Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_RealKeyserSoze t1_isphgnk wrote

Reply to comment by 11fingerfreak in Nation’s First Nuclear-Powered Clean Hydrogen Production Announced. The Nine Mile Point Generating Station, the oldest operating U.S. nuclear power plant, will soon house the nation’s first nuclear-powered clean hydrogen production facility by chopchopped

Right now it isnt nuclear vs fossil fuels. Renewables are not yet ready to replace 100% of fossil fuels so nuclear is needed as well.

This is the worlds current energy mix.

This was published in 2019, unfortunately it went largely unnoticed: >”these two countries could have prevented 28,000 air pollution-induced deaths and 2400 MtCO2 emissions between 2011 and 2017. Germany can still prevent 16,000 deaths and 1100 MtCO2 emissions by 2035 by reducing coal instead of eliminating nuclear as planned. If the US and the rest of Europe follow Germany's example they could lose the chance to prevent over 200,000 deaths and 14,000 MtCO2 emissions by 2035.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303611

And by your logic we should also get rid of hydro, which makes up the majority of renewable energy. Because [insert conspiracy here] could do something bad like that one time.

1

11fingerfreak t1_ispin4l wrote

Considering we’re actually building solar and wind right now and nuclear takes years to setup, it’s safe to say we can scale the mix of renewables faster than nuclear.

Hydro has a lot of issues, too. But those are moot since climate change may eventually make hydro hard to maintain.

Uh, they did bad things at least twice that we know of. And no state in the US is willing to build the geological containment facilities because they aren’t interested in making their groundwater radioactive. Heck, out here in Washington state we can’t even clean up a contaminated site without constant political fights. Why would anyone want the same issue? And it’s going to be an issue anywhere. Not hypothetically… it’s pretty much guaranteed.

So, no, it’s not between nuclear and fossil fuels. It’s where the money is for large companies that will get the contracts… but it’s not in the best interest of anyone that isn’t keen on getting leukemia.

−1

The_RealKeyserSoze t1_ispkbp3 wrote

>”It’s safe to say we can scale the mix of renewables faster than nuclear.”

Not to 100%, we dont have the grid storage. Nuclear provides base load which wind/solar do not. They are not in competition with each other, they are both needed to eliminate fossil fuels.

>”they aren’t interested in making their groundwater radioactive.”

Thats fake news, Yucca had plenty of research showing groundwater would not be impacted. But it’s easy to just make sh*t up since everyone is already irrationally scared of nuclear.

>”Heck, out here in Washington state we can’t even clean up a contaminated site without constant political fights. Why would anyone want the same issue? And it’s going to be an issue anywhere. Not hypothetically… it’s pretty much guaranteed.”

You realize nuclear weapons production done in the 1940s is completely unrated to nuclear energy today right?

2