Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HammerfestNORD t1_j1qytb3 wrote

Aaaahhh, yes. Why build clean energy when we're already going to kill off most of the human race much sooner than later.

69

icebeat t1_j1r5ljt wrote

So we can leave a nice and clean planet for the next alien race

14

HammerfestNORD t1_j1r7j1b wrote

Indeed. We all know how the aliens managed during The War of the Worlds.

3

Jpf123 t1_j1tibsx wrote

The Dolphins or Parrots will be appreciative.

2

Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1r3yjh wrote

And we can pollute more with fracking or create tons of toxic waste with nuclear. /s

−24

Afitz93 t1_j1r9xfx wrote

I think you’ve been extremely misled on the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power. Of all available options, it is the single answer for responsible, efficient green energy production. There is no well-powered, environmentally friendly future without nuclear power.

28

LaurenDreamsInColor t1_j1rtbuk wrote

"the single" answer? I've got a nice little home in Manomet I'd like to sell you. It's near the water. LOL

−3

Afitz93 t1_j1sc758 wrote

Yes. While renewables are great supplemental energy sources, they’re high in manufacturing and maintenance cost and require maintenance that, when comparing overall output to maintenance costs, will cost significantly more than a nuclear plant in its lifespan.

Then there’s of course the environmental effects from the manufacturing process for things like solar panels and wind turbines - also shipping from all around the world, contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Then, there’s the required space to get enough power for the masses - especially in the marine environment, where we’re already arguing how lobster pots are bad for whales - imagine what a few hundred metal towers climbing from the ocean floor off the coast of Maine could do.

Then, you have to factor in power storage, since these sources don’t provide reliable, consistent energy. Current battery technology still relies on rare materials, mined in poor countries with questionable-at-best worker protections. And to provide the sheer amount of energy we currently use, that is A LOT of batteries. Yes, the technology is improving. And yes, nuclear also relies on rare materials mined from the earth, but in much lesser numbers.

All in all, per square foot, nuclear is going to be the safest, most efficient, most reliable, and most environmentally friendly energy source for the future. The sooner we start improving and adding to our nuclear energy infrastructure, the sooner we can kick our dependency on fossil fuels and other environmentally insensitive energy projects.

3

Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_j1ueul0 wrote

Reverse hydro power is an interest battery idea. You build reservoirs and pump water uphill using extra power from wind and solar. When needed you let it flow back through the turbines into the lower reservoir. Power storage without a need for metallic batteries.

I’m all in on nuclear though. It’s the bridge to our green future. Buys us time to figure this all out.

2

Afitz93 t1_j1us092 wrote

That’s quite the interesting idea… as long as the water is available lol

1

femtoinfluencer t1_j1uvo1t wrote

This argument would be improved by pointing out that current reactor designs are inherently WAAAY safer than a lot of the existing reactors still in operation, and similarly much much safer than reactor designs in the public eye like Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

1

Nobel6skull t1_j1r73w0 wrote

Nuclear waste is a solved problem. We need more nuclear power.

15

Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1r99uj wrote

The waste from nuclear power plants remains radioactive for thousands of years though. Do we really want more of that? I’d say no. Not when wind, solar, and hydro are better options.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-and-the-environment.php

−21

SheeEttin t1_j1rq2dr wrote

No, but no energy production has zero environmental impact.

Nuclear power's biggest environmental impact is actually building the plants and warming local water sources when they're used for cooking. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed to turn 97% of it back into fuel. The remainder can be safely stored in a facility like Yucca Mountain.

9

NoMoLerking t1_j1rn1hi wrote

Only nuclear offers low-carbon base load power. There’s literally no other option.

8

femtoinfluencer t1_j1uvb3w wrote

For what it's worth, a large portion of the "radioactive for thousands of years" problem is solvable, and there are a couple ways to solve it.

The problem is that comprehensively solving it and having a system in place for it being solved is not done yet, because either you need to build enough plants that burn the waste (plus systems for transporting it etc) or you need to switch to something like thorium as fuel, which generates much less / less toxic waste in the first place. Either of those things is doable, but they take A LOT of work.

1

Goose31 t1_j1rezy2 wrote

Any power and climate solution that doesn't include nuclear is non serious.

12

Cobrawine66 t1_j1rqc8l wrote

Any solution that doesn't involve decreasing our usage isn't serious.

−14

Goose31 t1_j1rqkck wrote

Decreasing energy usage with an ever increasing population? Good luck.

7

Cobrawine66 t1_j1rrr6l wrote

I didn't say it was going to happen. But that's what's needed.

−4

warlocc_ t1_j1soy6c wrote

You know those movies with the barrels leaking and making giant ants are fake, right?

3

Icy-Conclusion-3500 t1_j1ueire wrote

Nuclear fears were largely spread by the fossil fuel industry.

1

Unique-Public-8594 t1_j1ufegl wrote

Ok I see my opinion is thoroughly unpopular, but here’s my thought process anyway: pro-nuclear messaging maybe spread by the pro fossil fuel folks, I hadn’t considered that but, yes, that makes sense. I hear you. I’m not advocating for fossil fuels.

I had been thinking it is being spread by the anti wind-solar-hydro and by the pro-nuclear-anti-environment lobbyists. I’m pro hydro, solar, and wind.

My concern about radioactive waste is that we have a long history of thinking things are totally ok, until they’re not (for example: DDT, coal, mega doses of radiation to children, fracking, plastics, ozone - probably more). We were told these were all completely safe. So we now have a pattern of being told things are totally safe, then learning we were wrong, they are actually deadly. At some point we need to stop and notice this pattern, learn from history, and re-examine how quick we are to assume things are safe. Learn from our mistakes. That’s all I’m suggesting here, not that we go back to fossil fuels, that we instead resist the powerful nuclear power lobby and turn to solar, wind, and hydro. Innovate with projects that produce hydro locally like this one that produces no radioactive waste: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpubi1GjoBE. Or, solar roof tiles that produce no radioactive waste: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/. We have solar electric fences, solar paint, solar bike paths, solar hats, and even a converter of CO2 to power but we aren’t using them. https://greencoast.org/solar-powered-inventions/

Also, we are passing this radioactivity problem on to many future generations. Do we have that right to say “here, we are long gone, we did this but it’s your problem now”?

Biggest environmental disasters in history includes Chernobyl: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/worst-environmental-disasters-caused-by-humans.php

But I have no expectation anyone here will agree with me, accept that 100%

When the nuclear energy lobby says “we need this, it’s this or fossil fuels” don’t believe them. They are biased. There are other options. They downplay those other options for profit.

When the nuclear power lobby says solar-wind-hydro can’t provide enough, my thought is: we haven’t even tried. Lets try.

Downvote me all you want, I think we can do better/cleaner than nuclear.

It reminds me of the sugar industry telling everyone that weight gain is related to fat intake: we all believed it, but now know better (both fat and sugar are related to weight gain).

2

femtoinfluencer t1_j1uy5th wrote

You have good points.

I will say that solar PV needs a LOT of area to generate power in amounts that we currently use/need it as a civilization, but, blanketing far more urban surfaces with PV installations even in marginal areas could make a big dent in our energy needs. I believe this type of policy has been effective in Germany.

The other issue is that tons of new solar generating capacity would absolutely have to come with grid-scale storage for when the sun isn't shining, and that's not yet a solved problem. Researchers are working their asses off to scale up battery storage to grid scale but it's not yet ready for prime time. Another 5 to 10 years will likely solve that, but it remains an additional capital cost + logistical issue to then set up a bunch of grid-scale storage facilities, plus all the changes to the power grid to accommodate them. Edit: there are also other forms of grid storage, but they're either less developed than batteries, or have requirements that limit them to favorable geographic areas (pumped hydro and the like).

A couple things to keep in mind about nukes:

First, modern reactor designs are drastically safer than the reactors everyone thinks of when they think about nukes. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are generations-old reactor designs with many many more failure modes than current designs. Chances of accident with a major radiation release are so much less with current designs, you can't ever truthfully say zero, but they really are leagues better than the type of nuke plants we're used to thinking about.

Second, nuclear waste is largely a solvable (not solved - but solvable) problem. As long as we are using uranium for fuel, it's possible to build reactors that then burn the waste for power, the resulting waste of that process is both less in quantity and less problematic. There is also the possibility of switching to thorium for fuel, which generates much less / less bad waste in the first place, unfortunately thorium reactors haven't yet been scaled up / installed / operated for years at grid scale. So either of these solutions have a ways to go before they are actual solutions, but, at least they are possible. If new nukes do become a policy then it would be good to push that policy towards solutions like this.

1