Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

The only Climate that needs changing is in an educational system awash with crackpot socialist hogwash

awaken said:

Click to expand...

I don't know where that number came from, but two things - first, I would caution against listening to Scott Adams about anything, and second, the nuclear question is actually a very interesting one that pits two major environmental concerns against each other. I would also caution against relying on any unproven technology, be it nuclear for the waste danger, or mechanical sequestration for not at all being ready to use, let alone understanding its potential dangers.

Yes, nuclear power is essentially zero GHGs. But we know all too well how dangerous it can be when something small goes wrong either while the plant is in operation or when we try to figure out what to do with waste fuel. It also isn't really cost-effective right now compared to renewables because the up-front capital needs are absolutely bonkers. The power is almost free to produce from a purely KwH perspective but you spend the entirety of the plant's life paying off the construction, insurance, operations, etc.

My view is that if you can have near absolute certainty that nuclear power can be produced cost-effectively and safely, then go for it. But until then, it's a tough risk to take and we probably wouldn't be able to scale it up fast enough to tackle climate change anyway.

Hey also how about the sap who was confidently making no sense to John Kerry yesterday?

I think this op ed will address your concerns
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/...lear-power.html#click=https://t.co/6ZmCkXgcBh

awaken said:

I think this op ed will address your concerns
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/...lear-power.html#click=https://t.co/6ZmCkXgcBh

Click to expand...

Not really, it points out that yes, nuclear power is wildly expensive. France and Germany had very little public consultation when they built their fleets, and the permitting was streamlined, and I believe there were also insurance subsidies but I could be wrong about that, it's been awhile since I researched it.

I also don't think the fear is as irrational as they make it out to be. Take this sentence:

"The reality is that nuclear power is the safest form of energy humanity has ever used. Mining accidents, hydroelectric dam failures, natural gas explosions and oil train crashes all kill people, sometimes in large numbers, and smoke from coal-burning kills them in enormous numbers, more than half a million per year."

We haven't gotten full data on Fukishima yet regarding cancer rates, and the Soviet numbers from Chernobyl are spotty at best, as is most data from the USSR. And...I don't think anyone who isn't on fossil fuel companies' payrolls would argue that they are terrible for public health.

"Nuclear waste is compact — America’s total from 60 years would fit in a Walmart — and is safely stored in concrete casks and pools, becoming less radioactive over time. After we have solved the more pressing challenge of climate change, we can either burn the waste as fuel in new types of reactors or bury it deep underground. It’s a far easier environmental challenge than the world’s enormous coal waste, routinely dumped near poor communities and often laden with toxic arsenic, mercury and lead that can last forever."

Look, I'm no expert on this but a few things jump out as misleading here. First, the size of the waste is not really important. It turns out nuclear waste packs a pretty good punch regardless of the size. Second, those concrete casks and pools leak all the time - they are not all that "safely stored" and while they do become less radioactive over time, we're talking about multiple billions of years half-life here. I'm not aware of any safe method to just burn spent waste or safely bury it underground.

This is a fun debate to have for sure, though. I appreciate you bringing a real and solutions-oriented conversation to this thread.

My understanding of the Gen IV nuclear reactors is they cannot melt down, mitigating concerns about repeating Fukishima and Chernobyl. They also use the waste of old nuclear production as fuel, mitigating some, if not all, waste storage issues. I haven't heard how much waste they produce themselves. I think we are on the cusp of something new and the old talking point won't apply. See article in post 2741: bipartisan support in this political environment. Bill Gates willing to donate $1B towards this. I'm interested in your thoughts on that article.

awaken said:

My understanding of the Gen IV nuclear reactors is they cannot melt down, mitigating concerns about repeating Fukishima and Chernobyl. They also use the waste of old nuclear production as fuel, mitigating some, if not all, waste storage issues. I haven't heard how much waste they produce themselves. I think we are on the cusp of something new and the old talking point won't apply. See article in post 2741: bipartisan support in this political environment. Bill Gates willing to donate $1B towards this. I'm interested in your thoughts on that article.

Click to expand...

I'll dig deeper into the article, but Gen IV aren't ready for operation yet. They have some experimental reactors up but that's all. In the meantime, why wouldn't we massively invest in renewables and storage? For mitigating climate change, we don't have time for more R&D, we need to implement what we have right now. I certainly hope the promises of Gen IV are correct, but if they're wrong, it's a big, big price to pay.

an article on progress and limitations of green renewable energy. silent on nukes. long article though.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

Nobel winner in physics thinks he can make nuclear waste not radioactive in minutes instead of years. not a tomorrow solution, but promising.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-nuclear-waste-storage-france/

Canada building Gen IV nuclear reactors
http://www.cnl.ca/en/home/facilities-and-expertise/smr/progressupdate.aspx

NY Post on green nukes bandwagon. Talks about why renewable energy alone can't save us

https://nypost.com/2019/04/13/one-w...mpaign=site buttons&__twitter_impression=true

There is, will be competition for government subsidies.

tiltdeac said:

Building new solar, wind, and storage is about to be cheaper than operating existing coal and gas power plants. That will change everything.

Click to expand...

Did you know: Some people will figuratively cut of their own noses to spite their faces.

birdman said:

Click to expand...