Re:German solar and wind are triple the cost of French nucle...
by roenxi on Sunday November 10, 2019 @04:54PM
(#21500414)
> Ewaste is a problem for sure, but it doesn’t present the same complexity as nuclear waste products.
It isn't complex because it is unsolvable. When large amount of solar panels reach their end of life we are guaranteed to get large quantities of carcinogens in landfill that eventually leaks into the water table. Many sets of landfill are guaranteed to be poorly managed, and even those that are well managed are not scrutinised to the same extent as a nuclear related activity and will be of lower quality.
With nuclear, if we successfully traverse a complicated path then there will be no carcinogens in the water supply in the next 100 years. If we do it wrong there will be small quantities of carcinogens in the water supply.
> Almost all of the pro-nuclear arguments depend on an ideal state that never will and never did exist today.
What we are doing with nuclear today is working better than what we were doing with solar today. There is less waste and the harm it does is less than the harm of solar waste.
Anti-nuclear arguments just don't seem grapple with these questions of scale. Carcinogens sourced from e-waste are at least as bad as carcinogens from radioactive materials. As far as I can tell, large quantities of lead are worse.
> my state directly subsidizes nuclear plants because the operational expenses and capital costs make the electricity produced more expensive than the open market will pay.
This didn't stop Germanny bringing in solar. I've heard a rumour that German solar and wind are triple the cost of French nuclear, last half as long.
It isn't complex because it is unsolvable. When large amount of solar panels reach their end of life we are guaranteed to get large quantities of carcinogens in landfill that eventually leaks into the water table. Many sets of landfill are guaranteed to be poorly managed, and even those that are well managed are not scrutinised to the same extent as a nuclear related activity and will be of lower quality.
With nuclear, if we successfully traverse a complicated path then there will be no carcinogens in the water supply in the next 100 years. If we do it wrong there will be small quantities of carcinogens in the water supply.
> Almost all of the pro-nuclear arguments depend on an ideal state that never will and never did exist today.
What we are doing with nuclear today is working better than what we were doing with solar today. There is less waste and the harm it does is less than the harm of solar waste.
Anti-nuclear arguments just don't seem grapple with these questions of scale. Carcinogens sourced from e-waste are at least as bad as carcinogens from radioactive materials. As far as I can tell, large quantities of lead are worse.
> my state directly subsidizes nuclear plants because the operational expenses and capital costs make the electricity produced more expensive than the open market will pay.
This didn't stop Germanny bringing in solar. I've heard a rumour that German solar and wind are triple the cost of French nuclear, last half as long.