I have seen 0 proof that mankind can handle the resposability that comes with this type of extreme risk but at low probability technologies. If anything. It is getting worse in that regard.
After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
361–370 of 489 posts
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#362For the uninitiated, nuclear power is actually much, much safer than it was in the previous century, and fossil fuel power plants have killed exponentially more people through pollution than all nuclear power accidents combined – it's just not something that happens all at once so it doesn't seem like a big deal to most people. We will not be able to "defeat" climate change and keep this planet inhabitable for future…
Partly I think nuclear triggers a cognitive bias where humans will tolerate ongoing low-level shittiness, but really struggle with large catastrophes, even if the catastrophe is far less damaging than the ongoing low-level damage. However, I think the resistance is also because the nature of the catastrophe is different. Have coal or gas plants ever created a Chernobyl-style exclusion zone? I know that mining/drillin…
Sure. Centralia PA is now uninhabitable because of coal mining and on a smaller scale you’ve got things like the TVA fly ash spill that caused widespread environmental damage.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
The roof-falling problem is by far the more palatable one for me. The people directly working in the industry are suffering the casualties. There are no completely unrelated deaths or injuries. And it’s fundamentally easier to make solar roofing safer than it is to make nuclear reactions safer.
> And it’s fundamentally easier to make solar roofing safer than it is to make nuclear reactions safer. I do not agree with this statement. Although I'm still thinking on how to prove this one way or another. The closest analogy I can think of is between driving vs flying. It's easy to intuit that driving is fundamentally easier to be made safer than making flying safer. This is empirically not true.
Every rooftop is somewhat different. You can't just make all roofs safe.
While with nuclear reactors, you can design them to be as safe as needed. (Altough, I do think they are overregulated in certain areas.)
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s already a disinvestment in fossil fuel going on. You have to compare nuclear with renewables.
Why then did we shut down nuclear plants and build coal plants?
Because it feels good is my guess. Over here in europe, Germany basically did the same thing. They now have higher cost AND pollution per kwh than france, who has MUCH more nuclear.
Oh and germany often has to sell the energy for very cheap when the renewables are having a peak, and buy pretty expensively when they are having a drought.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m continuously baffled by those that claim that nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power is relatively safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Rooftop solar actually has a surprisingly high fatality rate from installers falling off of roofs ! Fossil fuels release horrible byproducts into the atmosphere, hydro sometimes causes floods...everything has drawbacks. > Analysis of nuclear power should take into account Black Swan event…
The roof-falling problem is by far the more palatable one for me. The people directly working in the industry are suffering the casualties. There are no completely unrelated deaths or injuries. And it’s fundamentally easier to make solar roofing safer than it is to make nuclear reactions safer.
You should expect just the opposite. It’s totally plausible could make nuclear reactions fail safe if you do it right, and I think they’ve figured that out (supposedly). But there’s no way you can force thousands of different people to get up on a roof safely.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#366Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero. Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment. Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight…
Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert like area 51 type of setup so if there is a meltdown it can be contained. Could we safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort of long-distance hookup to our grids? Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onofre by San Diego failed?
> Why can't we create a nuclear power plant in the middle of the desert
In principle we can. Dry cooling is more expensive and less efficient than using water, but technically doable.
But the plant requires personnel. Said personnel has kids, spouses etc. You end up with a small town to run the plant. And that town requires fresh water which might be hard to come by in the middle of the desert.
> Could we safely store the energy somehow and transport it or make some sort of long-distance hookup to our grids?
We could store the energy in nuclear fuel, at the amazing energy density of 80 TJ/kg. Hard to beat that, except with fusion or antimatter. :)
Anyway, long distance electricity transmission is technically doable; HVDC losses are > Also anyone know why the nuclear site in San Onofre by San Diego failed?
They detected premature wear on new steam generators. In the face of stiff opposition by local state politicians, rather than fixing it they decided to decommission the entire plant.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t have to be anti-science to be against building new nuclear power plants. And it’s a bit ridiculous to speak about human progress when talking about GMO in agriculture, when all it’s used for is plants creating their own insecticides and herbicide tolerance for furthering unsustainable monoculture farming.
I thought having enough healthy food with as small of environmental impact as possible is good for human progress /s
You mean reducing meat consumption? Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories. It would even have a big positive environmental impact.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#368Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero. Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment. Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight…
> Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs.
That's not true. It costs fuel to mine the resourses needed, to build the equipments, to install them, to maintain them. The IPCC states that globally, nuclear power emits _less_ greenhouse gases than hydro and solar, and emits about the same as wind. [1]
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5... Table A.III.2, page 1335
For more info, please see this eye opening TedX talk on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#369292 comments and no one talks about the Democratic candidate that was most vocal about nuclear, specifically thorium? "Yang is absolutely right to make these points, and he has gotten some well-deserved attention. But it’s surprising that he hasn’t gotten more, given how much we’re hearing about the crisis nature of climate change. Because if you take climate change seriously, you have to take nuclear power seriously…
It’s not about climate change, it’s about controlling behavior via energy prices. The non-nuclear climate change advocates don’t care about “carbon,” they care about wealth redistribution. That’s why I oppose most “climate” policy. Because it isn’t about climate. Carbon and wealth redistribution should be separate issues, but activists have made them the same and since I oppose wealth redistribution via government ec…
That’s the next next next level of climate change denial. After denying it’s happening, after denying it’s human-made, after denying it’s solvable, we deny it’s solvable without ideological tarnishments.
Re: After 48 years, Democrats endorse nuclear energy in platform
#370Renewable energy sources have zero fuel costs. Their potential for life-threatening disasters - on the scale of Fukushima, Chernobyl, coal ash floods, etc. - is zero. Just as with coal mines, uranium mines and oilfields, there's a large upfront cost ... but a much lower cost to the environment. Furthermore, anyone can create solar-powered electricity, anywhere. There will be no wars over access to sunlight. Sunlight…
Do you take into account storage? Having zero electricity at night or on cloudy days is not an option. So it’s either batteries or nuclear. On the scale of powering a city, what make more sense?
Wind and water are other sources as well, though maybe not quite as efficient.