4 ms·

Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with that. Th

Nobody dead or sick, yet tens of billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet -- with all the environmental costs associated with that. The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production.

qb45 13y ago
Billions spent decomissioning, billions spent building, billions spent operating and billions saved on coal mining and transportation. Probably people and companies who decided to invest billions in nuclear plants did some cost-benefit analysis.
- trusche 13y ago
  "Decommissioning is a general term for a formal process to remove something from active status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning
workbench 13y ago
You've never been to a coal power plant have you? Go to one and watch the endless trains of coal arriving constantly to power the thing, then come back and rethink what you just posted.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- anon1385 13y ago
  I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying. My interpretation was that he was bemoaning the political backlash that lead to shutting down nuclear power in various countries, with the related financial cost and environmental cost due to the increase in coal and gas power generation that was required to make up the gap. All because of an incident that hasn't killed anybody.
- skrause 13y ago
  And your point is? His post was pro-nuclear and suddenly you're arguing against coal?
antr 13y ago
I'm all for renewable energy. In fact, I own/operate a 200kWp solar plant. I put my money where my mouth is. Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal powered plants, etc. produce CO2 and other GHG. As much as I wish the world run entirely on wind, water and sunlight, we are very far from this happening. Nonetheless I think it will be possible. The main issue with renewable energy right now is its production volatility: the wind blowing, the sun shinning, dams to 100% capacity, etc. The need for a stable, non-CO2 emitting, energy production is nuclear. No doubt doubt about it. When you negatively say > billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet implying that the cost of decommissioning is a big downside, let me clarify a few things: 1. decommissioning (from cleaning to storage) costs are priced in the energy cost, still making it far cheaper than oil and gas sources even without CCS technologies. 2. the cost of decommissioning is provisioned by the company running the plant, meaning that decommissioning is no extraordinary cost to the operator/consumer/citizen. 3. today's nuclear technology is nowhere as archaic as it was in the 70's/80's, when many errors were made trying out different technologies. Many people make the mistake of brining up the case of Chernobyl, but people are unaware that this plant was an R&D plant, built for the production of nuclear weapons, and not built for energy production. 4. the environmental impact of running nuclear plants today is extremely small (if not insignificant) compared to running the same energy capacity and production on fossil fuels, where CO2 and other harmful gasses are causing increase in temperatures, melting of icecaps, decimating thousands of species, and the list goes on. I do agree that with you on >The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production. There is plenty of educating still to be done on energy, its consumption and user behaviour, and I hope the anti-nuclear sentiment focuses more on the bigger picture, rather than blaming nuclear for the sake of sounding environmentally friendly.
- lkozma 13y ago
  Are you sure you are arguing with the parent post? I think he's expressing a pro-nuclear sentiment similar to yours.

qb45 13y ago

Billions spent decomissioning, billions spent building, billions spent operating and billions saved on coal mining and transportation. Probably people and companies who decided to invest billions in nuclear plants did some cost-benefit analysis.

trusche 13y ago
"Decommissioning is a general term for a formal process to remove something from active status." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommissioning

workbench 13y ago

You've never been to a coal power plant have you? Go to one and watch the endless trains of coal arriving constantly to power the thing, then come back and rethink what you just posted.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
anon1385 13y ago
I don't think he was saying what you think he was saying. My interpretation was that he was bemoaning the political backlash that lead to shutting down nuclear power in various countries, with the related financial cost and environmental cost due to the increase in coal and gas power generation that was required to make up the gap. All because of an incident that hasn't killed anybody.
skrause 13y ago
And your point is? His post was pro-nuclear and suddenly you're arguing against coal?

antr 13y ago

I'm all for renewable energy. In fact, I own/operate a 200kWp solar plant. I put my money where my mouth is. Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal powered plants, etc. produce CO2 and other GHG. As much as I wish the world run entirely on wind, water and sunlight, we are very far from this happening. Nonetheless I think it will be possible. The main issue with renewable energy right now is its production volatility: the wind blowing, the sun shinning, dams to 100% capacity, etc. The need for a stable, non-CO2 emitting, energy production is nuclear. No doubt doubt about it. When you negatively say > billions spent decommissioning nuclear reactors around the planet implying that the cost of decommissioning is a big downside, let me clarify a few things: 1. decommissioning (from cleaning to storage) costs are priced in the energy cost, still making it far cheaper than oil and gas sources even without CCS technologies. 2. the cost of decommissioning is provisioned by the company running the plant, meaning that decommissioning is no extraordinary cost to the operator/consumer/citizen. 3. today's nuclear technology is nowhere as archaic as it was in the 70's/80's, when many errors were made trying out different technologies. Many people make the mistake of brining up the case of Chernobyl, but people are unaware that this plant was an R&D plant, built for the production of nuclear weapons, and not built for energy production. 4. the environmental impact of running nuclear plants today is extremely small (if not insignificant) compared to running the same energy capacity and production on fossil fuels, where CO2 and other harmful gasses are causing increase in temperatures, melting of icecaps, decimating thousands of species, and the list goes on. I do agree that with you on >The reason the world continues to pollute more than necessary for the energy we desire has much more to do with the irrationality of people than the physics of energy production. There is plenty of educating still to be done on energy, its consumption and user behaviour, and I hope the anti-nuclear sentiment focuses more on the bigger picture, rather than blaming nuclear for the sake of sounding environmentally friendly.

lkozma 13y ago
Are you sure you are arguing with the parent post? I think he's expressing a pro-nuclear sentiment similar to yours.