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 cobstruction 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.

Yep, after 18 years on dA, I closed my account there yesterday.

I had about 2000 photos or so, but a year ago I got too pissed off at how slow and annoying it was to navigate, so I set up an index page on a webhost and use digiKam to create albums.

I update the index page in HTML/CSS and link to the albums.

The albums does have some javascript, that is to enable arrowkey navigation, else it is just pure HTML and CSS, and it is blazingly fast.

That sounds very much like projection…

They are awesome!

The issue I had with them at first was that I thought you had to rip ir off halfway, the it was annoying as hell, but if you just unscrew it and fold it open untill it locks open it works great!

To close you just have to pull it up slightly to get it over the opening and then srew it closed

Correct, Putin is behaving like an abusive partner.

He never expected Ukraine and the west to do so well against him, and since we don’t have any police to call in this case the abuser won’t be taken to jail and keeps fighting.

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.

Oh I agree with you, I just don’t think that a world war is what Putin wants.

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

Putin doesn’t want a world war, he is more interested in having the west just roll over and letting him retake the former countries of the Soviet Union

I see that this is the day, I wish you all the best and know that realizing the issue and doing something about it is a huge step on the way!

You are doing good!

Going for a walk.

Cleaning.

Minecraft, soo much minecraft…

Break down the issue into smaller tasks.

I was living with a family in a suburb to Bath in the UK, the son in the family and me was with his friends Bristol for a day, when they suddenly started talking about bombs, yep this was the London bombings in 2005…

At first I didn’t realize what happened, I am Swede and English is my second language, so I had a bit of trouble actually understanding it all.

When we got back home, I called my parents who were in Canada on vacation at the time, they were at a restaurant and had not heard the news yet, so they were very confused but happy that I was fine.

I can just imagine them at a restaurant, getting a call from their son calling to say that he is ok and not to worry with zero context and then hearing about the attacks that way, that must have been quite surreal, but also ment that they was never worried.

Go for a drive, I have AC in my car…

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