• 2 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: February 20th, 2021

help-circle

  • You don’t build a conclusion for a technology based on sweeping aside risks of your favoured solution while emphasising the risks of your favoured solution, which is what you did with your “There are zero catastrophes with[…]” comment.

    You lay it all out and compare the whole model.

    I think laying it all out for wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, will raise a whole lot of issues with all the technologies. Some specific models of tech will have unresolvable issues (e.g, megadams, dense solar-farms on arable land, any nuclear tech which can feed proliferation).

    I suspect the whole supply/waste-chain for nuclear will have unresolvable issues, and very few of the hydro/solar will have unresolvable issues.

    Trouble is getting people to agree on how to compare the risk of a well-engineered dam failing and the risk of your nuclear waste storage leaking into the water table, or a contaminated coolant pipe spraying vapour into the prevailing wind, or radioactive contaminated scrap metal making its way into the commercial steel market, or…

    Anyone suggesting the thorium-pebble-bed or similar “holy-grail” 100% safe theoretical tech seems to be living between fantasy and pipe-dream.


  • rcbrk@lemmy.mltoAnnouncements@lemmy.mlNew community, !nuclear_power
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I only mean it’s a false claim to imply that wind/water/solar energy are inherently zero catastrophe risk.

    That said, I think coming close to fully understanding and assessing (and mitigating) the risk of wind/water/solar power projects/economies is far more achievable than for nuclear energy projects/economies.

    Especially so when considering the unavoidable context of the (un)predictability of both humans and environment over the next 10,000 - 100,000 years.