This is perfectly fair, I saw several anti nuclear power articles before thls, and I approached it from a more general viewpoint.

But if the alternative is coal, I’d go nuclear.

Sigh, I have heard the exonomics argument for decades, and it basicially boils down to “we should have started 10 years ago”, well yeah, that would have been the ideal, but today is the second best day to do it.

Untill now, no one in this thread has addresses the baseload problem.

Ok, flywheels, that is an interesting concept, depwnsing on the connection to the motor/generator and how much energy is lost in the transmission it could absolutely work.

I also wonder how scalable it would be…

You say that I am wrong, fine I can take critism, but when I just keep seeing people saying “NO” to any resonable way to remove our dependence on fossils with in a resonable timeline.

Tell me when would renewables be able to completely take over from fossil power generation, I mean in the long run (20+ years without any fossil fueld plants or nuclear plants), and run reliably even during the dark and cold winters in say northern scandinavia?

Give me a resonable idea on that.

The nuclear process itself doesn’t produce co2, the construction of the building does, you are absolutely right about that.

This goes for all concrete needed for renewables as well, massive hydro power dams will produce far more co2 during construction than a nuclear powerplant.

It is obvious that the economixs have changed in 30 years, and they will change in the next 30 years as well. The hesitation of building new nuclear powerplants will not make the situation better. The best time to build nuclear powerplats was perhaps 30 years ago, the second best time to build them is today.

By using economics as an argument you are deliberately advocating against using all tools to reduce global warming.

Base load absolutely exists, without it our society would fall apart.

Nuclear power would give us time to reduce the baseload to managable levels and further develop renewables so they can cope and we can transition away from coal power that needs kilometer long trains of coal every day, to me that sounds like it is worth paying a bit extra to do it faster than drag our feet when we have the knowledge and capability to do it.

I bet that in 30 years when this debate is still going on, you will say that we should have started building nuclear plants 30 year ago because the economics has changed since then.

Standardisation will bring down the cost and time of building a powerplant.

I don’t think it is fair to compare the cost of nuclear against the cost of renewable power since they will fullfill different roles.

Renewables are great at dynamic demand, nuclear is great at base demand.

Hydro power has been shown to be quite harmful to local fish dammaging the eco system, but yes, some hydro should absolutely be used.

But renewables still can’t cut it for base demand.

I see nuclear powerplants as being a drop-in replacement for coal, oil and gas powerplats, buying us time to develop renewables further while also developing better and more efficient tech.

I am absolutely certain that experts have looked at it, and come to different conclusions.

I’ll even go as far as to accept that there is no scientific consensus.

However, seeing that we keep outputting more and more co2, we need to do something drastic, fossil plants are one of the biggest sources of co2, so it makes sense to shut them down as soon as possible.

Nuclear power doesn’t really produce co2, the radiation is a local, limited problem, co2 emmisions is a global, existential problem.

Renewables are still not ready to deal with base load in a power grid long term, hydro power messes with local fish and environment, solar doesn’t work during the night, wind is quite unpredictable, batteries degrade over time and can’t supply AC without extra equipment.

So what is left but Nuclear power?

Nothing, nuclear power will buy us time to develop reliable renewable power while cutting our co2 emmissions drasticly.

I’d check it out if it was free, but I am not paying to prove someone else on the internet right.

Your response just tells me that you are not interested in a good faith debate.

I am not buying a book to prove your point.

At least here in Sweden, the high cost of nuclear power is due to artificial taxes, that are being lowered.

That sounds very much like projection…

So far I have not seen any real renewable energy source that can cover base demand, I am sure there will be eventually.

Nuclear is not a replacement for renewable energy, it is a shortcut to getting rid of fossil power generation and buying us time.

Nuclear power should be expanded, a lot, it is the only realistic way to replace fossil plats for base demand.

And before anyone starts whining about “radiation scary”, nuclear waste is a solved problem.

You dig a hole deep into the bedrock, put the waste in dry casks, put the full drycasks in the hole, and backfill it with clay.

Done, solved!

A bigger radiation hazard is coal ash, from cosl power stations, they produce insane ammounts of ash which is radioactive.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Storing coal ash is also a big problem:

http://www.southeastcoalash.org/about-coal-ash/coal-ash-storage/

Here is an interesting documentary about our fear of radiation, it is called Nuclear Nightmares, and was made by Horizon on BBC:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pqwo8

Some companies will even let you drive the sub!

That is probably it, I just wanted to check if there was something new happening

I see I got confused as he capitalized the X in the middle of the first sentence as well and thought I had missed something

What is the difference between x86 and X86?

I would pick hell, people have told me to go there, so I’d check out what the fuzz is all about.

No, the data is not physical, it is either magnetic or electric.

Since most people still store their media on hard drives most media is purely magnetic.

In a solid state drive storage chip the data is stored electronicly.

I have thought about this for a while now, before any natural resource can be exploited the following needs to be done:

1. An environmental restoration fund needs to be set up qith an initial payment and an aditional 2% of the value of the resource exploited anually throughout the life time of the facility, this money of controlled by the government and used to fund environmental restoration once the the facility is closed.
2. 10% of the annual value of the resource extracted will go to the local government, and be spent on upkeep and quallity of life for the local citizes, 10% of the annual value of the resource extraxted will go to the country government.

In total that is 22% so the company gets to keep 78%, seems resonable to me.

European here, this is just wrong, I don’t use WhatsApp, nor does my friends or family

…again

He has his name, that is his brand and he will probably use it to make bank as a public speaker