Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is an existential risk which is currently on course to destroy human civilization as we know it.
Come back to me when “keeping a nuclear plant open for its originally anticipated lifespan” reaches that level of existential risk.
That’s a disingenuous restatement of the original bullshit attack on Sanders and Warren. Decommissioning before “planned” lifetime is likely to happen for many plants, probably for financial/technological reasons. Are you going to repeat every single disingenuous talking point from the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries about the cost of nonnuclear renewables? Are we going to have to go through the risks inherent in centralized power production, regardless of the method? I expect better.
You’re going to have to be more specific. What attack are you talking about, what is bullshit about it, how am I restating it, and why do you think that my restatement is disingenuous?
Huh? I am totally fine with nuclear being decommissioned as soon as there are renewables to replace them; I think the priority should be decommissioning coal, followed by natural gas, and then nuclear.
Also, what bizarro world are you living in that “Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is an existential risk which is currently on course to destroy human civilization as we know it” is a “disingenuous talking point from the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries?”
Once again, I am all for renewables, and for a less centralized power grid. However. Once again. Until we can achieve that, nuclear is a preferable option to carbon-burning.
However. Once again. Until we can achieve that, nuclear is a preferable option to carbon-burning.
That is a perfect epigram for extension and expansion of nuclear in preference to renewables. You may think it’s a logical statement, but it’s only applicable for wedging open the scam yet again.
Have I said one word in favour of building new nuclear plants?
I am arguing that the ones that are currently running should not be shut down until they are either unsafe or uneconomical to maintain, or they can be displaced with green power. That is all.
Your slippery slope is much more fallacious than my sunk costs ever were.
Extension and expansion are the marketing terms that you may be unfamiliar with.
By all means, enlighten me. I thought the words referred to keeping existing reactors open past a safe retirement date (extension) and building new plants, or new reactors at existing plants (expansion), all of which I have already expressed opposition to, but if there’s something else you mean by those terms, please, let me know so that I can respond appropriately.
Edit to add: I am also going to insist that you either back up your accusation that I am arguing disingenuously, or else retract that claim and apologize for it.
Acting as if that wasn’t the point of the attack on Sanders and Warren, being unwilling to acknowledge that operating lifetime has forever been a fraud point with the industry… that is disingenuous. The reason is up to you to explain. I’ve already said my piece.
And yet, even after I asked, you refuse to point out the attack.
If you wanted to make that point, you should have made it, and not claimed that I wasn’t arguing in good faith for not making it for you.
…And yet, I’m the one who has been doing all the explaining, and whenever I ask a question, it seems to go unanswered.
They’re all safe, until they’re not
OOPS, we did something wrong, again, that we didn’t tell you about, until now
the next one will be better, we promise
That’s everything, though.
Your hydroelectric dam is safe until it fails and wipes out the village downstream.
Your oil well is safe until it starts spewing oil.
Your fracking is safe until it causes an earthquake.
Your coal plant… Well, that’s just not safe to anyone breathing the exhaust, period.
Walking out of the front door, as they say, creates risk. Nuclear creates different risks than other power plants, sure, but it’s absolutely not unique in the fact that it creates risks, and by no means are those risks impossible to mitigate.
The detail I haven’t heard unpacked yet in this conversation is: storage of spent fuel. We’re talking thousands of years of storage, and the very real concern that we possibly/probably didn’t get it as right as we thought. Any significant leakage into the ground or atmosphere would make our current environmental problems seem like child’s play.
Shutting this down for a bit.
Ok hopefully things have cooled a bit. I’m reopening this. Everyone play nice. The apocalypse isn’t coming tomorrow! We need each other.
Hmmmmm. Guess I shouldn’t have take out all those loans from questionable men in poorly fitting suits.
I’ll have you know that suit is tailored…
I mean. Ahem. Yes, don’t take out loans from questionable men in suits, whether those suits are, in fact, exquisitely tailored or not.
What do you think about merging this other thread with the current topic? Given the name and when it was started, it seems possible that the two are maybe at least thematically related.
Good idea. I’m on it tomorrow. About to bed down. Remind me if I forget.