Activists who embrace nuclear power

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 12:12 AM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #336

screye wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik, nuclear energy is more expensive only because it is regulated far beyond what any other form of energy for the same level of risk. Disposal of nuclear waste is a huge expense, but the main waste product generated by natural gas (CO2) gets away scot free despite literally being the cause of what might be our generation's biggest problem. The end-of-life expenses of nuclear plants are included in the cost sheets…

That's simply not true. Nuclear has always and is still receiving significant indirect subsidies. A huge subsidy that nuclear power gets is that plants are not insured against incidents (because essentially nobody is willing to sell them insurance), so it's essentially the state that does it. Also many argue that the nuclear waste storage costs are significantly underestimated, I mean I understand estimating cost for…

Post by cycomanic » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

ortusdux wrote: post #115

epistasis wrote: post #8

Articles like this miss the main point and instead focus on culture war material. There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear. It's no longer cost competitive, and places like China that adopt a "let's try everything and see what works best" approach have heavily pulled back on nuclear. The issues aren't safety, waste, a…

I've done a fair amount of research into molten salt reactors, and if we can solve the containment issue they should be very cost effective. The molten salts are extremely corrosive, which cuts their lifespan down to ~5 years. Newer designs should reach 10 years and there is extensive research into designing systems that will last 20+ years. They should be much cheaper to build and operate because they have several i…

Post by Robotbeat » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 12:19 AM UTC

cbmuser wrote: post #304

runarberg wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always took it as: As the nuclear plants from the 70s and 80s are getting decommissioned because of age, there is no plan to replace them with new nuclear. So they should be replace them with wind and solar, because wind and solar is a cheaper, quicker, and more reliable alternative then new nuclear (as this tread demonstrates). I don’t see the debate as existing nuclear vs. new wind and solar, but as new nuclear v…

Wind and solar need backup power plants and therefore *CANNOT* replace nuclear power plants.

Post by gdubs » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 12:24 AM UTC

throwawaygulf wrote: post #345

gdubs wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read Pinker’s book — I’m familiar with the argument. I also think it looks at a data point (now) and compares it to the long tail of history, and says, “things are great!” I’m not sure if you look at the curve’s derivative since, say, 1995, it’s clear we’re heading in a good direction. And I’m an optimist. There have been warning signs flashing “systems failure” for a little while now, like a “check engine light” p…

>I'm not sure if you look at the curve’s derivative since, say, 1995, it’s clear we’re heading in a good direction. Crime was near all-time highs in the US, Europe's deadliest war since WWII was raging, numerous civil wars in Africa and elsewhere were claiming millions... It's clear it's way better, and definitely got better since your arbitrary timeline. >I don’t think there’s been a year in modern history like 2020…

Post by sir_bearington » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 12:31 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #297

macspoofing wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear. Honestly ... it isn't just about cost. Nuclear is expensive but it isn't prohibitively expensive. The big picture is we know that nuclear can power an economy, it does not emit global warming gasses, and also places a tiny footprint on the surrounding ecosystem. Solar and win…

It’s disingenuous to factor in mining requirement for solar panels but not uranium. Sure the supply chain to support the infrastructure required for 10 billion people is a lot on the environment, and we certainly could do a lot better. But these include better recycling of existing minerals (this includes solar panels), better forest management, better land use for food production, more careful road design that doesn…