pune wrote:

Wherever you see the lireature, it tells how rewable energy is far cheaper and much more easier to install and at lower cost both to people and environment. Only those who work for the nuclear industry would take any other view.

Why then are French energy costs and carbon emissions a fraction of those in Germany?

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Wherever you see the lireature, it tells how rewable energy is far cheaper and much more easier to install and at lower cost both to people and environment. Only those who work for the nuclear industry would take any other view.

Why then are French energy costs and carbon emissions a fraction of those in Germany?

That doesn't solve the long-term problems and that is still an issue with us today with no solutions n sight. Also, you need to understand why the French did what they did, good piece about it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rench.html

You read the above and you understand they still have the same issues. The only thing that happened is lot of money was spent on making it seem it is 'safe' and 'good' and they are also kicking the can down for 100 years where it would again rear its head and perhaps again kicked down for 100 years, who knows. Other technologies meanwhile mearch ahead, much ahead. I don't think oil and gas will survive beyond the end of the decade except in some niche environments. The only resistance that would be to change from those who fear change themselves.

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Wherever you see the lireature, it tells how rewable energy is far cheaper and much more easier to install and at lower cost both to people and environment. Only those who work for the nuclear industry would take any other view.

Why then are French energy costs and carbon emissions a fraction of those in Germany?

That doesn't solve the long-term problems and that is still an issue with us today with no solutions n sight. Also, you need to understand why the French did what they did, good piece about it.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rench.html

You read the above and you understand they still have the same issues.

What same issues? It’s a plain statement of fact that French nuclear energy is cheaper than German wind/solar energy.

Pune wrote:

The only thing that happened is lot of money was spent on making it seem it is 'safe' and 'good' and they are also kicking the can down for 100 years where it would again rear its head and perhaps again kicked down for 100 years, who knows.

What do you mean “seem safe.” Who has died or been injured in France?

Pune wrote:

Other technologies meanwhile mearch ahead, much ahead. I don't think oil and gas will survive beyond the end of the decade except in some niche environments. The only resistance that would be to change from those who fear change themselves.

The only poster here who has demonstrated any fear or resistance to change from a non-carbon power source has been you oddly enough. Hasn’t been a single other person on this thread against expanded wind/solar in the energy mix.

The article itself says that the only way for the spent fuel is to put it underground for 100 years, you went everywhere but didn't answer this central question. And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear. And again what I shared is just fanciful thinking. The day that becomes a reality, then we can talk about it, till then it's going to be nada from most people. I did see even nuclear protests from countries that you claimed were all behind it, when I shared it with you, you didn't want to talk about it. That is called sadly a bias.

pune wrote:

The article itself says that the only way for the spent fuel is to put it underground for 100 years, you went everywhere but didn't answer this central question. And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear. And again what I shared is just fanciful thinking. The day that becomes a reality, then we can talk about it, till then it's going to be nada from most people. I did see even nuclear protests from countries that you claimed were all behind it, when I shared it with you, you didn't want to talk about it. That is called sadly a bias.

Actually "throwing it into the sun" is among the worst possible ideas. The risk of a launch accident is also real and that could spread radioactive waste across hundreds of miles.

Tugg

pune wrote:

The article itself says that the only way for the spent fuel is to put it underground for 100 years, you went everywhere but didn't answer this central question.

What central question? That nuclear waste can be safely stored underground or recycled? You’re not making much sense.

Pune wrote:

And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear.

And as was pointed out to you upthread by another poster, the tech for waste recycling or zero waste nuclear does in fact exist, so your priors are not accurate.

Pune wrote:

The day that becomes a reality, then we can talk about it, till then it's going to be nada from most people.

Another odd statement when the majority of the world’s population lives in countries with functioning nuclear power plants.

Pune wrote:

I did see even nuclear protests from countries that you claimed were all behind it, when I shared it with you, you didn't want to talk about it. That is called sadly a bias.

No, just irrelevant. Some environmentalists also protest wind/solar installations, so presence of protests doesn’t really support your point.

pune wrote:

The article itself says that the only way for the spent fuel is to put it underground for 100 years, you went everywhere but didn't answer this central question. And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear. And again what I shared is just fanciful thinking. The day that becomes a reality, then we can talk about it, till then it's going to be nada from most people. I did see even nuclear protests from countries that you claimed were all behind it, when I shared it with you, you didn't want to talk about it. That is called sadly a bias.

Burying nuclear waste underground is much safer than letting greenhouse gas or pollutants flowing in the atmosphere forever?

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

The article itself says that the only way for the spent fuel is to put it underground for 100 years, you went everywhere but didn't answer this central question. And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear. And again what I shared is just fanciful thinking. The day that becomes a reality, then we can talk about it, till then it's going to be nada from most people. I did see even nuclear protests from countries that you claimed were all behind it, when I shared it with you, you didn't want to talk about it. That is called sadly a bias.

Burying nuclear waste underground is much safer than letting greenhouse gas or pollutants flowing in the atmosphere forever?

But with wind and nuclear there won't be any as well as hydro and other new energy developments taking place. Fossil fuels are gonne be not used, others will, had shared video above, did you check that of all the new intersting energy developments. And those are the ones that are well-kinown and in field. Who knows how many are in labs and whatnot.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

The article itself says that the only way for the spent fuel is to put it underground for 100 years, you went everywhere but didn't answer this central question. And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear. And again what I shared is just fanciful thinking. The day that becomes a reality, then we can talk about it, till then it's going to be nada from most people. I did see even nuclear protests from countries that you claimed were all behind it, when I shared it with you, you didn't want to talk about it. That is called sadly a bias.

Burying nuclear waste underground is much safer than letting greenhouse gas or pollutants flowing in the atmosphere forever?

But with wind and nuclear there won't be any as well as hydro and other new energy developments taking place. Fossil fuels are gonne be not used, others will, had shared video above, did you check that of all the new intersting energy developments. And those are the ones that are well-kinown and in field. Who knows how many are in labs and whatnot.

Coal will continue to exists in Germany at least in 1.5 more decades. That mean 1.5 more decades of emissions.

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Burying nuclear waste underground is much safer than letting greenhouse gas or pollutants flowing in the atmosphere forever?

But with wind and nuclear there won't be any as well as hydro and other new energy developments taking place. Fossil fuels are gonne be not used, others will, had shared video above, did you check that of all the new intersting energy developments. And those are the ones that are well-kinown and in field. Who knows how many are in labs and whatnot.

Coal will continue to exists in Germany at least in 1.5 more decades. That mean 1.5 more decades of emissions.

I shared my optimism, you can carry on with your pessimism, we will know what happens in 1.5 decades.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

But with wind and nuclear there won't be any as well as hydro and other new energy developments taking place. Fossil fuels are gonne be not used, others will, had shared video above, did you check that of all the new intersting energy developments. And those are the ones that are well-kinown and in field. Who knows how many are in labs and whatnot.

Coal will continue to exists in Germany at least in 1.5 more decades. That mean 1.5 more decades of emissions.

I shared my optimism, you can carry on with your pessimism, we will know what happens in 1.5 decades.

The question is what happen within this 1.5 decades, not afterwards

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Coal will continue to exists in Germany at least in 1.5 more decades. That mean 1.5 more decades of emissions.

I shared my optimism, you can carry on with your pessimism, we will know what happens in 1.5 decades.

The question is what happen within this 1.5 decades, not afterwards

I am saying the same thing, we are just going round and round.

flyguy89 wrote:

Pune wrote:

And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear.

And as was pointed out to you upthread by another poster, the tech for waste recycling or zero waste nuclear does in fact exist, so your priors are not accurate.

Indeed.

I took a tour of Indian Point nuclear plant not too long ago where they explained the whole process we got to even go and see the spent-rod pools. Workers as well areas surrounding areas probably get exposed to less radiation than the public not living in these areas becasue everything is so heavily monitored.

They also explained that the spent fuel can be reacycled (not 100% but close to it) and the issue that currently exists is that (by law i think) it cant be transported from the confines of the power plants. Thats why the spent rods are stored at the site. You can do a google earth tour of nuclear plants in the us and find the areas where they keep spent rods, they usually put them in sealed cylinder tanks.

Currently nuclear energy is the only technology that can realistically meet the demand without greenhouse gases. It suprises me that Germany has taken this path of closing facilities.

N47 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Pune wrote:

And that is the thing. Unless and until we have technology that can say throw the spent fuel at the sun instead of burying it, I wouldn't be part of nuclear.

And as was pointed out to you upthread by another poster, the tech for waste recycling or zero waste nuclear does in fact exist, so your priors are not accurate.

Indeed.

I took a tour of Indian Point nuclear plant not too long ago where they explained the whole process we got to even go and see the spent-rod pools. Workers as well areas surrounding areas probably get exposed to less radiation than the public not living in these areas becasue everything is so heavily monitored.

They also explained that the spent fuel can be reacycled (not 100% but close to it) and the issue that currently exists is that (by law i think) it cant be transported from the confines of the power plants. Thats why the spent rods are stored at the site. You can do a google earth tour of nuclear plants in the us and find the areas where they keep spent rods, they usually put them in sealed cylinder tanks.

Currently nuclear energy is the only technology that can realistically meet the demand without greenhouse gases. It suprises me that Germany has taken this path of closing facilities.

I don't know which one you went, the one closest to me is one in Mumbai which was the first one, Bhabha Atomic Research Center. They closed down the plant and have been tying to figure out uses of the spent nuclear rods. There are plans to privatize although subsidies are supposed to be there for the plant till 2036, what happens afterwards nobody knows.

What is more interesting in Germany and other places is to see things like these -

https://twitter.com/RockTechLithium/sta ... 2826485768

And if you research the company, you come to know they are in the process of making closed loop systems for lithium (that includes recycling of lithium) and this is apparently just a few kilometers from Tesla's Gigafactory Berlin so they have a ready customer in Tesla.

Denmark crushes more than 50% market share to EV -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/12/de ... -now-what/