21–30 of 88 posts
Why is it so hard to grasp: we don't want to trade our toxic carbon byproduct for toxic fission byproduct?
Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.
Why is it so hard to grasp: we don't want to trade our toxic carbon byproduct for toxic fission byproduct?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts? What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifically? > The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives. Haha, if it were that easy. Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. Can you give me an example of a successful long-term…
Nuclear power may be kicking the can down the road, but burning coal is just leaving the can for our immediate offspring already in their 20s and 30s. The article says least-cost, we're fresh out of perfect solutions.
Why is it so hard to grasp: we don't want to trade our toxic carbon byproduct for toxic fission byproduct?
We don't want the toxic waste from Solar panel production nor the industrial waste or the noise pollution from windmills either. At some point we'll have to chose the lesser evil, and most of the good rivers have already been dammed so more hydro isn't really the solution. A combination of renewables, nuclear base power, reduced power needs, smart grid load management, and synth fuel production during peak production…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.
Chernobyl and Fukushima disrupted more than a few people’s lives.
Regardless, both those disasters were more or less man-made. Chernobyl was caused by serious design flaws, and (as far as I know) people who refused to admit something was wrong until it was too late. Fukushima was built below the line indicated by stones setup to warn about tsunamis. I don't think there's any doubt such considerations need to be taken into account when building the next-generation nuclear reactors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.
Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts? What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifically? > The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives. Haha, if it were that easy. Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. Can you give me an example of a successful long-term…
Sure. The earth is full of radioactive material (also known as rocks) that have been 'stored' successfully for millions of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There must be some stable backup for renewables. Nuclear is not perfect, but it's the best by a long shot compared to anything else, according to statistics (including all disasters!).
Nuclear is a terrible "backup" for renewables. Renewables fluctuate. Nuclear is not great at scaling, and most reactors cannot be shut down without taking weeks and months for safe re-starting. Nuclear is good for base load. And countries that have a lot of (really expensive) nuclear to cover their base load, have zero incentive to invest into renewables, since its output would just become surplus. For broad adoption…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you seriously comparing the byproducts of creating renewable energy to the byproducts of nuclear energy? If you ask 100 people, 99 will tell you that they rather live next to a solar panel or a silicon extraction mine than next to a nuclear power plant or a uranium mine.
So? If you ask 100 people, 99 will tell you they would rather buy new electronics every year and throw away the old, and they would rider drive a huge SUV than walk or bike. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
I don't think that's true.
Anyways. We are comparing nuclear, radioactive waste that has the potential to make whole areas of land unlivable for decades if it touches them and stays radioactive for a million years to cadmium, which is much less toxic than nuclear waste, has a shorter half life and in doesn't require us to find a solution to an unsovled problem to deal with it.
How can you seriously compare the two on the same level?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes we do want to trade that. The toxic carbon byproduct goes into the air and causes massive disruption to the lives of billions of people. The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives.
Because constructing nuclear power plants and mining uranium don't have toxic carbon byproducts? What are the toxic byproducts you are talking about specifically? > The toxic fission byproduct is tiny and goes underground in the middle of the desert and disrupts zero people's lives. Haha, if it were that easy. Nuclear waste can be radioactive up to 1 million years. Can you give me an example of a successful long-term…
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...