c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The earthquake 11 years ago was M9.0, almost the largest scale one you could get, yet none failed in such situation. Only one plant get destroyed by Tsunami, and even then the number of people killed by the plant in itself, or even by dustant relation like mental stress due to taking shelter from it, are nowhere near as much as the number of people killed by the tsunami itself.

My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing

M11.0 earthquake, if it is even possible, have the power equivalent to an asteroid hitting the earth, with size being equal to the asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs.
At such time, safety of a nuclear plant is the least thing we need to be concerned about

When nature decides to play the havoc you just never know, the sad part is scientists also do not know. For e.g. the recent South California earthquakes, why they have been happening, the scientists themselves are clueless.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ten-e ... ar-AASwlEa

Your guess would be as good or bad as mine, there hasn't been enough funding and hence not enough sensors and data and modeling and whatnot. Sadly for most sciences it has been like that but that itself is a larger and a broader subject in itself.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing

M11.0 earthquake, if it is even possible, have the power equivalent to an asteroid hitting the earth, with size being equal to the asteroid that wiped out dinosaurs.
At such time, safety of a nuclear plant is the least thing we need to be concerned about

When nature decides to play the havoc you just never know, the sad part is scientists also do not know. For e.g. the recent South California earthquakes, why they have been happening, the scientists themselves are clueless.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ten-e ... ar-AASwlEa

Your guess would be as good or bad as mine, there hasn't been enough funding and hence not enough sensors and data and modeling and whatnot. Sadly for most sciences it has been like that but that itself is a larger and a broader subject in itself.

I am not saying it won't occur, I am saying if a M11 earthquake occur then its impact to anything on the earth will be no different from an dinosaur-extincting asteroid hitting the earth
See first google result of M11 earthquake

yup saw, ok it might be M10 earthquake, I am not a scientist. Interestingly, the gentleman who wrote that paper is also Japanese.

https://tohoku.pure.elsevier.com/en/pub ... repare-for

And this I think should put an end to all the debates, especially the point by IAEA at 9:02

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3DvcXd3mM

But if you still wanna continue, please do by all means.

pune wrote:

And this I think should put an end to all the debates, especially the point by IAEA at 9:02

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3DvcXd3mM

But if you still wanna continue, please do by all means.

In what respect exactly? Per that video it’s stated that waste containment is well-developed, well-kept, safe, and secure. And best of all, no CO2 emissions.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

And this I think should put an end to all the debates, especially the point by IAEA at 9:02

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3DvcXd3mM

But if you still wanna continue, please do by all means.

In what respect exactly? Per that video it’s stated that waste containment is well-developed, well-kept, safe, and secure. And best of all, no CO2 emissions.

Yes, and it did say it takes anywhere from 10k to 100k years for that area to be a no-go area or the fact that decommissioning a nuclear plant is at the very least a 100-year thing. You seem to have developed hearing issues similar to me. Are you ok ???

The article in question -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... ad-policy/

On can make an argument for EVERYTHING being bad and dangerous. I imagine one here arguing against nuclear power plants could make equally damning arguments against carbon based power systems for the extensive and continuing damage they do to our environment.

Nuclear power is quite literally "safe enough". Just as are planes, cars, concrete and steel skyscrapers, cell phones and many other technologies.

Tugg

Also, the ones who were talking about China didn't share this, seems nuclear is far lagging behind solar and wind even in China, even now as well as in future -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Tugger wrote:

On can make an argument for EVERYTHING being bad and dangerous. I imagine one here arguing against nuclear power plants could make equally damning arguments against carbon based power systems for the extensive and continuing damage they do to our environment.

Nuclear power is quite literally "safe enough". Just as are planes, cars, concrete and steel skyscrapers, cell phones and many other technologies.

Tugg

You need to read this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/15/pu ... is-fading/

pune wrote:

The article in question -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... ad-policy/

I did. You should research Michael Barnard.

Just FYI, the article is more opinion piece than science. It sounds like "science" but it is agenda driven by its author. An author that is prolific in working to sell his services to others on how they should do their projects.

So it is an article but not definitive on its topic.

Here are other articles to read on the topic:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/wh ... ctors-smrs
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-smal ... ctors-smrs
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... t-targets/

These parties have a differing view from Mr. Barnard (who has an opposing view from them).

Here is another article, from an individual like Mr. Barnard, but a bit more balanced.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... r-reactors

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

The article in question -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... ad-policy/

I did. You should research Michael Barnard.

Just FYI, the article is more opinion piece than science. It sounds like "science" but it is agenda driven by its author. An author that is prolific in working to sell his services to others on how they should do their projects.

So it is an article but not definitive on its topic.

Here are other articles to read on the topic:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/wh ... ctors-smrs
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-smal ... ctors-smrs
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... t-targets/

These parties have a differing view from Mr. Barnard (who has an opposing view from them).

Here is another article, from an individual like Mr. Barnard, but a bit more balanced.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... r-reactors

Tugg

Of the three, the first two are discounted, the first one itself is part of the industry so how you can take them at face value. The second being the U.S. Govt. that itself has been in bed with nuclear since the Manhattan project days and the third a stock broker, lol. The other article doesn't give any data as has been shared.

If Mr. Banard would not have disclosed who he is or was or what he is working upon then you would say. Can you point out any faulty data on what he has shared? I looked up all the comments. Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... 5369027075

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

The article in question -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... ad-policy/

I did. You should research Michael Barnard.

Just FYI, the article is more opinion piece than science. It sounds like "science" but it is agenda driven by its author. An author that is prolific in working to sell his services to others on how they should do their projects.

So it is an article but not definitive on its topic.

Here are other articles to read on the topic:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/wh ... ctors-smrs
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-smal ... ctors-smrs
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... t-targets/

These parties have a differing view from Mr. Barnard (who has an opposing view from them).

Here is another article, from an individual like Mr. Barnard, but a bit more balanced.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... r-reactors

Tugg

Of the three, the first two are discounted, the first one itself is part of the industry so how you can take them at face value. The second being the U.S. Govt. that itself has been in bed with nuclear since the Manhattan project days and the third a stock broker, lol. The other article doesn't give any data as has been shared.

If Mr. Banard would not have disclosed who he is or was or what he is working upon then you would say. Can you point out any faulty data on what he has shared? I looked up all the comments. Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... 5369027075

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Also, regarding the comment "Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date - " would indicate you are saying current nuclear technology is better and adequate as so many HAVE been built.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... of-course/

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I did. You should research Michael Barnard.

Just FYI, the article is more opinion piece than science. It sounds like "science" but it is agenda driven by its author. An author that is prolific in working to sell his services to others on how they should do their projects.

So it is an article but not definitive on its topic.

Here are other articles to read on the topic:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/wh ... ctors-smrs
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-smal ... ctors-smrs
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... t-targets/

These parties have a differing view from Mr. Barnard (who has an opposing view from them).

Here is another article, from an individual like Mr. Barnard, but a bit more balanced.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... r-reactors

Tugg

Of the three, the first two are discounted, the first one itself is part of the industry so how you can take them at face value. The second being the U.S. Govt. that itself has been in bed with nuclear since the Manhattan project days and the third a stock broker, lol. The other article doesn't give any data as has been shared.

If Mr. Banard would not have disclosed who he is or was or what he is working upon then you would say. Can you point out any faulty data on what he has shared? I looked up all the comments. Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... 5369027075

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Tugg

It is just not one article, many others the cleanup costs are the ones passed on taxpayer -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

And did you see this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Somebody mentioned sometime above that China has nuclear reactors but forgot to share that they have stopped are going more into solar or wind. If I had not chanced along those articles and the data shared in them, would have never known.

If Mr. Barnard is showing bad faith, or has faulty data somewhere, show it, will end the matter. For stock broking and rating agencies I don't trust them an inch. Time and again they have proved to be bad faith actors and without repetance. Seen enough of it in India. Even when our Supreme Court has put decisions against them, they continue if nothing has happened, I am sure it's the same in States and elsewhere but that probably will become off-topic.

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Of the three, the first two are discounted, the first one itself is part of the industry so how you can take them at face value. The second being the U.S. Govt. that itself has been in bed with nuclear since the Manhattan project days and the third a stock broker, lol. The other article doesn't give any data as has been shared.

If Mr. Banard would not have disclosed who he is or was or what he is working upon then you would say. Can you point out any faulty data on what he has shared? I looked up all the comments. Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... 5369027075

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Tugg

It is just not one article, many others the cleanup costs are the ones passed on taxpayer -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

And did you see this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Somebody mentioned sometime above that China has nuclear reactors but forgot to share that they have stopped are going more into solar or wind. If I had not chanced along those articles and the data shared in them, would have never known.

If Mr. Barnard is showing bad faith, or has faulty data somewhere, show it, will end the matter. For stock broking and rating agencies I don't trust them an inch. Time and again they have proved to be bad faith actors and without repetance. Seen enough of it in India. Even when our Supreme Court has put decisions against them, they continue if nothing has happened, I am sure it's the same in States and elsewhere but that probably will become off-topic.

I can see you started your reply obviously before I updated my post and you did not see it. You will see I linked that there will be a LOT MORE conventional nuclear coming online in China. As well as solar and SMR development.

And again, all of your articles are coming from a single source (cleantechnica). Might they be demonstrating an agenda?

I'll try to return later after work with more.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Tugg

It is just not one article, many others the cleanup costs are the ones passed on taxpayer -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

And did you see this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Somebody mentioned sometime above that China has nuclear reactors but forgot to share that they have stopped are going more into solar or wind. If I had not chanced along those articles and the data shared in them, would have never known.

If Mr. Barnard is showing bad faith, or has faulty data somewhere, show it, will end the matter. For stock broking and rating agencies I don't trust them an inch. Time and again they have proved to be bad faith actors and without repetance. Seen enough of it in India. Even when our Supreme Court has put decisions against them, they continue if nothing has happened, I am sure it's the same in States and elsewhere but that probably will become off-topic.

I can see you started your reply obviously before I updated my post and you did not see it. You will see I linked that there will be a LOT MORE conventional nuclear coming online in China. As well as solar and SMR development.

And again, all of your articles are coming from a single source (cleantechnica). Might they be demonstrating an agenda?

I'll try to return later after work with more.

Tugg

The only agenda I can see is to have clean energy that is the long and short of it. They love wind and solar and they hate nuclear, oil and gas. And not without reason, because each of the energy sources leaves a bad smell and a bad imprint. When IAEA itself tells that any place that has had nuclear plant would be unviable for 100,000 years that itself should have ended the matter but you want to drag it.

Similarly, he shared an article that showed that initial cleanup costs and the final cleanup costs there is a world of difference.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

This again is not far-fetched by any means. We have seen this with oil spills and whatnot. I would like to know from you what agenda they possibly could have other than to have clean air and water which we all want.

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I did. You should research Michael Barnard.

Just FYI, the article is more opinion piece than science. It sounds like "science" but it is agenda driven by its author. An author that is prolific in working to sell his services to others on how they should do their projects.

So it is an article but not definitive on its topic.

Here are other articles to read on the topic:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/wh ... ctors-smrs
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-smal ... ctors-smrs
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... t-targets/

These parties have a differing view from Mr. Barnard (who has an opposing view from them).

Here is another article, from an individual like Mr. Barnard, but a bit more balanced.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... r-reactors

Tugg

Of the three, the first two are discounted, the first one itself is part of the industry so how you can take them at face value. The second being the U.S. Govt. that itself has been in bed with nuclear since the Manhattan project days and the third a stock broker, lol. The other article doesn't give any data as has been shared.

If Mr. Banard would not have disclosed who he is or was or what he is working upon then you would say. Can you point out any faulty data on what he has shared? I looked up all the comments. Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... 5369027075

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Also, regarding the comment "Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date - " would indicate you are saying current nuclear technology is better and adequate as so many HAVE been built.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... of-course/

Tugg

If it had been there would have been no need for this so-called 'new technology' but even here as has been pointed out there are more than legitimate concerns. For e.g. who would be bearing the security costs. And the security costs have sadly been never taken into account. Compared to wind and solar, obviously the security costs would at the very least 10x higher, wouldn't it be. Any rational person would want security to be secure as military installation and then there goes economics. And this is without all the bribery and whatnot that goes on.

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Of the three, the first two are discounted, the first one itself is part of the industry so how you can take them at face value. The second being the U.S. Govt. that itself has been in bed with nuclear since the Manhattan project days and the third a stock broker, lol. The other article doesn't give any data as has been shared.

If Mr. Banard would not have disclosed who he is or was or what he is working upon then you would say. Can you point out any faulty data on what he has shared? I looked up all the comments. Interestingly, seems not a single SRM has been built to date -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/sm ... 5369027075

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Tugg

It is just not one article, many others the cleanup costs are the ones passed on taxpayer -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

And did you see this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Somebody mentioned sometime above that China has nuclear reactors but forgot to share that they have stopped are going more into solar or wind. If I had not chanced along those articles and the data shared in them, would have never known.

If Mr. Barnard is showing bad faith, or has faulty data somewhere, show it, will end the matter. For stock broking and rating agencies I don't trust them an inch. Time and again they have proved to be bad faith actors and without repetance. Seen enough of it in India. Even when our Supreme Court has put decisions against them, they continue if nothing has happened, I am sure it's the same in States and elsewhere but that probably will become off-topic.

The article regarding China is quite out of date, it was published in 2019. As of last month, China is moving forward with plans to build 150 nuclear reactors over the next 15 years. What’s more, they’re pursuing R&D and construction of newer generation reactors, which are both safer and more efficient. They are also actively testing new thorium salt reactors for future potential use.

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/wh ... expansion/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

pune wrote:

When IAEA itself tells that any place that has had nuclear plant would be unviable for 100,000 years that itself should have ended the matter but you want to drag it.

That is not what the IAEA said.

pune wrote:

Similarly, he shared an article that showed that initial cleanup costs and the final cleanup costs there is a world of difference.

Except it doesn’t stand up to real-world data and experience. Were that universally the case, France’s wouldn’t 1/3rd the costs of Germany’s.

More interesting to me are the solar and wind stuff they are doing and are already in works -

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-tra ... -1-1139896


https://www.power-technology.com/news/r ... ing-china/

And then there is this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/04/la ... -in-china/ seems that they really know what is good for them.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I am simply providing other information. They all have their biases. As does Mr. Barnard. As you ask for which faulty data is seen in his article, that goes equally for your outright dismissal of the others and complete reliance on his one article. So I ask: Which faulty data do you see in the other articles?

Tugg

It is just not one article, many others the cleanup costs are the ones passed on taxpayer -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

And did you see this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Somebody mentioned sometime above that China has nuclear reactors but forgot to share that they have stopped are going more into solar or wind. If I had not chanced along those articles and the data shared in them, would have never known.

If Mr. Barnard is showing bad faith, or has faulty data somewhere, show it, will end the matter. For stock broking and rating agencies I don't trust them an inch. Time and again they have proved to be bad faith actors and without repetance. Seen enough of it in India. Even when our Supreme Court has put decisions against them, they continue if nothing has happened, I am sure it's the same in States and elsewhere but that probably will become off-topic.

The article regarding China is quite out of date, it was published in 2019. As of last month, China is moving forward with plans to build 150 nuclear reactors over the next 15 years. What’s more, they’re pursuing R&D and construction of newer generation reactors, which are both safer and more efficient. They are also actively testing new thorium salt reactors for future potential use.

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/wh ... expansion/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

pune wrote:

When IAEA itself tells that any place that has had nuclear plant would be unviable for 100,000 years that itself should have ended the matter but you want to drag it.

That is not what the IAEA said.

pune wrote:

Similarly, he shared an article that showed that initial cleanup costs and the final cleanup costs there is a world of difference.

Except it doesn’t stand up to real-world data and experience. Were that universally the case, France’s wouldn’t 1/3rd the costs of Germany’s.

Any comments on these or are these also by 'vested interests' although you didn't even tell what those vested interests are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear ... in-us.html

https://www.miningjournal.net/uncategor ... issioning/

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

It is just not one article, many others the cleanup costs are the ones passed on taxpayer -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/01/us ... 0-billion/

And did you see this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

Somebody mentioned sometime above that China has nuclear reactors but forgot to share that they have stopped are going more into solar or wind. If I had not chanced along those articles and the data shared in them, would have never known.

If Mr. Barnard is showing bad faith, or has faulty data somewhere, show it, will end the matter. For stock broking and rating agencies I don't trust them an inch. Time and again they have proved to be bad faith actors and without repetance. Seen enough of it in India. Even when our Supreme Court has put decisions against them, they continue if nothing has happened, I am sure it's the same in States and elsewhere but that probably will become off-topic.

The article regarding China is quite out of date, it was published in 2019. As of last month, China is moving forward with plans to build 150 nuclear reactors over the next 15 years. What’s more, they’re pursuing R&D and construction of newer generation reactors, which are both safer and more efficient. They are also actively testing new thorium salt reactors for future potential use.

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/wh ... expansion/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

pune wrote:

When IAEA itself tells that any place that has had nuclear plant would be unviable for 100,000 years that itself should have ended the matter but you want to drag it.

That is not what the IAEA said.

pune wrote:

Similarly, he shared an article that showed that initial cleanup costs and the final cleanup costs there is a world of difference.

Except it doesn’t stand up to real-world data and experience. Were that universally the case, France’s wouldn’t 1/3rd the costs of Germany’s.

Any comments on these or are these also by 'vested interests' although you didn't even tell what those vested interests are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear ... in-us.html

https://www.miningjournal.net/uncategor ... issioning/

Comment on what exactly? Nuclear waste in the US needs a permanent and safe disposal site, and thanks to Harry Reid we don’t have one. I will say I did find the quote from the one activist saying the waste stays in the environment for “trillions of years” amusing.

pune wrote:

And then there is this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/04/la ... -in-china/ seems that they really know what is good for them.

You seem to be arguing from the standpoint that anyone who’s OK with including nuclear power in the energy mix is against other renewables when that is not the case. What is moronic however is being OK with more fossil fuel emissions at the expense of nuclear power.

I think we are drifting a bit here. This thread is about the Germans saying no to nuclear power. It's their country.
I'd rather see them spend their capital and engineering knowledge to reduce the impact from all the heavy diesels built in Germany and used on trucks and ships all over the world. Their automobile diesels are in this bunch too.

Rudolf Diesel
German inventor

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The article regarding China is quite out of date, it was published in 2019. As of last month, China is moving forward with plans to build 150 nuclear reactors over the next 15 years. What’s more, they’re pursuing R&D and construction of newer generation reactors, which are both safer and more efficient. They are also actively testing new thorium salt reactors for future potential use.

https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/wh ... expansion/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w


That is not what the IAEA said.


Except it doesn’t stand up to real-world data and experience. Were that universally the case, France’s wouldn’t 1/3rd the costs of Germany’s.

Any comments on these or are these also by 'vested interests' although you didn't even tell what those vested interests are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear ... in-us.html

https://www.miningjournal.net/uncategor ... issioning/

Comment on what exactly? Nuclear waste in the US needs a permanent and safe disposal site, and thanks to Harry Reid we don’t have one. I will say I did find the quote from the one activist saying the waste stays in the environment for “trillions of years” amusing.

She just said what was said by IAEA at 09:00 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3DvcXd3mM or did you deliberately not listen to the fact that they themselves say it would be a no-go area between 10k to 100k years. You seem to have developed partial hearing problems, please get yourself checked. This is the second time had to remind you what was said by people who are part of the industry.

pune wrote:

And then there is this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/04/la ... -in-china/ seems that they really know what is good for them.

flyguy89 wrote:

You seem to be arguing from the standpoint that anyone who’s OK with including nuclear power in the energy mix is against other renewables when that is not the case. What is moronic however is being OK with more fossil fuel emissions at the expense of nuclear power.

Can you tell how there would be more fuel emissions if nuclear is not used. If you had actually listened to the whole video that I shared above, 100% can be achieved by just solar, wind and batteries and all of these are just gonna progress. I asked you to find me if the maths is wrong, but you could not find the maths or the argument that solar or wind are much cheaper than nuclear. And this is without the cleanup and decommissioning costs. All of that just adds on top of things. You want to discuss everything but neither the maths neither the long-term costs, only here to muddy the waters it seems.

This also sets a tone -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/06/nu ... -industry/

Guessing pv magazine people also don't know what they are talking about, right ???

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/ ... -solution/

And guessing even the S&P global have some axe to grind -

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... e-56971432

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think we are drifting a bit here. This thread is about the Germans saying no to nuclear power. It's their country.
I'd rather see them spend their capital and engineering knowledge to reduce the impact from all the heavy diesels built in Germany and used on trucks and ships all over the world. Their automobile diesels are in this bunch too.

Rudolf Diesel
German inventor

I agree but do see that happening as electrification of their fleet happens. I was just reading this the other day -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/08/ge ... -december/

Now that itself tells where the market is heading in Germany and if the last two years are anything to go by, then by the end of the year we may see 60% plus market share of EV in Germany. And once that happens, then who knows what happens to the ICE vehicles. It would probably be like Norway where nobody wants to buy an ICE vehicle anymore.

The same has happened in my country too but from a very low base -

https://www.zeebiz.com/automobile/news- ... ort-175714

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Any comments on these or are these also by 'vested interests' although you didn't even tell what those vested interests are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear ... in-us.html

https://www.miningjournal.net/uncategor ... issioning/

Comment on what exactly? Nuclear waste in the US needs a permanent and safe disposal site, and thanks to Harry Reid we don’t have one. I will say I did find the quote from the one activist saying the waste stays in the environment for “trillions of years” amusing.

She just said what was said by IAEA at 09:00 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3DvcXd3mM or did you deliberately not listen to the fact that they themselves say it would be a no-go area between 10k to 100k years. You seem to have developed partial hearing problems, please get yourself checked. This is the second time had to remind you what was said by people who are part of the industry.

My hearing is just fine. You said: “When IAEA itself tells that any place that has had nuclear plant would be unviable for 100,000 years.”

The video said: “…more than 30 million of which [waste] has been permanently disposed of in sites that will remain no gos for anything between 10 and 100,000 years.”

pune wrote:

Can you tell how there would be more fuel emissions if nuclear is not used.

By shutting down your nuclear sources and planning to use fossil fuels as your long-term bridge source until you attain 100% renewables.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Comment on what exactly? Nuclear waste in the US needs a permanent and safe disposal site, and thanks to Harry Reid we don’t have one. I will say I did find the quote from the one activist saying the waste stays in the environment for “trillions of years” amusing.

She just said what was said by IAEA at 09:00 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ3DvcXd3mM or did you deliberately not listen to the fact that they themselves say it would be a no-go area between 10k to 100k years. You seem to have developed partial hearing problems, please get yourself checked. This is the second time had to remind you what was said by people who are part of the industry.

My hearing is just fine. You said: “When IAEA itself tells that any place that has had nuclear plant would be unviable for 100,000 years.”

The video said: “…more than 30 million of which [waste] has been permanently disposed of in sites that will remain no gos for anything between 10 and 100,000 years.”

Ah good, so you are ok with large swathes of land being no-go between 10 to 100k years. I am not. Add to that as I had talked or shared repeatedly, we do not have any technology to store nuclear waste long-term.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Can you tell how there would be more fuel emissions if nuclear is not used.

By shutting down your nuclear sources and planning to use fossil fuels as your long-term bridge source until you attain 100% renewables.

Now that is your assumption and it is fine to have your own assumptions but did I ever say that? I do not see any issue with having 100% renewables today. The same assumptions were being told about EVs by the petrolheads and today the data clearly shows that EVs are replacing ICE vehicles that are even beyond our wildest dreams. For most people who were thinking that the change to EV would happen to 2040, it became 2030 and now it's actually 2026 at the latest. Here I'm talking about China and the EU both of which have been speed demons as far as EV is concerned. The U.S. has been a bit of a laggard but even they should be 100% by 2030. And once EV's have reached that point, then the shift will be to wind and solar not just at the national or regional level but even municipality and society level. I know in my own city a few societies that have been using and investing in solar and wind. And this is when we don't have a company like Tesla that gives a decade warranty on their products.

pune wrote:

Ah good, so you are ok with large swathes of land being no-go between 10 to 100k years.

100% yes, absolutely. If the only cost for abundant, zero carbon electricity is setting aside a few hundred acres for a bunker in already-uninhabitable land…totally worth it to me to stave off climate change.

pune wrote:

Now that is your assumption and it is fine to have your own assumptions but did I ever say that?

It is the German position evidently, which is what this thread is about.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I think we are drifting a bit here. This thread is about the Germans saying no to nuclear power. It's their country.
I'd rather see them spend their capital and engineering knowledge to reduce the impact from all the heavy diesels built in Germany and used on trucks and ships all over the world. Their automobile diesels are in this bunch too.

Rudolf Diesel
German inventor

The thread is about Germany saying no to nuclear for the enrire EU, not just within Germany, since it's the European energy policy being discussed here.

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Japan has a history of earthquakes, hell it is the only place where children are told daily what to do in case of an earthquake,

https://www.christianmonson.com/article ... ng-of-fire

So heaven forbid, if tomorrow or some other day something like the above happens, I am sure you and other posters will be quick to blame Japan rather than the nuclear reactors. But then what else can be expected from you. Especially from those who are blind to the obvious disadvantages.

The earthquake 11 years ago was M9.0, almost the largest scale one you could get, yet none failed in such situation. Only one plant get destroyed by Tsunami, and even then the number of people killed by the plant in itself, or even by dustant relation like mental stress due to taking shelter from it, are nowhere near as much as the number of people killed by the tsunami itself.

My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The earthquake 11 years ago was M9.0, almost the largest scale one you could get, yet none failed in such situation. Only one plant get destroyed by Tsunami, and even then the number of people killed by the plant in itself, or even by dustant relation like mental stress due to taking shelter from it, are nowhere near as much as the number of people killed by the tsunami itself.

My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

flyguy89 wrote:

pune wrote:

Ah good, so you are ok with large swathes of land being no-go between 10 to 100k years.

100% yes, absolutely. If the only cost for abundant, zero carbon electricity is setting aside a few hundred acres for a bunker in already-uninhabitable land…totally worth it to me to stave off climate change.

pune wrote:

Now that is your assumption and it is fine to have your own assumptions but did I ever say that?

It is the German position evidently, which is what this thread is about.

Tell me how are you going to have nuclear waste for 10 to 100k years, if we don't have the technology then you are just making problems for the future generation, why? Because some people can get rich without accountability to their sons and daughters. I have asked this so many times but no answer.

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Wind and solar are often not competitive with carbon on a price/MW basis, given geographic and other factors. Nuclear plant construction is obviously a long term investment. Wind and solar also cannot handle future energy demand on their own, depending on the region in play.

Your use of all caps and unnuanced absolutes suggests a very emotional position on nuclear versus a qualitative analysis of its pros and cons.

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

My question hinges on what happens when it comes to say M11.0. Then what ??? The same thing happened with the Tsunami, it was unprecedented. Then what excuse would be given, that is what I am asking. And we know that the press in Japan is not as critical as it is in the west. That has been shown multiple times, but that is an aside. IPCC has told a number of times that you will see unprecedented climate catastrophes and that has been increasing. Whether it is wildfires in California or anything else. Something that was said to occur once a century, then once a decade and now a yearly thing

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Germany's coal retirement date being set to 2036 indicate wind and solar aren't enough for the job at least not until 2036

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Wind and solar are often not competitive with carbon on a price/MW basis, given geographic and other factors. Nuclear plant construction is obviously a long term investment.

Your use of all caps and unnuanced absolutes suggests a very emotional position on nuclear versus a qualitative analysis of its pros and cons.

Show the data, I have shared this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/21/wi ... x-by-2030/

There is also this -

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/21/fo ... t-3-years/

It would be similar no matter where you are. And in fact the operating costs of nuclear would be far higher than any other. Unless and until you are part of the industry. There is decomissioning costs as well as keeping nuclear waste safe, that will have recurring charges for security as well as whatever it requires going into hundreds of years. As I shared if you are part of the industry you would want that, regular people wouldn't.

And there is ample amount of data, first, try and show us this is untrue -

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/06/nu ... -industry/

Those who are proponent of nuclear and nuclear in China somehow fail to say why for 11 years China didn't do any nuclear power.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/09/05/a- ... y-winners/

Care to challenge this as well ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

c933103 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Germany's coal retirement date being set to 2036 indicate wind and solar aren't enough for the job at least not until 2036

Again assumptions. Germany would not want to put all its eggs in nuclear as you want to. I would suspect as more and more wind and solar come online and connected to grid that date would become irrelevant. Rather than Govt. giving handouts to nuclear where there are no plans as to how to keep nuclear safe for 1000's of years, solar and wind are doing it here and now. Of course, if Germany gives subsidy on it, then more such plants and whatnot will come to Germany. The Chinese would jump at this opportunity -

https://www.investopedia.com/10-biggest ... es-5077655

For battery, CATL, BYD, Tesla and LG Chem all well-known, well-established. The first two, number 1 and number 3 in the world (soon to be number 2.) battery makers in the world. For wind, you could have a mix of American and European companies starting from GE and Siemens and whatnot.

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So much conflation here. Wildfires are hardly a threat to nuclear plants. M11 earthquake is not a known quantity. And if you are concerned about IPCC forecasts, then you really ought to consider the impact nuclear energy can have on emissions reduction.

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Wind and solar are often not competitive with carbon on a price/MW basis, given geographic and other factors. Nuclear plant construction is obviously a long term investment. Wind and solar also cannot handle future energy demand on their own, depending on the region in play.

Your use of all caps and unnuanced absolutes suggests a very emotional position on nuclear versus a qualitative analysis of its pros and cons.

Aaron, you wanted hard data, I gave you hard data, now it is upto you to show how all these people are incorrect.

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Wind and solar are often not competitive with carbon on a price/MW basis, given geographic and other factors. Nuclear plant construction is obviously a long term investment. Wind and solar also cannot handle future energy demand on their own, depending on the region in play.

Your use of all caps and unnuanced absolutes suggests a very emotional position on nuclear versus a qualitative analysis of its pros and cons.

Aaron, you wanted hard data, I gave you hard data, now it is upto you to show how all these people are incorrect.

I am curious as to what "incorrect" you are after. Most authors that are presenting unbiased, equally weighted information are showing that nuclear power is a viable option. Now and going forward. That though there are challenges, it's ability to generate energy with nearly zero carbon emissions and with little cost once initial build costs are done. Like battery power that requires massive amounts of material to be used and damages that land when mined, problems exist that must be addressed and accounted for, however, nuclear power can be a safe and reliable source for decades once in place.

Oil and NG create massive environmental impacts, "renewables" require storage systems in order to be truly useful at large industrial scale and those storage systems, whether as simple as water or using batteries, create significant ongoing environmental impacts that must be addressed. Nuclear power competes against these and new variations, as they come online will achieve equivalence over time.

I'll try to find more balanced articles over time.
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/nucle ... s-and-cons

Tugg

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Why nuclear, when wind and solar can already do the job. I don't see anything but problems with nuclear. When IAEA itself says that an area would be no-go between 10k to 100k years then that itself should settle the debate. Even on a cost basis, it is not economical at all. There is nothing on the table that nuclear brings that solar and wind already don't provide. And I say NOTHING. On the contrary, as has been described, it can get leaked into water or soil and in turn, contaminate us. I haven't seen one solid reason to have nuclear as an option apart from being a money-spinner (bribes) for people. Even the cleanup costs are tremendous as shared by multiple people above all from different backgrounds.

Wind and solar are often not competitive with carbon on a price/MW basis, given geographic and other factors. Nuclear plant construction is obviously a long term investment. Wind and solar also cannot handle future energy demand on their own, depending on the region in play.

Your use of all caps and unnuanced absolutes suggests a very emotional position on nuclear versus a qualitative analysis of its pros and cons.

Aaron, you wanted hard data, I gave you hard data, now it is upto you to show how all these people are incorrect.

Hard data comes in the form of published papers, not a propaganda website where most of the content seems to boost Tesla/EV sales. One of the quoted 'articles' immediately lost credibility due to emotionally loaded language like 'The news isn't pretty' and 'begging for taxpayer money'. Funny how amongst the hundreds of articles on that site there is not one mention of the impacts from lithium mining. Oh well.

And to address the idea that nuclear is terrible for having "government assistance", one can always look to how much goes to renewable energy. This article is so over the top it is almost funny. It is about the costs in the Build Back Better legislation. Definitely unhinged but if one can be unhinged against nuclear, one can also be unhinged about renewables.

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/1 ... er-agenda/

Tugg

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Wind and solar are often not competitive with carbon on a price/MW basis, given geographic and other factors. Nuclear plant construction is obviously a long term investment. Wind and solar also cannot handle future energy demand on their own, depending on the region in play.

Your use of all caps and unnuanced absolutes suggests a very emotional position on nuclear versus a qualitative analysis of its pros and cons.

Aaron, you wanted hard data, I gave you hard data, now it is upto you to show how all these people are incorrect.

Hard data comes in the form of published papers, not a propaganda website where most of the content seems to boost Tesla/EV sales. One of the quoted 'articles' immediately lost credibility due to emotionally loaded language like 'The news isn't pretty' and 'begging for taxpayer money'. Funny how amongst the hundreds of articles on that site there is not one mention of the impacts from lithium mining. Oh well.

The pdf report I shared has 398 pages and multiple professors and people from various well-known Universities. Are you saying all of them are agenda-driven ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron, you wanted hard data, I gave you hard data, now it is upto you to show how all these people are incorrect.

Hard data comes in the form of published papers, not a propaganda website where most of the content seems to boost Tesla/EV sales. One of the quoted 'articles' immediately lost credibility due to emotionally loaded language like 'The news isn't pretty' and 'begging for taxpayer money'. Funny how amongst the hundreds of articles on that site there is not one mention of the impacts from lithium mining. Oh well.

The pdf report I shared has 398 pages and multiple professors and people from various well-known Universities. Are you saying all of them are agenda-driven ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

That report is actually decently balanced and looks into the issues confronting nuclear power but it does not say it is bad.

(By the way, I don't actually see the 398 page report in the link you provided. I had to find it separately.)

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Hard data comes in the form of published papers, not a propaganda website where most of the content seems to boost Tesla/EV sales. One of the quoted 'articles' immediately lost credibility due to emotionally loaded language like 'The news isn't pretty' and 'begging for taxpayer money'. Funny how amongst the hundreds of articles on that site there is not one mention of the impacts from lithium mining. Oh well.

The pdf report I shared has 398 pages and multiple professors and people from various well-known Universities. Are you saying all of them are agenda-driven ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

That report is actually decently balanced and looks into the issues confronting nuclear power but it does not say it is bad.

(By the way, I don't actually see the 398 page report in the link you provided. I had to find it separately.)

Tugg

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

Tugger wrote:

And to address the idea that nuclear is terrible for having "government assistance", one can always look to how much goes to renewable energy. This article is so over the top it is almost funny. It is about the costs in the Build Back Better legislation. Definitely unhinged but if one can be unhinged against nuclear, one can also be unhinged about renewables.

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/1 ... er-agenda/

Tugg

It's simple, they want nuclear in rather than wind and solar. Doesn't take that much to figure out. It is known that republicans like projects that have long gestation times, the longer it takes, the better it is. And Nuclear the biggest of all, once you have it, returns for hundreds of years even if the nuclear plant itself is decommissioned and produces no energy at all. At the end it would be the taxpayer who would have to pay, not them so what's the harm, right.

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

pune wrote:

The pdf report I shared has 398 pages and multiple professors and people from various well-known Universities. Are you saying all of them are agenda-driven ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

That report is actually decently balanced and looks into the issues confronting nuclear power but it does not say it is bad.

(By the way, I don't actually see the 398 page report in the link you provided. I had to find it separately.)

Tugg

It's on the same webpage, please. Anyways, even after 3 pages, I am forced to ask the same question, how you are going to have nuclear waste secured for 1000 to 100k years and who is going to foot the bill to do so. If it's the taxpayer then solar and wind are way cheaper.

You do not have to secure nuclear waste for the time frame you state. A good amount of waste material is able to be recycled into new fuel for use in continuing operations to generate power. In ground storage solutions along with further development of how to further use "waste" can address the issue even more. Most storage is currently occurring safely on site at all locations, with little to no risk to local populations (I live within 20 miles on one such location).

And just for you, here is the actual direct link for the report: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/ ... 021-lr.pdf

Tugg

pune wrote:

Tugger wrote:

And to address the idea that nuclear is terrible for having "government assistance", one can always look to how much goes to renewable energy. This article is so over the top it is almost funny. It is about the costs in the Build Back Better legislation. Definitely unhinged but if one can be unhinged against nuclear, one can also be unhinged about renewables.

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2021/1 ... er-agenda/

Tugg

It's simple, they want nuclear in rather than wind and solar. Doesn't take that much to figure out. It is known that republicans like projects that have long gestation times, the longer it takes, the better it is. And Nuclear the biggest of all, once you have it, returns for hundreds of years even if the nuclear plant itself is decommissioned and produces no energy at all. At the end it would be the taxpayer who would have to pay, not them so what's the harm, right.

And CleanTechnica is simple to, they want wind and solar in rather than nuclear. And they do not examine the deleterious impacts of wind and solar, from disposal of blades to mining operations for dangerous elements needed in batteries.

Tugg

pune wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

pune wrote:

Aaron, you wanted hard data, I gave you hard data, now it is upto you to show how all these people are incorrect.

Hard data comes in the form of published papers, not a propaganda website where most of the content seems to boost Tesla/EV sales. One of the quoted 'articles' immediately lost credibility due to emotionally loaded language like 'The news isn't pretty' and 'begging for taxpayer money'. Funny how amongst the hundreds of articles on that site there is not one mention of the impacts from lithium mining. Oh well.

The pdf report I shared has 398 pages and multiple professors and people from various well-known Universities. Are you saying all of them are agenda-driven ???

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The- ... COVID.html

I was referring to the junk links on cleantechnica.