well known; furthermore, many mines don't get any cleanup after decommission) and the storage of the nuclear waste (which is simply an unsolved problem). But hey, less CO2, right?

melling 14y ago
Well, what is the lesser of all evils? We need lots of energy, and it's only going to get worse as India, China, and the rest of the world come online.
- skore 14y ago
  If you're into that sort of thing, just look through my comment history, it's not that far down. I'm pretty much done with that discussion.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  Just for the sake of urgency, this discussion is already behind the curve. China already consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajross 14y ago
    What's the logic there? That nations other than china shouldn't bother with (or without) new coal technology and energy policy because it is only a "small contribution?". That argument gets pretty much everyone who isn't the USA or China off the hook. Luxembourg and Botswana should just pollute as much as they want? That's just dumb. Energy choices are important everywhere; it just happens that the only forums available for enacting this policy are in nations with diverse sizes. You still need to do it everywhere.
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      Actually no, my point is that we should not be looking at this as some future event. Our coal problems are not on the horizon, they're substantial problems now. I don't care if there's additional room for growth in the coal power plant market in Africa, current coal consumption is more than sufficient to warrant action.
      - pasbesoin 14y ago
        Given all the production that's being sourced from China, we should also view it as our problem and not merely China's, in terms of its cause. How convenient, to dodge the cost of e.g. scrubber technology, by moving production to where it isn't required. Meaning, by the way, for contaminants such as mercury and other heavy metals. IMO, CO2 sequestration is pure folly.
- powertower 14y ago
  Things to come - http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/ http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-polluti...
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    A very striking collection of photos. Was the industrial revolution in America and Britain ever this bad? I've heard stories about people in the 1950s in the US (can't remember where, but I believe it was in Utah) having respiratory problems while walking down a street because of the sulphuric acid fumes coming from a nearby factory, praying for a car to stop and give them a ride so they wouldn't die.
krschultz 14y ago
Storing nuclear waste is a very technically solvable problem. Politically, it is difficult to solve because most people are terrified of it and have "not in my backyard" syndrome. The dangerous radiation is simply not going to be around for 25,000 years. We need to be really really sure that the harmful stuff is safe for 100-200 years. That doesn't seem hard to me considering a couple million people a day are driving over bridges into NYC that are 100+ years old. Steel and concrete last a pretty long time. Water absorbs radiation pretty well. Combine it all with a hole deep into a dry dessert, and you are fine.
- gnosis 14y ago
  "Storing nuclear waste is a very technically solvable problem. Politically, it is difficult to solve because most people are terrified of it and have "not in my backyard" syndrome." There are very good reasons why people don't want nuclear waste in their back yard: 1) lack of trust in the people who build and maintain the containment units, 2) evidence of massive screwups at nuclear facilities that led to the likes of Chernobyl and Fukushima, not to mention smaller screwups, lies, and coverups of shoddy maintenance and safety issues at other nuclear facilities. The technical issues of nuclear waste containment might be solved, but the social issues related to who stores the waste have not. There are no guarantees that the waste will in fact be stored properly, and that the people who store the waste will be competent enough to do so, nor that they will refrain from cutting corners on safety so they can make a quick buck, earn some kickbacks, or score some political points.
- rosser 14y ago
  Water absorbs radiation pretty well. Water absorbs radiation incredibly well. You can swim in a spent-fuel pool, so long as you don't go too deep.
  - eikenberry 14y ago
    http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
- yareally 14y ago
  The fuel could be reused and reduce the amount of of waste. I believe the reason it is not is the threat politicians have been lead to believe that it can also be used to build weapons.
nitrogen 14y ago
Where would you rather store the waste products from power generation? In casks at nuclear plants, or in your lungs?
- skore 14y ago
  Red. Herring.

by skore 14y ago

melling 14y ago

Well, what is the lesser of all evils? We need lots of energy, and it's only going to get worse as India, China, and the rest of the world come online.

skore 14y ago
If you're into that sort of thing, just look through my comment history, it's not that far down. I'm pretty much done with that discussion.
knowtheory 14y ago
Just for the sake of urgency, this discussion is already behind the curve. China already consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 14y ago
  What's the logic there? That nations other than china shouldn't bother with (or without) new coal technology and energy policy because it is only a "small contribution?". That argument gets pretty much everyone who isn't the USA or China off the hook. Luxembourg and Botswana should just pollute as much as they want? That's just dumb. Energy choices are important everywhere; it just happens that the only forums available for enacting this policy are in nations with diverse sizes. You still need to do it everywhere.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    Actually no, my point is that we should not be looking at this as some future event. Our coal problems are not on the horizon, they're substantial problems now. I don't care if there's additional room for growth in the coal power plant market in Africa, current coal consumption is more than sufficient to warrant action.
    - pasbesoin 14y ago
      Given all the production that's being sourced from China, we should also view it as our problem and not merely China's, in terms of its cause. How convenient, to dodge the cost of e.g. scrubber technology, by moving production to where it isn't required. Meaning, by the way, for contaminants such as mercury and other heavy metals. IMO, CO2 sequestration is pure folly.
powertower 14y ago
Things to come - http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/ http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-polluti...
- nitrogen 14y ago
  A very striking collection of photos. Was the industrial revolution in America and Britain ever this bad? I've heard stories about people in the 1950s in the US (can't remember where, but I believe it was in Utah) having respiratory problems while walking down a street because of the sulphuric acid fumes coming from a nearby factory, praying for a car to stop and give them a ride so they wouldn't die.

krschultz 14y ago

Storing nuclear waste is a very technically solvable problem. Politically, it is difficult to solve because most people are terrified of it and have "not in my backyard" syndrome. The dangerous radiation is simply not going to be around for 25,000 years. We need to be really really sure that the harmful stuff is safe for 100-200 years. That doesn't seem hard to me considering a couple million people a day are driving over bridges into NYC that are 100+ years old. Steel and concrete last a pretty long time. Water absorbs radiation pretty well. Combine it all with a hole deep into a dry dessert, and you are fine.

gnosis 14y ago
"Storing nuclear waste is a very technically solvable problem. Politically, it is difficult to solve because most people are terrified of it and have "not in my backyard" syndrome." There are very good reasons why people don't want nuclear waste in their back yard: 1) lack of trust in the people who build and maintain the containment units, 2) evidence of massive screwups at nuclear facilities that led to the likes of Chernobyl and Fukushima, not to mention smaller screwups, lies, and coverups of shoddy maintenance and safety issues at other nuclear facilities. The technical issues of nuclear waste containment might be solved, but the social issues related to who stores the waste have not. There are no guarantees that the waste will in fact be stored properly, and that the people who store the waste will be competent enough to do so, nor that they will refrain from cutting corners on safety so they can make a quick buck, earn some kickbacks, or score some political points.
rosser 14y ago
Water absorbs radiation pretty well. Water absorbs radiation incredibly well. You can swim in a spent-fuel pool, so long as you don't go too deep.
- eikenberry 14y ago
  http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/
yareally 14y ago
The fuel could be reused and reduce the amount of of waste. I believe the reason it is not is the threat politicians have been lead to believe that it can also be used to build weapons.

nitrogen 14y ago

Where would you rather store the waste products from power generation? In casks at nuclear plants, or in your lungs?

skore 14y ago
Red. Herring.