Nuclear Power Is the Answer to Global and Environmental Energy Woes

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 10:33 PM UTC

formerly_proven wrote: post #325

otherme123 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By reliability he refers to french nuclear plants stopped for months due to mantainance and repairs (mainly leaks that couldn't be scheduled). Painting nuclear as a 100% free of problem energy makes people sound as car salesmans. As of today, nobody want to finance or insure them. As soon as you say "ok, build them reactors if they are so perfect", nuclear advocates want the state to jump in and asume the costs, the…

> the consumers to pay an extra price The (botched) green energy transformation has given the country I live in top 3 highest electricity prices in the world and it's not even particularly green at all. Literally cannot get worse. And it seems to me that one half doesn't understand how incredibly bad high energy prices are both for people and industry, while the other half cheers at the prices because it causes deind…

Post by bhhaskin » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 10:34 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #97

illiarian wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear plants are very unreliable You mean, they are the most reliable base load and load-following power sources we know. > References are easy to find if you want confirmation It's just as easy to find confirmation that all the problems you listed are the result of neglect and politics of the past 20-30 years. > it has to be done properly and safely, which is certainly not the case around here. As in: France has…

Nuclear proponents when trying to sell nuclear love to shout about how successful France is. Someone from France is telling you that actually, it's really not that great...and now France's nuclear program is terrible and the result of 20-30 years of neglect and politics? Also, which part of "nuclear plants are sensitive to environmental changes" didn't you get? If there's no cooling water, or the water is too hot, th…

Post by lukas099 » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 10:35 PM UTC

eric-burel wrote: post #265

Nodraak wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one of the plant regularly leaks radioactive material Please share numbers demonstration health hazards. For ex, bananas are radioactive. Should we outlaw bananas? > rivers are getting too hot to cool down nuclear plants correctly That's wrong. In 2022, the power output had to be reduced by 0.18% (not a typo) ( https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1645696906327388160 ). In addition, Nuclear plants can work even i…

You are making good points, however about the leaks, we obviously shouldn't wait for them to be dangerous to worry. It's hard to prove risks, it's also hard to prove the lack of risks if only for the living ecosystem around the plant. The leaks show issues in the alert system, it's not the first time it happened, and an engineer sued the plant for dangerous mismanagement. Doesn't mean we should drop nuclear energy ei…

Post by q1w2 » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 10:36 PM UTC

eric-burel wrote: post #294

throw-4e451c8 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am not against nuclear power" - this is litterally the calling card of a tactical hit, forum-wise. It very obviously means the opposite of what it says. I generally look at how people perceive things like this as an IQ test. At the moment the HN visitors upvoting/downvoting things in this thread have failed my baseline IQ test. How I wish all presumably well-intentioned but badly informed and ill-educated people w…

:( no really I try to stay open-minded and found contradictory answers interesting, if only because they are well documented. My reply is also to the initial article, which is on the contrary way too optimistic. Nuclear energy is not black or white, I think sharing personal experience as someone living near a plant, in a country relying mostly on nuclear energy, is relevant.

Post by Manuel_D » Fri, Apr 21, 2023, 10:38 PM UTC

Kon5ole wrote: post #339

Manuel_D wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical generation while wind and solar are the cheapest. Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. You can't just compare an intermittent source and a non-intermittent source, without factoring in the cost of storage.

>Except if you add the cost of 12 hours of batteries to solar it's massively more expensive. Nobody knows what nuclear costs, because nobody knows what it will cost to handle the waste 10 years from now, let alone 100 or 1000 years from now. The solution to this for most nuclear operators has been to pay a symbolic fee and let the taxpayers cover the rest "in blanco". When accidents happen, costs also arrive very sud…