Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
1–10 of 249 posts
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#2No other fuel has the energy density of nuclear, no other source has the capability to run 24/7/365.
Renewables are based on the hope that one day we will either had transcontinental grids, which no one has managed to build, or get batteries with energy storage seen only in Star Trek.
Nuclear on the other hand has been here for 50 years and could have already solved our CO2 problems. But because it's unfashinable to be pro-science in liberal cities no one has the guts to stand up and say "You're not only wrong but delusional" to the hippies who have as much understanding of energy as flat earthers do of geography.
It's ridiculous that the people who say they want to save the earth are the reason why we've locked in a 6th mass extinction already.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#3The article's actual title does not senselessly elide the word "power." Also, it's from 2018.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#4The best argument: more people died in Bhopal. As if going nuclear will make that stop. Please, the only argument to make to such a question is "because we can't reduce CO2 emissions without, and that's because ...".
But what do you expect from an article that tries to tarnish opponents of nuclear energy by comparing them to "Elizabethan preachers [who] railed against [coal], a fuel they believed to be, literally, the Devil’s excrement."
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#5What do you do in 30 years when another incident like the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster happens?
Batteries will be the long term solution to energy baseload needs, not nuclear.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#6> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide
It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies.
This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had dramatic effects on millions of people. Contamination from Chernobyl to this day is a problem in Germany for instance.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#7> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…
We're comparing two neighbourhoods. One has less deaths and less robberies. It is the one with nuclear power.
Chernobyl has done less damage and had less impact on those millions of people than the totally routine burning of coal. I grew up in a coal mining region; I fully expect more people suffer negative health outcomes when coal works as expected than in a Class 7 nuclear catastrophe. We just don't count the health impacts properly because it is too hard to prove cause and effect.
The overwhelming safety of the nuclear process makes the failures look bad, because we aren't used to nuclear plants producing detectable levels of ambient pollution.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#8> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…
> It’s not a market decision, but a government decision
Yes, the government must include CO2 tax into the price making nuclear much more viable.
> That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die.
So you prefer to kill the whole neighborhood and claim that it’s safe, because there are no robbers anymore.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#9I can't recommend you spend your time reading this nebulous essay, which doesn't in any way address the time and cost blowouts for the latest generation of reactors, instead choosing to blame woke liberals. Tiresome.
Re: Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
#10> Whether or not nuclear power costs too much will ultimately be a matter for markets to decide It’s not a market decision, but a government decision, as nuclear power has always been built with state guarantees and/or subsidies. This article also again equates safety with lack of deaths. That’s like saying a neighborhood is safe, because in the robberies there only a few people die. Chernobyl and Fukushima had drama…
Yes, there were a lot of deaths from these nuclear disasters, they were horrible, we should have avoided them.
But nuclear energy is still much less deadly than fossil fuels. Air pollution-caused diseases are lung cancer and stroke for example.
I think nuclear plants have become much safer and there is more international regulation to maintain their safety.
I recommend this excellent video on this topic from Kurzgesagt: https://youtu.be/Jzfpyo-q-RM