Let's nuke climate change!

@humy said
Wildgrass

This is nonsense. Your link says;
"...Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater...”

But the most modern up-to-date solar panels need NOT have "lead or carcinogenic cadmium", a fact that the link ...[text shortened]... raft and our buildings such has flats and houses; so we should ban trees and aircraft and buildings?

You obviously like to bring up the downsides of sources of power you don't support. But renewable sources that you do like come with significant downsides as well, that are often ignored and unappreciated by proponents. For example, is this a good idea? [1]

The quote you pulled was very clearly in reference to older model panels, but the article includes many other sources of pollution in new solar panels (I'm sure you can think of a few) that will be increasingly problematic as solar panels need to be recycled eventually. Overall, when all the concrete considerations are laid out I think nuclear is a vital component for near-term carbon emissions reductions. The USA alone has more than 8,000 coal plants. A lot are being replaced by natural gas, which is still carbon emitting. World-wide more than 1,600 coal plants are planned or being constructed, while zero-emissions nuclear plants are being decommissioned. If fossil-fuel emissions are an existential threat to mankind, then our failure to replace fossil-fuel power plants with zero-emissions power is unforgivable, regardless of how difficult it may seem to deal with the nuclear waste.

And your "birds killed by windmill" vs. "birds killed by climate change" comparison is completely bogus. Nuclear energy does not cause climate change.

And again, I love solar but there are negatives, including pollution, and the obvious piece that they are only operational for a portion of the day/year (as Sonhouse points out above).

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317588378_Damming_the_rivers_of_the_Amazon_basin

@humy said
What it does is cherry-pick just those fragments of info that makes solar sound like a bad thing while selectively and deliberately filtering out any and all info that makes solar sound like a good thing.

The link, for example, totally ignores the huge pollution from fossil fuels and fails to COMPARE the OVERALL pollution (i.e. INCLUDING air pollution) and resulting death fro ...[text shortened]... OMPARED with solar; again, a clear sign it is just another of those anti-renewable propaganda sites.

Sheesh. The entire point of the article was to point out that solar panels contain environmentally-hazardous pollutants. It is biased but not necessarily wrong. Of course it's going to ignore irrelevant side topics like fossil fuels. How many solar panel article do you read that fail to COMPARE the benefits of nuclear power against the billions of tons of waste produced by solar power panel-generating companies every year? None? That's because it's probably irrelevant to whatever point the article was trying to make... or....

It is a clear sign that every pro-solar article you read is really just another anti-nuclear propaganda site.

Edit: Here are a few more (diverse) sources of information.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy/

http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

@wildgrass said
You brought up Fukushima, which killed 573 people, as an example of why nuclear is dangerous. That completely ignores tragedies caused by other sources of power. The one I brought up killed 25,000 people, which is a single disaster that caused more deaths than all nuclear accidents put together. But is hydroelectric considered dangerous?

No, I did NOT bring up Fukushima. You are thinking of someone else. What disaster is the 25,000 killed from?

Your beloved IPCC is biased against your nuclear endorsement. Could it be because it competes with natural gas and petroleum? Now you have to fight propaganda from your own beloved IPCC.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/29/top-climate-scientists-warn-governments-of-blatant-anti-nuclear-bias-in-latest-ipcc-climate-report/#2acd1e5d3973

@metal-brain said
No, I did NOT bring up Fukushima. You are thinking of someone else. What disaster is the 25,000 killed from?

ummmmm

@metal-brain said
If people used common sense when they build a nuclear power plant I might support nuclear power. The problem is that no matter how advanced a technology is there are morons deciding the most important decisions, like building sites for example.

https://www.rt.com/news/339763-disaster-nuclear-earthquake-japan/

A hydroelectric dam broke in the 1970's in China. I posted the link in reply to your previous comment. Despite this atrocious event, no one considers hydroelectric power to be unsafe. Why is nuclear singled out?

@wildgrass said
ummmmm

@metal-brain said
If people used common sense when they build a nuclear power plant I might support nuclear power. The problem is that no matter how advanced a technology is there are morons deciding the most important decisions, like building sites for example.

https://www.rt.com/news/339763-disaster-nuclear-earthquake-japan/

A hydroe ...[text shortened]... this atrocious event, no one considers hydroelectric power to be unsafe. Why is nuclear singled out?

No, you didn't. You are thinking of someone else....again.

@wildgrass said
ummmmm

@metal-brain said
If people used common sense when they build a nuclear power plant I might support nuclear power. The problem is that no matter how advanced a technology is there are morons deciding the most important decisions, like building sites for example.

https://www.rt.com/news/339763-disaster-nuclear-earthquake-japan/

A hydroe ...[text shortened]... this atrocious event, no one considers hydroelectric power to be unsafe. Why is nuclear singled out?

Because of the potential damage a broken reactor can do as we have already seen.
That plus the end game problem, what to do with thousands of tons of nuclear fuel waste.

@sonhouse said
Because of the potential damage a broken reactor can do as we have already seen.
That plus the end game problem, what to do with thousands of tons of nuclear fuel waste.

Is a contained, relatively minuscule volume of nuclear waste better or worse than the release of 32 billion tons of carbon per year directly into the atmosphere? I would rather have the waste that was contained, recyclable/reusable and does not contribute in any meaningful way to climate change.

Climate change is an existential threat. Replacing coal with nuclear power is a viable strategy for mitigation.

@wildgrass said
Is a contained, relatively minuscule volume of nuclear waste better or worse than the release of 32 billion tons of carbon per year directly into the atmosphere? I would rather have the waste that was contained, recyclable/reusable and does not contribute in any meaningful way to climate change.

Climate change is an existential threat. Replacing coal with nuclear power is a viable strategy for mitigation.

CO2 is a plant nutrient that is helping plants to grow faster. It is a good thing. Crop yields will increase giving us more food to eat.

Radiation causes cancer later in life and those deaths are not counted. Would you eat tuna caught off the shores of Japan?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-nuclear-water/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-apologizes-for-still-radioactive-water-idUSKCN1ML15N

Edit: Here is an article you should read.

https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/?mbid=BottomRelatedStories

@wildgrass said
I want a bumper sticker that says "let's nuke climate change!"

I endorse nuclear power as a solution towards dramatically lowering carbon emissions in industrialized nations.

How much opposition is there for this? What are the rational arguments against replacing old coal-fired plants with new, state-of-the-art nuclear facilities?

I would agree if we would begin to use a radioactive material which would decay at a faster rate, is more plentiful than current radioactive materials used and would be very difficult for its' radioactive waste to be weaponized.
Oh wait, we already know of such a material.
Do any of you science people know what I am talking about ?

@caissad4 said
I would agree if we would begin to use a radioactive material which would decay at a faster rate, is more plentiful than current radioactive materials used and would be very difficult for its' radioactive waste to be weaponized.
Oh wait, we already know of such a material.
Do any of you science people know what I am talking about ?

If this is thorium then the fuel cycle isn't as good as it's cracked up to be. I'll dig out a reference if you confirm that's what you're talking about.

@deepthought said
If this is thorium then the fuel cycle isn't as good as it's cracked up to be. I'll dig out a reference if you confirm that's what you're talking about.

Yes it is. Proceed.

@caissad4 said
I would agree if we would begin to use a radioactive material which would decay at a faster rate, is more plentiful than current radioactive materials used and would be very difficult for its' radioactive waste to be weaponized.
Oh wait, we already know of such a material.
Do any of you science people know what I am talking about ?

I would love to see thorium reactors scaled up. That could be 50-100 years from now, though. Uranium works now.

@caissad4

This is about proliferation risk:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y5SrGviKCIsC&pg=PA111&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This discusses pros and cons in a reasonably balanced way:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx#References

I'm not against it, but there's proliferation risks and reprocessing is complicated by the intense radioactivity of the spent fuel. On the plus side it produces actinides less readily than U235.

@wildgrass

Thorium works now, see the second reference above.

@deepthought said
@wildgrass

Thorium works now, see the second reference above.

I enjoyed reading it, thanks for sharing. It looks like there have been no active thorium reactors since 1989. Much of the realistic discussion of thorium reactors involve very long-term scenarios for viable energy production.

In terms of planned construction, India is the only place currently considering building one, and it will take at least 15 years before the prototype is up and running. It will be much longer before other reactors are operational.

India is focusing and prioritizing the construction and commissioning of its fleet of 500 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactors in which it will breed the required plutonium which is the key to unlocking the energy potential of thorium in its advanced heavy water reactors. This will take another 15-20 years, and so it will still be some time before India is using thorium energy to any extent. The 500 MWe prototype FBR under construction in Kalpakkam was expected to start up in 2014, but 2018 is now the target date.

Edit: after further reading, it looks like the Netherlands has a prototype they fired up last year.