Re:Renewables supplied 65% of new US utility-scale generatin...
by reaperman on Tuesday May 16, 2023 @06:55PM
(#35968858)
> Nonsense. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it's fearmongering with no basis in fact.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12...
> The releases during the Chernobyl accident contaminated about 125,000 km2 of land in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia with radiocaesium levels greater than 37 kBq/m2
Land area of California: 423,971 km²
So, a third of the land area of California could be half of its agriculture affected and reach levels of radiation which trigger intervention actions in the EU. Obviously a lot of that can be remediated and put back into use in future years.
Re:Renewables supplied 65% of new US utility-scale generatin...
by pdonis on Tuesday May 16, 2023 @07:19PM
(#35969095)
Your references are all about Chernobyl. But nobody is disputing what happened at Chernobyl. What we are disputing is your claim that any commercial fission reactor today is another possible Chernobyl. That claim is fearmongering with no basis in fact. And no amount of repetition of what happened at Chernobyl will change that.
Re:Renewables supplied 65% of new US utility-scale generatin...
by uoaei on Thursday May 18, 2023 @05:32PM
(#35994360)
You only have to look at the locations of nuke plants, prevailing wind patterns, and agricultural land use. Unless you're merely content letting the talking heads define what facts you should believe.
Re:Renewables supplied 65% of new US utility-scale generatin...
by pdonis on Saturday May 20, 2023 @05:12PM
(#36015670)
No, you only have to look at the factors involved in causing the Chernobyl accident, which are not shared by any commercial reactor any country other than the Soviet Union has ever built. Unless you're merely content to let FUD and baseless fearmongering define what you should believe.
Nonsense. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it's fearmongering with no basis in fact.
> new fission plants will take 20 years to build
Newer designs have shorter build times since they are simpler and can be made smaller, with more components made in factories instead of fabricated on site. And even for older designs, the 20 years is not the time it actually takes to build them; that's a few years. The rest of the 20 years is the time required to overcome NIMBY lawsuits--if that is even possible. In fact it mostly hasn't been, which is why virtually no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for quite a while. But that's a political problem, not a technical problem.
> and by then we'll have actually clean baseload energy from fusion reactors
Practical fusion has been about 20 years away for the past 40 years or so. It would be very nice if we finally get it, but I would not bank on any claims about the timeline given past history in this area.