EPTThe memes like that LFTR comic can fuck right off, since that's insultingly reductionist in how it portrays the virtues of nuclear reactors.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3043
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
The memes like that LFTR comic can fuck right off, since that's insultingly reductionist in how it portrays the virtues of nuclear reactors. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Or eat 50 % less meat and use the free arable land for biomass conversion, ideally both. And with proper crop rotation so we don't degrade our soils even more. Also throw some bioethanol in the mix while stopping to destroy the Amazon and Philippines for soy bean feed and Palm oil. I will go out on a limb and say that the energy out of these technologies will be cheaper than from Hinkley point c. To hell, keep a couple of highly flexible natural gas power plants and get CCS going. We'll probably need that technology until the H2 networks are operational and reliable anyway for the high temperature level industries like steel and stuff. The gripe with nuclear I have is the extraordinary costs of failure. Doesn't it make you wonder that they are basically uninsurable? That companies running these plants do not have to carry the financial cost of the risk is an incredible subsidy. If they had to pay for all the damages, they'd go bankrupt, if they had to insure against the damages, they'd go bankrupt because the kWh would be a couple euros and not cents. But I think I'd actually be pro nuclear for a bit longer if we can transfer the money spent on a rushed rollout of other technologies into better energy system infrastructure and a diverse power generation system that is more robust against varying weather conditions than with a rushed rollout. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I think younger generations are friendlier to it, maybe, with the exception of Japan? I know I'd much rather have a mixture of nuclear and renewables than carbon-based burning and renewables. It's not even really NIMBYism for me - I'd be fine with a nuclear plant within a few miles of my home. They seem far safer for the surrounding area than other plants, on a statistical level (there have been 4 nuclear reactor accidents in history that affected the areas outside of the plant. That's a 1% level of failure across 60 years, and Three Mile Island apppears to have had very minor side effects on the populace exposed. The other three were a lot worse, of course). It's either a catastrophic failure or no impact, and the catastrophic failures have all been freakishly convoluted sets of events other than Fukushima not being designed for tsunamis. The gripe with nuclear I have is the extraordinary costs of failure. Doesn't it make you wonder that they are basically uninsurable? That companies running these plants do not have to carry the financial cost of the risk is an incredible subsidy. If they had to pay for all the damages, they'd go bankrupt, if they had to insure against the damages, they'd go bankrupt because the kWh would be a couple euros and not cents. That's weird. The insurance costs should be extremely low for them based on their failure rate. Is this true for other power plants? Coal plants are much worse radiation-wise than Nuclear plants are. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On January 21 2021 00:30 Mohdoo wrote: So for the record: 1. We were all right about how terrible Trump would be 2. Trump was a fascist, as we predicted 3. Trump took Republicans deeper down the anti-intellectual rabbit hole, as we predicted 2016: This guy is clearly both incompetent and a fascist and shouldn't be president. 2021: At least the terrorists who took over the Capitol building were also radical anti hygiene protestors in the middle of a plague and so refused to cover their faces. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:44 Nevuk wrote: I feel like the biggest issue for nuclear fission actually is that it's cheaper. No one stands to gain huge amounts from it, so it gets lobbied against by coal/gas/oil via any means possible and no one really has a vested financial interest in defending it (the arguments about jobs etc. for coal/gas/oil are all a lot weaker for nuclear since it takes fewer but more educated people). I'm positive we'd find massive investments in nuclear scaremongering from the coal lobby if we investigated deep enough. I think younger generations are friendlier to it, maybe, with the exception of Japan? I know I'd much rather have a mixture of nuclear and renewables than carbon-based burning and renewables. It's not even really NIMBYism for me - I'd be fine with a nuclear plant within a few miles of my home. They seem far safer for the surrounding area than other plants, on a statistical level (there have been 4 nuclear reactor accidents in history that affected the areas outside of the plant. That's a 1% level of failure across 60 years, and Three Mile Island apppears to have had very minor side effects on the populace exposed. The other three were a lot worse, of course). It's either a catastrophic failure or no impact, and the catastrophic failures have all been freakishly convoluted sets of events other than Fukushima not being designed for tsunamis. That's weird. The insurance costs should be extremely low for them based on their failure rate. Is this true for other plants? The issue is that a continent is too big to insure. I could sell you supervolcano insurance but my plan for if Yellowstone goes off is to die in the ash cloud, not to pay you. Same issue with plants. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8148 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:47 KwarK wrote: The issue is that a continent is too big to insure. I could sell you supervolcano insurance but my plan for if Yellowstone goes off is to die in the ash cloud, not to pay you. Same issue with plants. That made me laugh but yeah, you are spot on. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:44 Nevuk wrote: That's weird. The insurance costs should be extremely low for them based on their failure rate. Is this true for other power plants? The insurance costs would be low ... if it were possible for insurance for them to exist. It's difficult to insure phenomena with extremely low risk and extremely high cost. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:50 farvacola wrote: Nice and uneventful inauguration so far I hope that it continues that way  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10529 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:57 FlaShFTW wrote: THE TL DECISION DESK HAS CONFIRMED JOSEPH R. BIDEN IS SWORN IN AS THE 46TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. This makes it official!   | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I feel like appeals to a deity during a political inauguration are insensitive, exclusionary, and bat-shit crazy. Benedictions are nonsensical, and particularly awkward when trying to reinforce the separation between church and state. This is pretty much all of American history and every facet of American government. There's an ever-present paradoxical tension between "freedom of religion/separate church and state" and the reality that the cultural foundation of the U.S. is Christianity. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10529 Posts
US Constitutional Amendment 28: The President-Elect becomes President only when the Teamliquid.net Decision Desk announces it so. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On January 21 2021 02:01 FlaShFTW wrote: US Constitutional Amendment 28: The President-Elect becomes President only when the Teamliquid.net Decision Desk announces it so. I'll lobby for it. Where's the change.org link?!?! | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On January 21 2021 01:44 Nevuk wrote: I feel like the biggest issue for nuclear fission actually is that it's cheaper. No one stands to gain huge amounts from it, so it gets lobbied against by coal/gas/oil via any means possible and no one really has a vested financial interest in defending it (the arguments about jobs etc. for coal/gas/oil are all a lot weaker for nuclear since it takes fewer but more educated people). I'm positive we'd find massive investments in nuclear scaremongering from the coal lobby if we investigated deep enough. I think younger generations are friendlier to it, maybe, with the exception of Japan? I know I'd much rather have a mixture of nuclear and renewables than carbon-based burning and renewables. It's not even really NIMBYism for me - I'd be fine with a nuclear plant within a few miles of my home. They seem far safer for the surrounding area than other plants, on a statistical level (there have been 4 nuclear reactor accidents in history that affected the areas outside of the plant. That's a 1% level of failure across 60 years, and Three Mile Island apppears to have had very minor side effects on the populace exposed. The other three were a lot worse, of course). It's either a catastrophic failure or no impact, and the catastrophic failures have all been freakishly convoluted sets of events other than Fukushima not being designed for tsunamis. That's weird. The insurance costs should be extremely low for them based on their failure rate. Is this true for other power plants? Coal plants are much worse radiation-wise than Nuclear plants are. I should definitely have qualified my post to be about German insurance of npps. Sorry for the oversight. From what I've read is that the insurance covers 250ish millions ata premium of about 20 million annually and all operators share costs Up to 2.25 billion. Every Euro of damages above that is covered by the specific operator until it's bankrupt. The rest of damages is covered by society. Oh and if an operator goes into administration before they cleaned up their radioactive dump that an old npp is, who pays the bill? A fund that some argue is insufficient. The cleanup costs of the first reactor almost doubled already. Though we can expect the ratio of predicted and actual costs to get smaller with more experience with the matter. An insurance institute calculated the true costs of insurance at 70 billion a year over 50 years. With the caveat that the study was commissioned by the renewable energy agency. Though even just 10% of that number would be the nail in the coffin for nuclear. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
