> Fly ash is much worse, since it's also radioactive
My apologies, I was indeed talking about radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution. It goes without saying that I'm not terribly happy with how this country is getting into coal lately. So yes, fly ash is definitely a concern as well. I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.
> A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal?
Yes, they ship it around and it radiates. Remember - in the US, they recently had to scrap plans for that one site because it meant the fuel had to travel there a long way. I was also off a little - it's pretty much an every year event, but I guess that's still not a threshold trigger for you.
Still, again, the real problem here is that nobody really knows where to ship this to and what to do with it once it's there. And how safe it will be the next couple hundred thousand years.
> Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.
See - I'm just not really satisfied with that answer and I guess I don't see how anybody can be. Sorry.
> Why would you link to something that supports my position?
You were asking me to qualify 'horrifying' - seems like we have a different measure there. I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.
> I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"
Nope, sorry, that's not the same. Comparing two things is one thing - Relativism is something else entirely. That branch discussion was about discussing how extracting fuel from the earth is polluting. You qualified that by saying: Hey, there are a lot of things that are polluting, like iron/coal/oil/gas. Yes - I understand that - but that's not adding to the discussion.
It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place. No matter which one, you have to keep digging it up to keep it going and that's bad. It's also the crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy. No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually.
> And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait.
Now I'm not even sure we read the same article anymore. That's not really a defensible statement in light of how widely used this technology already is. Or are you still hung up on solar?
> Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.
Dead-end in terms of: "What technological progress does this provide on the side?". Sure, making it "cleaner" may be one form of progress, but I think "green" energy simply has more potential for innovation and collateral technological benefit for everybody.
> radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution
What? It's extremely easy to top radioactive waste. Every single pollution tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits in a storage cask, and the other types of pollution go in the air I breathe. Your position makes no sense.
> I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.
So instead you want more fly ash? Picking "don't make electricity" is not an option.
> what to do with it once it's there
Don't do anything with it, just leave it there. When technology improves, use it for fuel.
> I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.
And I guess coal dust doesn't bother you? Or ozone leading to lung cancer? Or particulate matter (PM2.5)? It has to be radiation I guess.
> It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place ... you have to keep digging it up to keep it going ... crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy
Not exactly. Renewable fuels are not actually renewable since you need to build the machine to get that energy, and that building material is not free. Nor is the land area free - I prefer to use land for other things, not cover the earth in energy harvesting machines.
You need to include everything when looking at an energy source, not just the "fuel".
> No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually.
I think an energy source that will last more than 1000 years is good enough. And consider that we use barely 5% of the energy in uranium, and using that measure we have enough for more than 1000 years.
Use all the energy in uranium and it'll last 20,000 years. Then we can start using thorium, and we have even more of that than we do uranium. By that time we can start mining asteroids.
> how widely used this technology already is
Maybe I missed something but what technology are you talking about?
> Every single pollution tops radioactive waste since radioactive waste sits in a storage cask
Of course, preferably, every type of pollution should sit in a storage cask. I was under the impression that we were discussing the potential of pollution of different pollutants. If we compare storage casks, we get to actually compare how dangerous they are. In that comparison, radioactive waste should win the battle for what is most dangerous.
> So instead you want more fly ash? Picking "don't make electricity" is not an option.
Fly Ash is mostly produced by coal plants. Where did I say I support those? Capturing fly ash in other processes is comparatively simple when you do it right - although writing that may just spin into another discussion of why you think it's actually the other way round and it's radiation that is more easily contained and managed.
> Don't do anything with it, just leave it there. When technology improves, use it for fuel.
No, that's the point - it's not even "there", it's in holding facilities right now, because we still haven't decided what this "there" actually is.
Also - if you ask me to grant you that we will develop this improved technology - why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy?
> And I guess coal dust doesn't bother you? Or ozone leading to lung cancer? Or particulate matter (PM2.5)? It has to be radiation I guess.
Well, that's again putting words in my mouth. Pollution bothers me - there. Radioactive pollution bothers me most. That's all there is to it. I should be allowed to not be OK with multiple types of pollution, right?
> Not exactly. Renewable fuels are not actually renewable since you need to build the machine to get that energy, and that building material is not free. Nor is the land area free - I prefer to use land for other things, not cover the earth in energy harvesting machines.
Note that I wrote "renewable source", not "renewable fuel". Once you've built a wind turbine, it kind of keeps going (save for repairs along the way). You don't have to rebuild it at the rate that you have to go back to the mine to dig up more fuel. Which you have to do for energy from fossil fuels - for which you also have to build the facilities.
> Use all the energy in uranium and it'll last 20,000 years. Then we can start using thorium, and we have even more of that than we do uranium. By that time we can start mining asteroids.
Not sure how to respond to that other than that it sounds very old fashioned and boring and I'm still not convinced it will hold pace. Not to mention that it is in no way a justification, just an excuse to use the fuel. Renewable sources of energy are also just "lying around" ready to be "mined" by us. And they are, to me, universally less concerning in terms of environmental impact when compared to nuclear energy.
> Maybe I missed something but what technology are you talking about?
The article talks about 17% usage of renewable energy sources in Germany for 2010 - most of it in wind, followed by hydro and your dreaded solar at a distant third place. In any case - I would think that's substantial enough to render your original assertion moot.
You didn't - except that by blocking nuclear power you end up with it by default, so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.
> why is it different for alternative, renewable sources of energy?
Because there aren't any. Sun and wind can do a portion, and I'm glad for it (except photovoltaics).
But what about the rest? There is no renewable source of energy than can do the rest of the job, so we need something, and it's either natural gas, coal, or nuclear.
> Pollution bothers me - there. Radioactive pollution bothers me most.
But why?! Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better! Why do you look at the potential instead of the actuality?
> sounds very old fashioned and boring
???
> Renewable sources of energy are also just "lying around" ready to be "mined" by us.
But there is not enough of it. Not unless we cover the earth with energy collectors, and I don't want that. I assume you don't either.
> most of it in wind, followed by hydro and your dreaded solar at a distant third place. In any case - I would think that's substantial enough to render your original assertion moot.
It's not moot though. Hydro is maxed out. Wind could probably take a larger share - but then what? What about the final 70%?
> so you have to accept that you are implicitly supporting it.
Nope, I don't have to do that. You don't just get to claim I'm in a catch 22.
Actually, this appears to be what the article echoes as well: Everybody is telling Germany they can't do it, but they just do it anyways.
> But what about the rest?
Increase in efficiency of what is existing, smarter use of the energy that we have. That should get us quite a long way.
> Yes, I know the potential is worse. But the actually is better!
Which is why I don't think we have to increase 'potential' to make sure that the 'actually' stays that way.
> Not unless we cover the earth with energy collectors, and I don't want that. I assume you don't either.
No, totally terrible plan - creating all those jobs and encouraging all that innovation. I've already said it before in this thread - I'm very much OK with setting up as many collectors as it takes.
> but then what? What about the final 70%?
In the short term, Germany is gunning for 35% - once we are there, we will reassess. I don't claim to be able to predict the future like you apparently do, but I sure know which path sounds better. To me, at least.
U.S. citizen here. The storage site is on hold (not scrapped) only because of fear-mongering folks like yourself. There is no technological reason to fear the rail shipment of nuclear waste. It is not difficult to engineer enclosures that will withstand the most energetic possible train wreck. And obviously they are well shielded for radiation.
> There is no technological reason to fear the rail shipment of nuclear waste. It is not difficult to engineer enclosures that will withstand the most energetic possible train wreck.
Actually, it is difficult and there is considerable dissent over whether the currently used technology is safe enough or as safe as advertised. [1][2]
> And obviously they are well shielded for radiation.
They are shielded, but how well is another that is up for debate. I'm kind of hardlining it saying that any radiation is a problem - the containers are certainly not 100% shielded. Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
> Not finding any amount of radiation acceptable is where I seem to be losing most of the people who understand themselves to be pragmatic supporters of nuclear energy in this discussion.
Because background radiation means we are always exposed to it. So setting a no tolerance policy doesn't make sense.
My apologies, I was indeed talking about radioactive waste in general being hard to top in terms of pollution. It goes without saying that I'm not terribly happy with how this country is getting into coal lately. So yes, fly ash is definitely a concern as well. I just happen to think waste from nuclear fuel is easier to "not produce" right now.
> A pollution source that can be shipped on rails? And you only need to do it every few years? Does it get more ideal?
Yes, they ship it around and it radiates. Remember - in the US, they recently had to scrap plans for that one site because it meant the fuel had to travel there a long way. I was also off a little - it's pretty much an every year event, but I guess that's still not a threshold trigger for you.
Still, again, the real problem here is that nobody really knows where to ship this to and what to do with it once it's there. And how safe it will be the next couple hundred thousand years.
> Not for a long long time. Doesn't matter, in the meantime we'll just stick the nuclear waste somewhere where there are no people.
See - I'm just not really satisfied with that answer and I guess I don't see how anybody can be. Sorry.
> Why would you link to something that supports my position?
You were asking me to qualify 'horrifying' - seems like we have a different measure there. I find any radiation exposure leading to death by lung cancer horrifying.
> I'm glad you enjoy that since that's exactly what we are talking about: "Relatively speaking, since none are perfect, which energy source is best?"
Nope, sorry, that's not the same. Comparing two things is one thing - Relativism is something else entirely. That branch discussion was about discussing how extracting fuel from the earth is polluting. You qualified that by saying: Hey, there are a lot of things that are polluting, like iron/coal/oil/gas. Yes - I understand that - but that's not adding to the discussion.
It is inherently a better idea to not use fuel in the first place. No matter which one, you have to keep digging it up to keep it going and that's bad. It's also the crucial difference between renewable and fossil sources of energy. No matter how "little" fuel you need: on the long scale, it will fail with 100% certainty, eventually.
> And I'd rather not spend money on technology that doesn't work, probably can not work, and definitely is terrible while we wait.
Now I'm not even sure we read the same article anymore. That's not really a defensible statement in light of how widely used this technology already is. Or are you still hung up on solar?
> Nuclear power is not a dead end technology - it's the cleanest power we have, and more engineering can make it even cleaner.
Dead-end in terms of: "What technological progress does this provide on the side?". Sure, making it "cleaner" may be one form of progress, but I think "green" energy simply has more potential for innovation and collateral technological benefit for everybody.