It depends on who "we" is. If "we" want to spend several times as much money for our power, and only start getting it 10+ years from now, "we" can go all in on nukes. But that "we" looks an awful lot like "them" to me. My expectation is that if CO2 production has not taken a nosedive by 2030, we are looking at a worldwide collapse after mass migration pushes fascist governments into the driver seat, leading directly…
We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
251–260 of 397 posts
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#252Matt Yglesias makes a great point about differing views of environmentalism in his new book: https://www.aei.org/economics/the-case-for-one-billion-ameri....
> The reason I say “eco-pessimist” rather than “environmentalist” is that to me if you’re an environmentalist, it means you’re somebody who takes environmental problems seriously. You are aware of the literature on the problems of air pollution. You’re not saying the Chinese made up climate change. I’m 100 percent on board with that. I think we need to take that seriously. I think we need to invest money in green electricity and in the electrification of our vehicle fleet. But I think if you are smart about environmental problems, you recognize that to resolve climate change, you either need a cataclysmic fall in living standards — and that’s not going to happen — or you need new technologies and a new technological paradigm.
> Still, it is a fundamental difference in worldview. Some people are very driven by a pastoralist notion that we can conserve our way to solving the problem. A billion Americans is not about that. It is about a bigger, richer, more dynamic society.
I think nuclear is part of this difference in world view. Even if windmills and solar are part of the solution in the short term, that’s not going to be enough in the long term. You need keep increasing the amount of available energy. You’re not going to create a Star Trek society without investing in nuclear.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site. Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration…
Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because " where would we put the waste? " The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010. Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is r…
> Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because "where would we put the waste?"
These need not be the same people! I generally doubt they are.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#254This mistakenly assumes that the Green New Deal is about averting climate change. It’s not: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835... > The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday. > “D…
[deleted]
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#255First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear. Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also…
Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed
It’s really already too late. Even if we the developed world decarbonizes in the next 20 years, India, China, and Africa will not. That means what we really need to be looking at is technology to power carbon capture.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? Nuclear requires certain types of expertise and I'd hope, certain certifications for construction. Also, historically, they've each been multi-year ventures. These are likely different humans and different companies than people doing urban gardening projects and rooftop solar. I honestly don't see the conflict here. I don't know too much about nuclear construction and maintenance but I'd imagine it takes year…
> Ignoring possible futures and going with historical pasts, nuclear plants are what are called "megaprojects" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaproject ) and that's their main Achilles heel for our times. Americans at least, have stopped believing in them. This is a valid point as far as the type of nuclear projects that have been done in the past is concerned. However, nuclear has progressed, and many of the desi…
Sure. I've been hearing that for 20 years and I sincerely, eagerly and in good faith welcome their arrival.
However, until then, we have to go off of the existing historical reality. We can't run the numbers with any kind of integrity based on what is currently vaporware.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Am I crazy, or did the Green New Deal have as an explicit goal the decommissioning of all nuclear plants? EDIT: Ah, apparently that was in the initial released plan, but they changed the language to technically leave the door open for nuclear, without supporting it (and with occasional statements expressing disfavor towards nuclear as a…
A big problem I have with things like "the green new deal" is that they are buzzwords onto which many different policies can be mapped. I think to lots of people it implies no nuclear, and to some others it doesn't. Both are "right" because the buzzword has no implicit meaning.
I'm not sure how that can be true, given that it's a written proposal[0]. Not many have read it, and certainly both opponents and proponents have made up things that are or are not in it, but it's not just a buzzword.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#258First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything. Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear. Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also…
Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed
Yeah I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, but it just takes forever to get reactors online. We just don't have that kind of time. By all means, let's invest in nuclear, but we need to be building acres and acres of solar panels NOW. "We've got some reactors on the way" is not enough.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#259Problem with nuclear deals is that the technology solutions are so centralized they put control in the hands of big government and big corporations. And take control out of the hands of individuals. Which means people are no longer free to decide for themselves where their energy dollars will be spent. Who can afford to put solar panels on their home, when they are footing the bill through taxes for huge projects typ…
That just means we need small nuclear reactors. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-n... Solar and wind are much more demanding regarding space and greenhouse effects related to manufacturing and installation.
Show me a nuclear reactor a middle class family can afford. Solar can be on the roof. Or even be the roof. Hard to get more space efficient than that. The greenhouse gas effects of solar manufacturing are a PR myth pushed by the oil and gas industry.
Re: We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
#260Not too happy about a liquid-sodium fast breeder reactor as a good example.[1]
The General Atomics TRIGA is a good safe research reactor, and inherently stable, but not a power reactor.
China is plugging away with the Hualong One, which is a classic pressurized-water reactor similar to the Westinghouse AP-1000 and a French design. Nothing exotic. Output is around a gigawatt. Fuel loading on the first one started last month. Full power this year, if things go well. The second one is already under construction. More are planned.
China now gets 5% of its power from nuclear, up from half that five years ago.
[1] https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi...