And it tries to paint it as bad for the environment in this paragraph:
But the mining, milling, and production of nuclear fuel, as well as the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants, emit greenhouse gases at levels ranging from 10 to 130 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of power — lower than fossil fuels but higher than wind and hydroelectricity (and roughly on par with solar).
The author of this article personally breathed out 800 pounds of CO2 last year. Less than a horse but more than a badger and roughly on par with a kangaroo.
To be fair, it does have the most potential to cause harm if you exclude every kind of fossil fuel. And hydroelectric. That said, there isn’t a chance in hell I’m going to protest fission if the only alternative is more coal/gas.
And yet by KWH produced it’s the safest by a large margin (safer than solar and wind), and that includes Chernobyl happening, arguably pretty close to “worst case”.
Potential is meaningless. Real-world experience has demonstrated it.
Visibility is a very real problem in environmental measures that I rarely see discussed.
The example that comes to mind is Madrid. Over the past few years there have been many measures to divert the traffic from the city centre. At a “visible” level this is great, which results in less pollution in the city centre, less traffic, less noise. All amazing. If you delve a bit deeper though, this hasn’t been backed up properly by additional public transport, or encouraging working from home, or anything like that. So people who work in the area are having to drive more kilometres, so that they can go around the city centre, resulting in more emissions and pollution overall. The catch? It’s in the impoverished areas of the outskirts. Therefore invisible.
The governments look amazing at improving the pollution in the city centres not by addressing it, but by moving it somewhere else. Most times they opt for what is “visibly” good rather than what will actually result in a measurably better outcome. The negative effects of nuclear are very visible, so that weighs a lot in the decisions unfortunately.
And energy dense too!
It also requires a literal village to run and maintain.
And that’s the problem, I don’t want to see a nuclear power plant managed by fucking Amazon or Google.
No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.
You also need to think about the space required for these solar farms. I can tell you that I’ve seen some barby forests and animals living there completely wiped out for building solar farms.
When the intent is making money, there are no clean energies…
Secondly, having baseload vastly reduces the amount of batteries needed, and overall is helpful, and nuclear is one of the best baseloads there is.
By any logic we should work on fusion research because it’s the actual solution, but the enemy isn’t nuclear or renewables, it’s fossil fuels, they must be killed as brutally as possible, not just for their ecological impact, but also for their political impact, which may be the most toxic of all.
Imagine the politics of this country if Texas wasn’t “Saudi Oil Money” rich and didn’t try to screw over our politics on a constant basis. They’re the reason we don’t have nuclear already, they’d much rather keep everyone on the dinosaur habit than let us move forward an inch.
No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.
How many solar panels and batteries are needed to power every electrical grid on the planet?
Where do we locate all of the panels and batteries?
Where do we get all of the materials for all of the panels and batteries?
What is the total cost to operate and maintain that global power grid?
What is the lifespan of the grid?
What happens to all of the panels and batteries at end of life, and how much does it cost?
I stopped reading there, nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy generation.
And it tries to paint it as bad for the environment in this paragraph:
So… It’s good then?
The author of this article personally breathed out 800 pounds of CO2 last year. Less than a horse but more than a badger and roughly on par with a kangaroo.
To be fair, it does have the most potential to cause harm if you exclude every kind of fossil fuel. And hydroelectric. That said, there isn’t a chance in hell I’m going to protest fission if the only alternative is more coal/gas.
And yet by KWH produced it’s the safest by a large margin (safer than solar and wind), and that includes Chernobyl happening, arguably pretty close to “worst case”.
Potential is meaningless. Real-world experience has demonstrated it.
Nuclear’s problem is that, when an issue happens, it is so very visible.
The millions of people dying every year to air pollution are far more spread out, so who cares?
You’re more likely to crash in a car, yet people are (generally) far more scared of planes.
Visibility is a very real problem in environmental measures that I rarely see discussed.
The example that comes to mind is Madrid. Over the past few years there have been many measures to divert the traffic from the city centre. At a “visible” level this is great, which results in less pollution in the city centre, less traffic, less noise. All amazing. If you delve a bit deeper though, this hasn’t been backed up properly by additional public transport, or encouraging working from home, or anything like that. So people who work in the area are having to drive more kilometres, so that they can go around the city centre, resulting in more emissions and pollution overall. The catch? It’s in the impoverished areas of the outskirts. Therefore invisible.
The governments look amazing at improving the pollution in the city centres not by addressing it, but by moving it somewhere else. Most times they opt for what is “visibly” good rather than what will actually result in a measurably better outcome. The negative effects of nuclear are very visible, so that weighs a lot in the decisions unfortunately.
Its invisible like tuberculosis deaths. 4000 a day yet nobody cares cos its poor people that are not politicaly usefull dying.
And energy dense too!
It also requires a literal village to run and maintain.
And that’s the problem, I don’t want to see a nuclear power plant managed by fucking Amazon or Google.
Sure, and the next several thousands generations will also have a lot of fun with the waste we produced for just 2-3 generations.
We can reprocess, it’s just cheaper to jam in it a hole and solve the problem once and for all:
No, there’s no method that eliminates all of the nuclear waste. I know that this myth is very much liked in the nuclear community.
Great, is there a method that eliminates all byproducts of fossil fuels?
It reduces them dramatically, to something we can easily deal with, that’s huge.
No need for. Solar panels and batteries are at an historically low price and will even become more affordable. There’s simply no economical justification for nuclear energy.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/10/clearing-forests-to-erect-solar-panels-may-not-be-clean-energy-solution/
You also need to think about the space required for these solar farms. I can tell you that I’ve seen some barby forests and animals living there completely wiped out for building solar farms.
When the intent is making money, there are no clean energies…
Firstly, we’ll get there in time.
Secondly, having baseload vastly reduces the amount of batteries needed, and overall is helpful, and nuclear is one of the best baseloads there is.
By any logic we should work on fusion research because it’s the actual solution, but the enemy isn’t nuclear or renewables, it’s fossil fuels, they must be killed as brutally as possible, not just for their ecological impact, but also for their political impact, which may be the most toxic of all.
Imagine the politics of this country if Texas wasn’t “Saudi Oil Money” rich and didn’t try to screw over our politics on a constant basis. They’re the reason we don’t have nuclear already, they’d much rather keep everyone on the dinosaur habit than let us move forward an inch.
How many solar panels and batteries are needed to power every electrical grid on the planet?
Where do we locate all of the panels and batteries?
Where do we get all of the materials for all of the panels and batteries?
What is the total cost to operate and maintain that global power grid?
What is the lifespan of the grid?
What happens to all of the panels and batteries at end of life, and how much does it cost?
deleted by creator
Yeah, all those exploding solar panels are a real danger!
Mounting solar panels on roofs - like all roof work - is dangerous.
Luckily building a nuclear reactor doesn’t have any risks
the reactor produces significantly more energy
Take a look at some stats sometime, nothing comes even close to nuclear safety by KWH produced.
There’s far more involved in solar than just solar panels.