4 ms·

if you're against nuclear power go read up on the subject until you realize that you're wrong.

eli 17y ago
Ok... I'm still against it. Do I win a prize? I think it generates relatively expensive energy and creates an undue amount of risk for harm to people and the environment. If we're going to build new government-subsidized power plants, I'd prefer solar or wind.
- Devilboy 17y ago
  Solar and wind is nowhere near price-competitive with nuclear plants. Nuclear is the only real alternative to coal-fired plants (which are much worse than nuclear in pretty much every way, including the amount of radioactive waste generated) Solar and wind cannot provide base-load power. Nuclear and coal plants can. Which should we build then if wind / solar is not practical?
  - gaius 17y ago
    including the amount of radioactive waste generated That's the fact that absolutely blows the mind of the anti-nuclear types. And those that doesn't, it reveals that it was never about radioactivity at all; their objection to it is purely political (dig a little deeper and find that they object to all capitalist/industrial economy).
    - brc 17y ago
      Don't forget about the number of people who die each and every year in coal mining - fatalities which stack up year after year, as opposed to one major failure causing fatalities in the entire history of the nuclear industry.
    - eli 17y ago
      Err, no, my objections are not purely political, and yes I do think radioactive waste is a pretty significant issue. Further, I would love for you to explain how it's anti-capitalist to suggest that we shouldn't use government subsidies to build new nuclear plants? (Because that's pretty much all I said in the parent comment, and nuclear plants certainly don't get built without massive subsidies.) I think that if the government is going to help fund new power plants to reduce our carbon output, then we can do better than nuclear. You disagree? Or would you rather argue with your straw man hippie stereotype?
      - Devilboy 17y ago
        That's the point - we CAN'T do better than nuclear. Not in 2009. All the alternatives are either too expensive or not reliable enough.
te_platt 17y ago
I've done a bit of work recently for some small scale alternative energy projects. Various combinations of catalyzed electrolysis, wave energy, natural heat differential, and more. I've learned two main lessons: 1. The second law of thermodynamics is a beast. 2. Nuclear energy is amazingly clean, safe, and reliable compared to the alternatives and slightly more expensive than necessary because of political pressures.
- lutorm 17y ago
  More expensive than necessary? It's my understanding that the nuclear industry has been the recipient of some massive subsidies, not the least of which is the liability cap for a major disaster after which the taxpayers will foot the bill. I'm not dogmatic either way about nuclear. Do I think it's better than burning coal? Yes. Do I think that we should focus resources on developing truly renewable energy sources? Yes. Nuclear energy is not so clean at the uranium mining sites, either.
  - te_platt 17y ago
    Yes, there have been subsidies but there are also huge costs associated with licensing and permitting (not to mention lawsuits of all sorts) to build a nuclear power plant. On the whole the costs are more than the subsidies. Uranium mining sites are not so clean compared to where I live but are clean compared to a coal mine. The real question is whether they are cleaner than the alternatives. My main point isn't that nuclear energy is perfect, just that it is an amazingly good choice to have.
HalcyonMuse 17y ago
What about uranium depletion? Never mind how safe we can make it, or how cost-effective... neither of these things matter if we run out, and I can't find a definite, comprehensive study on how long it could last. Projections range from a decade to seven decades using current technology, or longer than the life of the sun using breeder reactors and seawater-uranium extraction technology. Considering it is essentially nonrenewable (breeder reactors don't create new uranium, per se, just extend the lifespan of the stuff we've got) this is an important question to ask. Does anyone know of a good, comprehensive study on this? My google-fu is weak on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_uranium_depletion_outlook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_u...
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  David Mackay, the Cambridge University physicist, has published a really nice quantitative exposition of the sustainable energy problem. http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ The chapter on renewable energy considers current technology, breeder reactors, and extraction of uranium from saltwater. His basic conclusion is that we have at least hundreds of years of Uranium at near-current consumption levels... which is probably enough time to develop fusion.

eli 17y ago

Ok... I'm still against it. Do I win a prize? I think it generates relatively expensive energy and creates an undue amount of risk for harm to people and the environment. If we're going to build new government-subsidized power plants, I'd prefer solar or wind.

Devilboy 17y ago
Solar and wind is nowhere near price-competitive with nuclear plants. Nuclear is the only real alternative to coal-fired plants (which are much worse than nuclear in pretty much every way, including the amount of radioactive waste generated) Solar and wind cannot provide base-load power. Nuclear and coal plants can. Which should we build then if wind / solar is not practical?
- gaius 17y ago
  including the amount of radioactive waste generated That's the fact that absolutely blows the mind of the anti-nuclear types. And those that doesn't, it reveals that it was never about radioactivity at all; their objection to it is purely political (dig a little deeper and find that they object to all capitalist/industrial economy).
  - brc 17y ago
    Don't forget about the number of people who die each and every year in coal mining - fatalities which stack up year after year, as opposed to one major failure causing fatalities in the entire history of the nuclear industry.
  - eli 17y ago
    Err, no, my objections are not purely political, and yes I do think radioactive waste is a pretty significant issue. Further, I would love for you to explain how it's anti-capitalist to suggest that we shouldn't use government subsidies to build new nuclear plants? (Because that's pretty much all I said in the parent comment, and nuclear plants certainly don't get built without massive subsidies.) I think that if the government is going to help fund new power plants to reduce our carbon output, then we can do better than nuclear. You disagree? Or would you rather argue with your straw man hippie stereotype?
    - Devilboy 17y ago
      That's the point - we CAN'T do better than nuclear. Not in 2009. All the alternatives are either too expensive or not reliable enough.

te_platt 17y ago

I've done a bit of work recently for some small scale alternative energy projects. Various combinations of catalyzed electrolysis, wave energy, natural heat differential, and more. I've learned two main lessons: 1. The second law of thermodynamics is a beast. 2. Nuclear energy is amazingly clean, safe, and reliable compared to the alternatives and slightly more expensive than necessary because of political pressures.

lutorm 17y ago
More expensive than necessary? It's my understanding that the nuclear industry has been the recipient of some massive subsidies, not the least of which is the liability cap for a major disaster after which the taxpayers will foot the bill. I'm not dogmatic either way about nuclear. Do I think it's better than burning coal? Yes. Do I think that we should focus resources on developing truly renewable energy sources? Yes. Nuclear energy is not so clean at the uranium mining sites, either.
- te_platt 17y ago
  Yes, there have been subsidies but there are also huge costs associated with licensing and permitting (not to mention lawsuits of all sorts) to build a nuclear power plant. On the whole the costs are more than the subsidies. Uranium mining sites are not so clean compared to where I live but are clean compared to a coal mine. The real question is whether they are cleaner than the alternatives. My main point isn't that nuclear energy is perfect, just that it is an amazingly good choice to have.

HalcyonMuse 17y ago

What about uranium depletion? Never mind how safe we can make it, or how cost-effective... neither of these things matter if we run out, and I can't find a definite, comprehensive study on how long it could last. Projections range from a decade to seven decades using current technology, or longer than the life of the sun using breeder reactors and seawater-uranium extraction technology. Considering it is essentially nonrenewable (breeder reactors don't create new uranium, per se, just extend the lifespan of the stuff we've got) this is an important question to ask. Does anyone know of a good, comprehensive study on this? My google-fu is weak on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_uranium_depletion_outlook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion#Pessimistic_u...

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
David Mackay, the Cambridge University physicist, has published a really nice quantitative exposition of the sustainable energy problem. http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ The chapter on renewable energy considers current technology, breeder reactors, and extraction of uranium from saltwater. His basic conclusion is that we have at least hundreds of years of Uranium at near-current consumption levels... which is probably enough time to develop fusion.