741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It it turns out like the F-35 it would be amazing. F-35 is much better and safer than what came before and more important CHEAPER per unit than previous generations.
I can't say if this is uninformed or sarcasm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear base load is a lie. The aforementioned subsidies aren't just for the electricity it produces, it is also for the electricity it could produce. The nuclear plant has a right to sell electricity to the grid at a certain price. Market price too low? The government pays the difference. No demand? The government buys the unused production capacity. In practice this means that during periods of excess you are shutt…
Giving priority to non-reliable producers is insane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s easy to make the general public fearful of nuclear because they have no direct experience with it in daily life.
Right, because the general public has direct daily experience with... whaling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't be "the least of our problems", it would be an additional problem. The fuel and related will have to be monitored for 1000 years and more. Yes, we know how geology works, which is why we have found a single place where it might be safe. ONE.
Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. No it won't. That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological. For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
How does this even help your argument?
Yeah, we have a nuclear winter. 80% of the civilisation is dead. "Hey look, we've found warm stuff". A few years later: 10% of the population died of cancer.
Are you kidding?
> No it won't.
Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high as 24,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
> That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological.
The fact that your single example is Yucca mountain and even the US wasn't able to come up with another place and is still discussing this one, shows that there is not an abundance of places you can put it. Even in such a huge country like the USA.
Other countries have the same issues and they are geological.
Germany had a spot a few decades ago. Everybody thought it would be safe. It has to be evacuated now. An evacuation which will cost the taxpayer millions of Euros.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess they won’t have Geiger counters in the future
We don't have a lot of technology that we knew existed in earlier civilisations - the Aztecs, Mayans, pueblo peoples, the Easter islanders, to name just a few were doing things we have no idea how to do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like they said, if it’s properly stored and monitored it’s not going to harm anyone. If you’re worried about some kind of societal collapse leading to it being abandoned, well in that case there are much bigger problems that are more immediately dangerous.
Do you know it will still be properly monitored in 100 years? What about 1000? How would you know if there are even people left who know what it is?? May be societal collapse isn't a problem. Maybe we're having a nice new beginning but someone finds some nice, warm stuff?
This still has to pass with the people in a referendum. The discourse on nuclear is still quite chaotic in politics in Switzerland. All left leaning parties and greens parties are strongly against nuclear. I am not expecting informed and civil discussions about this topic. Switzerland has a summer/winter energy problem. We have lots of potential of producing energy in the spring and summer (when our dams are full fro…
They should look into what Brazil is doing to store energy long term: https://www.facebook.com/groups/849994733672039/posts/136230...
Seems like this is fake news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. No it won't. That isn't true. There are lots of suitable places. The problems are purely political, not geological. For example: "The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
> Being an additional problem is not a contradiction of it being the least of those problems. How does this even help your argument? Yeah, we have a nuclear winter. 80% of the civilisation is dead. "Hey look, we've found warm stuff". A few years later: 10% of the population died of cancer. Are you kidding? > No it won't. Spent nuclear fuel stays a radiation hazard for extended periods of time with half-lifes as high…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have a lot of technology that we knew existed in earlier civilisations - the Aztecs, Mayans, pueblo peoples, the Easter islanders, to name just a few were doing things we have no idea how to do
Ridiculous, not knowing exactly how stoneage peoples carved and moved rocks and dirt around doesn’t mean we don’t know how to move rocks and dirt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, destroy a dam and you get a catastrophe. Don't do anything in particular and watch how many people die in the mid-term due to climate change. It's all about risk management.
The most deadly industrial accident was the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure, with estimates of the death toll ranging from 26,000 to 240,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure