Nuclear Power

[DRSB]

I am for atomic energy. Don't see how else we can reduce the CO2 emissions. The renewable sources are not really renewable and nowhere sufficient. The energy needs of the mankind are growing in relation to the climate changes, things like droughts, etc. Worse, the so called renewable sources cause even more emissions of various kinds, example, the Aluminium propellers of the wind plants, aluminium being a very energy-intensive production. The solar cells of the solar plants need the metals of the rare earth for their production. How renewable are the metals of the rare earth going by the name?

How many dead as a result of the Fukushiima accident? Zero. How many dying of smog? 2 million per year.

The new generation atomic plants on the other hand recycle the existing waste and reduce the radioactivity in the process, the resulting waste must be stored for 100 years, granted, a long time, but nowhere near the 10'000 or 100'000 years expected so far. 100 times the amount of the already extracted energy produced in addition. Isn't t his a great way to deal with the existing waste?!

I am for atomic energy.

[cronus]

I thought we could have a civilization collapse and get back to the stone age.

[Svartalf]

I for one welcome our glowing overlords

[rasetsu]

[JimC]

The preferred term is nuclear energy...

[pErvinalia]

Cold fission should be here by next year...

[JimC]

Getting back to the OP, I grant that it is possible for a very well engineered reactor to be run safely, but the political reality is that very few countries would have a clear majority of people who would back the nuclear option.

[DRSB]

Yes, it is politically incorrect to be in favour of nuclear energy, thanks Jim, for pointing out the preferred term. The green ones in particular are very much against nuclear energy, Greenpeace organizes live chains around constructions sites. Why this ignorance? They fear radioactivity. You remember the story of the 5th Dragon boat? The crew that was caught up in the area close to the hydrogen bomb test in 1954. They were down with radiation disease of the worst kind, had skin burns, etc. 17 of the 23 crew members are alive and well today, in their nineties, touring and giving speeches.

[pErvinalia]

It's not an option really for the countries that don't have it already, as it takes 20 years to safely commission your first reactor (if you do it properly). But for countries that already have it, then it is an option. The question is, why aren't they massively expanding their industries already? Are the public against it, or is the cost against it? Maybe if lots of countries instituted a carbon tax, then coal wouldn't be so artificially cheap, and nuclear (and renewables) would be more cost effective.

[DRSB]

Can't be the cost, really! More money is being spent on projects to fight the effects of the droughts, such as the desalination plan in San Diego, which is run by oil by the way, see the vicious circle? I think the problem is plain disinformation. Why the public is susceptible to it, well, that is the question.

[DRSB]

Who can modify the title of the thread from "atomic" to "nuclear"? I cannot edit it.

[pErvinalia]

Can't be the cost, really! More money is being spent on projects to fight the effects of the droughts,

Yeah, but that's an externality related to the artificially cheap price of fossil fuels (leading to global warming). The vast majority of the population have drunk too much of the neoliberal kool-aid to realise that "costs" extend far past just the price paid to purchase coal/oil/fuel.

[DRSB]

He has a point:

I'm not criticizing the "Save the Earth" people, but they are, for example, the biggest opponents of nuclear power. And we are never going to get to those limits agreed to in Paris unless we go on a crash program of building nuclear power plants. Every year, about 2 million people die of pollution from coal-fired power plants, and about 59 people have ever died directly from nuclear power. It's no contest. But we rationalize our group identity: This is what my group believes, and to be a part of this group, I have to believe it. So if you're a "save the planet" type, you're also an antinuclear type. They go together because it's a part of the identity.

Full article here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/article ... perskeptic

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I'm a Green party voter, but their steadfast refusal to even countenance nuclear annoys me.

[JimC]

Who can modify the title of the thread from "atomic" to "nuclear"? I cannot edit it.

I will see if my super mod powers allow me to do it...