41–50 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.. assuming the nuclear plant got built on time and on budget.
Exactly, considering the nuclear power plants where a vague promise from 2007 to have a nuclear power plant at all. A promise that has now been revoked. Now let's see if solar can meet it's promises.
I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.
People blame environmentalists, but nuclear fans acting like nuclear is the one and only silver bullet while ignoring much more important components hasn't helped the fight against climate change.
i'm sad to see a decline of nuclear energy everywhere in the world. While renewables are the end goal, nuclear was gonna be the perfect transition source for the next decades, providing emission-free and continuous energy to the grid. I have the bad feeling that cancelling a nuclear power plant, means building coal/gas plants in its place. This article actually mention the renewaleble goal of Vietnam which are really…
Fukushima was the worst possible timing; it's a very hard sell now.
In a funny way, we're lucky it was a rather minor fallout in a 'good country' wherein we can take measurements, do experiments etc..
Fukishima should help us make more rational decisions if we can get over the populism.
i'm sad to see a decline of nuclear energy everywhere in the world. While renewables are the end goal, nuclear was gonna be the perfect transition source for the next decades, providing emission-free and continuous energy to the grid. I have the bad feeling that cancelling a nuclear power plant, means building coal/gas plants in its place. This article actually mention the renewaleble goal of Vietnam which are really…
The incremental roll-out possible with solar, and the simpler project management, give it a huge advantage. The coal roll-out is alarming but as soon as it was pointed out that Vietnam has large coal reserves it was unsurprising. This is where the richer nations need to step up and find a way to pay to leave resources in the ground rather than extracting them. It's the cheapest form of "carbon capture".
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-is-set-to-roll-back-restric...
I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.
Estimation of the likelihood and error bars on different classes of potential nuclear disasters, involves confounding complexity and argument. The worst conceivable nuclear disaster types have thankfully not been realized to date. The problem with the "death rate" measure is it simply assumes they never will be realized. A most flattering assumption that is widely taken as granted along side genuine hope and enthusiasm for a nuclear solution.
I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.
I've noticed a lot of nuclear advocates talking about climate change but having a poor grasp of the actual issues involved. The aim isn't the unrealistic goal of going to zero emissions, it's to cut emissions such that carbon ppm stays below 450 (or 350, if we had acted sooner). If you look at serious comprehensive plans to fight climate change, nuclear doesn't play a big role for a variety of reasons (time to build,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fukushima was the worst possible timing; it's a very hard sell now.
True, but in the long run, it might have been a healthy warning signal. Negative populism aside, we need to know that 'corner cases happen' and that there are consequences. In a funny way, we're lucky it was a rather minor fallout in a 'good country' wherein we can take measurements, do experiments etc.. Fukishima should help us make more rational decisions if we can get over the populism.
Fukushima isn't a signal. It's one of the thing that might happens when signals are ignored.
I think the greatest irony of our age is the progression of climate change due to environmentalists protesting against the development of nuclear power. While nuclear power admittedly has risks, the tradeoffs are clearly worth making if you look at emissions and deaths per megawatt hour. We didn't curtail energy demand, and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear.
> and future generations will pay the price for using fossil fuels instead of nuclear IMO this is pretty short-sighted and ironic in itself - I really don't think future generations will be thankful that we left them huge chunks of radioactive waste. All the pro-nuclear folks seem to miss another important thing - uranium isn't growing on trees, the mining is probably as destructive as coal mining, and the worldwide…
As for wastes, all the truly nasty stuff will be naturally decayed in a hundred years or so. And we have real solutions that we don't use for political reasons.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...