Claidheamh @ Claidheamh @slrpnk.net

Posts

0

Comments

184

Joined

2 yr. ago

Who are you talking to? That was my first comment here.

Ah yes, what could go wrong with doing things the way they were done in the past?

Apparently he did stop it this time.

Very cool, very good proof of your claims.

I made no claims, I quoted from the wikipedia link you posted for us, which you may have not read yourself. You're clearly a bigger expert than the IPCC though, so I wouldn't even dare to make claims in your presence.

Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]

"Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched". The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).

"Germany's exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive". Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.

In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.

So, again, if those three examples are what you mean by catastrophic failure, then my assumption was correct. None of them were due to maintenance failures or being in service too long. Catastrophic failure is not a failure mode for a modern reactor past its service life.

Can't forget about y'all'dnt've.

You said catastrophic failure in the same context as loss of life and land. That is what I was responding to, and it is incorrect.

The pressure that the metals of the reactor are put under from the radiation is a real thing, it causes damage and fatigue.

Yes.

they’re decommissioned because if you keep them running they’ll have catastrophic failures, which besides the loss of life and land

No. This is the fearmongering part. A nuclear plant that is past its service life doesn't just turn into Chernobyl.

I don't know what article you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure it won't trump my years of university education on this.

all need to be decommissioned at some point, because they will fail catastrophically if they don't.

This is false, that idea comes from decades of anti-science fearmongering. They need to be decommissioned for the same reasons as everything else, they just become too expensive to maintain. Same as every other energy source, including renewables.

Nuclear subidies aren't even in the same order of magnitude as fossil fuel subsidies. There's so much fearmongering in that comment I don't even know where to start... Chernobyl really was the best thing to happen to the fossil fuel lobby.

go look at the history of nuclear power research and development

My friend, I went to university for this shit.

I mean, those are power companies. If you're calling public power companies "the oil and gas billionaires" then you're clearly being facetious.

When people talk about the oil and gas billionaires they are referring to the ones who spend millions on lobbying, Exxon, Shell, BP, Aramco, etc. You know, the ones funding climate change denial and nuclear fearmongering for decades.

Why not?

They shouldn't, but many do and have done for many years out of ignorance.

Nothing lasts forever, that's true. But it's not the incisive observation one might think. NPPs are some of the power sources with the longest service lives.

Why does it need to be astroturfing? It's the same point the young climate activist in the article is making.

I was replying to your reply of the other comment.

Was just trying to figure out the other comment's logic. They may have watched one too many Simpsons episodes.

is only used when needed

Sure, but it's still GHG emissions, "only when needed" or not. The whole point we're making is those gas generators should have been nuclear generators in the first place.

And we continue building gas and coal power plants. Why? Build nuclear plants instead.

The older activists with decades of literal Rockefeller money in their pockets, you mean?