Oliver Stone's 'Nuclear now' documentary.

[Nominal Animal]

I'm pointing to the ways in which the "costs" can be manipulated to suit politics.

And you do so by taking a screenshot that conveniently excludes the same statement I'm making.  Are you seriously trying to claim that was honest?  You are being obnoxious here, very much so.

How about you and tatel start putting some actual papers and articles behind your assertions, instead of just claiming stuff based on your personal beliefs and conveniently cut screenshots?

And I haven't said nuclear energy is safe.  It isn't.  I've only said it is safer and cleaner than the other fossil fuel alternatives.  While I prefer solar and wind energy, we need also base bulk energy production for industry and basic services when solar and wind is insufficient; and since we don't have fusion power yet, some form of fossil fuel it has to be.  Energy storage will lessen the amount of that base bulk production, but cannot eliminate it yet.

Comparing the emissions of coal and nuclear power is tricky. Not all nuclear is equal (e.g. CANDU emits quite a lot of tritium, that is hard to compare to other sources). The mining of Uranium is also quite different between mines - some are OK or even good (removing the uranium from phosphate fertilizer), but other can be very dirty, spreading dust and unused low grade ore. Another variable is the waste from fuel reprocessing - this has be traditional rather dirty, e.g. releasing the technetium.

True.  Another often overlooked emission is actually radon.  Uranium mines tend to release a lot of it, and it isn't captured.

The coal is also quite different and in newer plants the filters catch much of the particles.

I'm not so sure about that, as I haven't seen enough research on that to be convinced.  Yes, the filters are *better*, but their actual efficiency in catching particulates involved here, especially fine particulates (1-3µm and smaller), and how it is disposed of, is still somewhat debatable.  Definitely better than before, yes.

The difference between USA and Canada could be explained by Canadian coal plants having better filtration systems, for example.

With the emissions it is also questionalble which natural radioactivity from the dust should count. E.g. Potassium should not, as it is a natural part of soil and even a disired one.

Perhaps I should have stated instead that "the average radiation dose an average human receives from current coal plants is much higher than the radiation dose they receive from current nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons testing, the two nuclear bombs, and nuclear accidents combined", because that is specifically what the research indicates.  When put this way, everything released for the energy production has to be counted, for both coal and nuclear power.

A key factor to remember here is that only about half of coal ash is "stored away" or "recycled" in e.g. concrete.  The rest does not just "sit" there and pile up; it gets released.

[Someone]

I'm pointing to the ways in which the "costs" can be manipulated to suit politics

And you do so by taking a screenshot that conveniently excludes the same statement I'm making.  Are you seriously trying to claim that was honest?  You are being obnoxious here, very much so.

How about you and tatel start putting some actual papers and articles behind your assertions, instead of just claiming stuff based on your personal beliefs and conveniently cut screenshots?

I did provide the source/link ahead of the screenshots.

Cant take a fucking middle ground on this matter as both sides will jump on you and argue!-@%

It's not perfect, but it's not immediately deadly. There is some grey area on the environmental aspects which are not clearly siding one way or the other.

Economics however is an immediate fail for Nuclear power as the lifecycle costs are huge.

[tatel]

I'm only saying more common sense needs to be applied to look past the mis-information and prejudice in order to get a picture of the actual problems at hand and take an unbiased look at the solutions that are available.

I agree with that.

I'm going to be quite busy for some time, but I will try to follow this very interesting thread.

I myself am willing to change my position if real reasons make me think that way. I know, when I say I can't be bothered to read something, I sound like one of these green frikies. And I'm not. Nico makes a good point about substituting nuclear for carbon in places like India. But I can't see why we  couldn't substitute gas for that carbon.

I can see you can't be bothered to read what I linked, either. Otherwise I think you'd see where's the hype in that spanish achievement. I said the article wasn't very good. Header is "Spain makes history and this year for the first time will produce more than half of its electricity with renewables" Well, that's true. We are speaking about electric generation. That doesn't include transportation of any goods, except by railroad. A lot of diesel, guys. Half the electricity is quite different from half the energy.

I'm not going to change my very old but trusty Berlingo diesel for any modern vendor-software-locked car, electric or not. So, I'm not a green guy.

But, clearly I don't like nukes.

So far, there have been people here asserting nuclear waste now goes underground, right  when the japanese are dumping into the ocean.

That try to make us understand than nuclear is cleaner than carbon. Presumably because nuclear waste gets again underground, so does not reach anywhere near where we are. That's being said after Chernobyl and Fukushima, the dumpings in the ocean and so on. Come on, man. We heard that before, and we now know it wasn't true. By experience.

Moreover, I'm against carbon too, so I consider the whole point about TPPs being more radioactive than NPPs completely moot. Both have to go.

Still, these are the guys using words like "emotional", "irrational fear" and "idiotic". Do you realize, you sound like "nuke-frikies" even more than I could sound "green-frikie"? Irrational fear after Chernobyl and Fukushima? Sorry, I can't accept that.

If you want me to change my opinion, you have to give much better reasons than the ones given so far. That Science article is dated from Dec, 1978 after all. Before Chernobyl. When we were told any nuke couldn't go bonkers, never, ever. Not even the soviet ones. Thus at the end of the day, you are giving us, again, just the very same good old bullshit, I fear. Someone pointed out the defects in the documentation you linked. This Science article looks very much the same.

BTW, not so much to complain about how Finland is doing. At least they are building their underground storage and plan to keep their waste at their own country. Kudos. Others are much lower than that. But remember, we all had to pay for Chernobyl. That didn't affect the soviets only. Fukushima is affecting more countries than just Japan. So much for these radioactive elements remaining in a safe place, far from any people, forever.

OTOH I can say getting more than 50% renewable electric generation is quite something, but the better part is the amount written in our bills. To give some context, Portugal and Spain are now the Iberian Energy Island and we legally got electric market rules, different from the rest of the EU... and different electricity prices. Experience is: when there is sun and wind, our bills are quite cheaper. When there aren't, combined cycle gas power stations get most of the mix, and we see how our electricity bill goes through the roof, up to German levels.

But there's sun and wind most of the time.

Don't ask me how it does work internally. I don't know. But I mostly care for my wallet, to say the truth.

Now, if you insist in going nuclear, feel free to do so. I still think you'd be better, and cheaper, getting gas, wind and sun instead.

[coppercone2]

I think I support it if they fucking spend money on transmission line infrastructure (nice fat copper and transformers) to put it in a remote place.


Half the problem with nuclear is that the power grid is a piece of shit and they have to put it local. Employees are part of the problem too so you need IMO high speed transport. Not more computers or automation. More like a dedicated bullet train from a good area. I mean like a japanese bullet train that is JUST for the plant.

This might actually make a good power plant that is safe. But it would up the cost. If they try excessive automation to get rid of employees its probobly going to fail. That is the cheapskate solution. The good solution is good transport.


And another problem is that you need better heat exchangers so you can isolate it from water source. Its ridiculous to put these things near rivers IMO. Maybe it means the technology is not there yet to have a isolated nuke plant away from being able to pollute stuff. To date every nuke plant has been done on the real cheap,

I feel like the umbrella corporation could do this.


You get insane stuff like modular reactors because no one considers to upgrade the power system. Yeah put it behind the K-mart and get 18.50 $ / hour 6month trade school grads to run the thing because its 'intrinsically safe by design I swear for real this time'. I think its time to remind people what nuclear (power) proliferation will end up looking like when the MBA get their way because a manufacturer assured them. I am just waiting for Americas first truly radioactive hood after a ice cream truck jacking goes wrong and it crashes into the 'secure' shipping container behind the bon chance bodega. I swear those concepts of shipping containers being loaded as 'for the block' nuclear mini reactors is just 



And the first instance of EMT conduit being used to replace a zircon fuel rod housing because they happened to make it the same dimensions and the handyman from Angie's list heard from a plumber that its a conspiracy by big zircona to sell you zirconium tubes (confirmed by Tiktok 3d and Beta (aka Meta 2)). Seal it with some JB weld (as suggested by the British navy). https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/10qnges/royal_navy_workers_used_super_glue_to_repair/


*engineering analysis can't predict everything unless its extremely dangerous then they know everything AND ITS FAIL SAFE I SWEAR. WE HAVE BETTER MODELS. BETTER MODELS I TELL YOU. PERFECT MODELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE DON'T EVEN TEST OUR SIMULATIONS BECAUSE THEIR SO GOOD!!!! THE COST SAVINGS GO TO THE INVESTORS!!! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THE NEW MODELS ARE !!! AI VERIFIED ALL POSSIBILITIES!!! THE LAST ONE MELTED DOWN BECAUSE WE DID NOT USE THE HYPER OPTIMIZED DATA ACCESS NETWORK AI !!!

[f4eru]

Nuclear power is economically obsolete, and also more and more inadapted to todays higher variability of grids.
CO2 reduction by building new nuclear is just B.S., because any investment in renewables displaces _at least_ 4x more CO2 pro $ that the same investment in nuclear electricity...
The global share of nuclear power is slowly falling as a result, and will fall more over time, ultimately trending to zero in long term.

The only valid reason to build nuclear power in 2024 is to build up nuclear bombs -> what happens now in China, where the buildup of nuclear electricity matches exactly the buildup of new nuclear bombs.

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/China-ICBMs2000-2020_ed.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTrjwSIiZDTKRlh4CYexHBAf3atxugxXa1ZCsg9ePSRu47mBfs1_Bx6J2tglT0rcHQYho&usqp=CAU
Ahh, the sweet civilian reactors producing absolutely no military weapon plutonium, I swear.....

The reasons that France is unsuccessfully attempting it is to build new nuclear is to maintain jobs, but it does not work, because each kWh produced cost 4-6x more as a result. Expensive wasteful job securing.

[Kleinstein]

For most parts nuclear power turned out quite expensive, but the costs can really vary and are not very predictable. If all would run to plan, with no delays and mishaps in construction the pricing may not be that bad. A problem is that the best plant's got some 95% availablity and worked OK, but quite some also failed, down to the worst case of shut down after a few days of operation because flaws turned up. Nuclear power comes with quite some economic risc, that one may have to give up on a plant because of a flaw / defect that is not repairable.

Overall nuclear was an expensive gamble, with lots of investments in the developement that did not pay out. Especially the fast breeder part did failed on the promisses and without this nuclear power is limited  by the uranium supply.

The new reactors in China are likely not related to nuclear weapons. It is not impossible to use them also for this purpose, but the light water reactors are not well suited for this as it would requite relative frequent shut down / fuel changes. So I don't think that the reactors are motivated by nuclear weapons. The reactor will produce plutonium, but normally low grade material that is not really suited for a bomb. To get better grade plutonium that is suitable for weapons they would need to remove fuel with low burn-up and the tricky part is anyway the reprocessing and not the reactor part.
The possibilty to generate plutonium as a side product is however a good reason to not spread nuclear power to more countries. The troublesome reactors in this respect are more those in Iran.

[nctnico]

For most parts nuclear power turned out quite expensive, but the costs can really vary and are not very predictable. If all would run to plan, with no delays and mishaps in construction the pricing may not be that bad.

Part of the high costs is also setting unrealistic demands for the construction and clever businesspeople creating profits. The Hinkley NPP in the UK is an example of both. Government basically sets the project up for failure, EDF extracts as much money from it as possible. I've read somewhere that 50% of the build costs so far are interest / projected revenue payments. The government officials who made the deal with EDF should be held personally responsible for the financial losses they caused to society; it is criminal negligence.

[PlainName]

In the comparative 'bad for you' and  'how to dispose of it' tables, are they not perhaps missing a quite important point about nuclear: when the shit hits the fan the potential for Bad Stuff far outweighs renewables. What's the worst that can happen for a solar or wind farm? But for a nuke... I appreciate that the risk is small (and should get smaller), but it's not zero.

[pcprogrammer]

What's the worst that can happen for a solar or wind farm?

[nctnico]

In the comparative 'bad for you' and  'how to dispose of it' tables, are they not perhaps missing a quite important point about nuclear: when the shit hits the fan the potential for Bad Stuff far outweighs renewables. What's the worst that can happen for a solar or wind farm? But for a nuke... I appreciate that the risk is small (and should get smaller), but it's not zero.

Wind farms make people sick due to the constant noise and flickering light. In the NL there is quite a bit of uproar from medical doctors who have lots of patients with mental and physical problems which are directly related to having wind turbines built too close to their homes.

The perceived problem with a nuclear accident is that a lot of people get affected at once. But in reality it is like comparing deaths by airplane accidents and car accidents. The fact airplane accidents make the news says a lot about how super safe airplanes are. The same goes for nuclear accidents. The only two ones we know are Chernobyl (40 years ago) and Fukishima (over a decade ago) and only the first one resulted in fatalities.

[woody]

Wind farms make people sick due to the constant noise and flickering light. In the NL there is quite a bit of uproar from medical doctors who have lots of patients with mental and physical problems which are directly related to having wind turbines built too close to their homes.

AFAICS the jury is still out on this one. The medical doctors you mentioned disagree with the outcome of research by Nivel (https://eenvandaag.assets.avrotros.nl/user_upload/PDF/1004508.pdf, excuses for it being in Dutch) that found more or less the opposite.

I always find it remarkable that in my country scores of people complain about the not easily quantifiable nuisance of windfarms (how do you measure fear and stress) which, if a problem only affects a small part of the population, while perfectly quantifiable nuisances of things that affect the lives of millions of people like noise pollution (planes, cars, trains), CO2 (planes, factories, farms, cars), exposure to carcinogens (factories, farms, cars) et cetera is seen as unavoidable. Because hey, we need the work, the profit, the beef, the mobility and the holidays. But hey, we also need the electricity.
 
This is not to say we shouldn't research the health effects of wind turbines. These things are kinda new so there is still a lot to know.

For my country the best way to mitigate these mental and physical problems? Give people who live close to a wind turbine a certain amount of electricity for free. The closer you live, the more free electricity you get. Somehow I think that the price of houses near that turbine will go up 

[nctnico]

Wind farms make people sick due to the constant noise and flickering light. In the NL there is quite a bit of uproar from medical doctors who have lots of patients with mental and physical problems which are directly related to having wind turbines built too close to their homes.

AFAICS the jury is still out on this one. The medical doctors you mentioned disagree with the outcome of research by Nivel (https://eenvandaag.assets.avrotros.nl/user_upload/PDF/1004508.pdf, excuses for it being in Dutch) that found more or less the opposite.

The problem is that for noise level limits they use is dbA and thus don't include low frequency noise. And the study done by Nivel isn't fine grained enough to select people living closest to the wind turbines. IOW: the test methodology used by Nivel is completely unsuitable for the purpose and thus their conclusion is invalid. This is a known problem to many but the law makers are lagging behind.

[pcprogrammer]

The problem is that for noise level limits they use is dbA and thus don't include low frequency noise. And the study done by Nivel isn't fine grained enough to select people living closest to the wind turbines. IOW: the test methodology used by Nivel is completely unsuitable for the purpose and thus their conclusion is invalid. This is a known problem to many but the law makers are lagging behind.

As someone who is very sensitive to noise and particularly low frequency hum, like stationary diesel engines or even lower frequencies, I can say that this can drive you mental when you are susceptible for it and it manifests itself constantly. So yes I can see people suffer from this.

On a site note I read on nu.nl an article about fibromyalgia and that it needs to be taken more serious by the government because a lot of people suffer from the misunderstanding they get from the employees from the social security agencies when they feel to ill to work. Just because of the fact that you can't see it with the available medical tests does not mean it does not exist. As a patient myself I can certainly state it to be real.

I think the same applies for people suffering from subtle noise pollution.

For my country the best way to mitigate these mental and physical problems? Give people who live close to a wind turbine a certain amount of electricity for free. The closer you live, the more free electricity you get. Somehow I think that the price of houses near that turbine will go up 

Financial benefits don't solve these kind of problems. If you, for instance hate your job and suffer under it every day, no amount of money will be enough to keep you in the job. And when you keep on doing it a break down is on your path for sure. Stress is a very powerful enemy.

Some people are more susceptible for it than others of course.

[tatel]

Wind turbines here are placed on ridges, where there is good wind most of the time, and far from any houses. AFAIK, placing them on low terrain with things like houses near, makes the performance quite lower since that affects the wind. In that case one should go to the sea, I'm told. But hey, there are as many scammers  in renewables as in nuclear.

I still don't buy the reasons about Chernobyl/Fukushima being not so bad. If the place can't be populated, etc, for more than, say, a couple years, that can't be accepted. If the costs for lost profit near the place of accident are incredibly huge, that can't be accepted. If the costs to fix environment are incredibly huge, that can't be accepted. Even if there aren't any deaths.

How much, all of us, had to pay for the new cover in Chernobyl? IIRC, even that new cover can't hold in place more than 100 years. How many covers will have to be put in place,  before reaching safety?

IMO all of this makes nuclear not only dangerous but also uneconomical.

Documentation from the 1970s isn't going to cut even butter in 2024. Most of the pro-nuke statement sound simply crazy reckless, so can't be accepted, sorry.

But the main point is, I like mi electricity bills being... well, I'm not going to say cheap, but most of the time, not crazy expensive. While phasing out nuclear and carbon.

With any luck, hydro could again be about 15-20% and that would make things even better. But, being serious, I can't see hydro being again a reliable main source year after year. Right now is the first time in years I see some reservoirs at max level out of the Cantabric (Bay of Biscay) basin. The more you go South and East, the worse it gets. Most of reservoirs in the Atlantic and Mediterranean basins are low and quite a few almost empty. These basins make about 80-90% of the country. Perspective for the future is quite sad.

Last point: subsidies. Nuclear was heavily subsidized here. AFAIK, NPPs got real state for free and public money was a big part of the investment. Now we have to pay an extra fee in our bill for the nuclear moratorium. That has been going on for decades now. It seems we must compensate nuke operators for the money not earned after they didn't build even more NPPs. About the waste, I think it going to France is government business so probably the money paid to France is also taxpayer's money. I could be wrong, but I think it should be easy to make the numbers available in that case. However, just the electricity bill is almost impossible to understand, to the point it's a common joke.

Renewables, instead, while being at first moment heavily subsidized, were left hanging dry I think about 2012. Quite a lot of people got the grass cut right under their feet. Not only subsidies vanished, but the rules did make very difficult to put in place any PV even for auto-production. It was called "sun tax". It has been now abolished and there are some subsidies, but the main part is to make possible/legal to put new installations at work.

[nctnico]

Wind turbines here are placed on ridges, where there is good wind most of the time, and far from any houses. AFAIK, placing them on low terrain with things like houses near, makes the performance quite lower since that affects the wind. In that case one should go to the sea, I'm told. But hey, there are as many scammers  in renewables as in nuclear.

If you visit the Netherlands you'll notice the country is as flat as a pancake. You can basically put wind turbines anywhere and they will produce. In the NL those wind turbines are heavily subsidised as well; the NL government guarantees a minimum price per kWh. In the end any form of energy production (and later on storage), will receive subsidies from the government in order to guarantee ROI to the companies making the investments. In return a certain level of reliability is demanded. In the past governments where solely responsible for energy generation and distribution. But this got handed over to private companies (which remain state owned in some cases) nowadays. But it doesn't mean energy generation and distribution can result in a reliable energy supply without subsidies.

About areas becoming inhabitable; that is not unique to nuclear accidents. Underground coal fires are a serious problem and make large areas of land uninhabitable or at least dangerous to live on due to toxic emissions (CO for example). And think about chemical spills like what happened in Bhopal (India). With large scale energy storage we will also have big accidents affecting the lifes of many. Again, there is a price to be paid for having a highly developed society.

[PlainName]

No idea how bad noise is from windfarms, but I note that Reading UK has a BFO turbine in the middle of a densely populated office area. Been there a long time and AFAIA no-one's demanding it be taken down. Of course, one turbine doesn't make a farm...

But across the road there is an actual solar farm. Worst case with that is they all get blown over or broken up in a hail storm.

Chernobyl is a useful example, I think. Apart from the people dying on the day and they seemingly forever thinking up better containment to put over the old ones, there are a lot of areas where no-one lives and won't do so for a long time. ISTR a bunch of Russians suffering radiation deaths when they chose to use the unpopulated forest around there to dig in (literally). I think that kind of potential is a fair bit worse than solar farms not working, wind turbines toppling over in flames, and even persistent noise from a farm. None of the latter are going to kill you.

The point about aircraft disasters being newsworthy because there are so few is, I think, misleading. There are thousands upon thousands of aircraft, millions if not billions of air miles travelled, so catastrophe per aircraft is stunningly low. In contrast there are very few nuclear power stations, so disasters per installation are correspondingly very high. And the disasters tend to be much more catastrophic.

[tatel]

If you visit the Netherlands you'll notice the country is as flat as a pancake. You can basically put wind turbines anywhere and they will produce.

Yeah, I know. I know also wind has been used to pump water out the polders for centuries.  However it surprised me hear about the noise being annoying. In my experience you need to be quite close to a wind mill to be able to hear the noise. Less than 200 meters I would say. Then having a house(s) so near would probably affect the wind, thus the performance.

About areas becoming inhabitable; that is not unique to nuclear accidents. Underground coal fires are a serious problem and make large areas of land uninhabitable or at least dangerous to live on due to toxic emissions (CO for example). And think about chemical spills like what happened in Bhopal (India). With large scale energy storage we will also have big accidents affecting the lifes of many. Again, there is a price to be paid for having a highly developed society.

You see to imply I'm against affections caused by nuclear energy only. If so you are wrong. BTW, any comparisons with carbon continue to be moot.

Main point is I can't see how capitalism achieved making the common environment they don't own, a place to dump for free the crap resulting from making a money that only they own. Any industries able to create a disaster should a) be strictly controlled and b) either able to pay up until the last penny of compensation, or banned. Call me a commie if you want. I'm just caring for my wallet/health/life.

The point about large storage energy is also debatable, I think. Here we are not using candles at night, you know, and this is a 50-million people country that makes about the fourth economy in the EU.

[PlainName]

Any industries able to create a disaster should a) be strictly controlled and b) either able to pay up until the last penny of compensation, or banned.

How about the operator of a hydro dam? Plenty of scope for financial ruin with that one.

[nctnico]

If you visit the Netherlands you'll notice the country is as flat as a pancake. You can basically put wind turbines anywhere and they will produce.

Yeah, I know. I know also wind has been used to pump water out the polders for centuries.  However it surprised me hear about the noise being annoying. In my experience you need to be quite close to a wind mill to be able to hear the noise. Less than 200 meters I would say. Then having a house(s) so near would probably affect the wind, thus the performance.

No, much further. At least 1 kilometer for a 50m to 100m -ish wind turbine. Even further for the larger ones. I can hear a wind turbine from a kilometer away. Keep in mind that there is a lot of noise during the day but during night, the noise will be much easier to hear. Indoors the noise can even be worse (=amplified) due to resonances.

About areas becoming inhabitable; that is not unique to nuclear accidents. Underground coal fires are a serious problem and make large areas of land uninhabitable or at least dangerous to live on due to toxic emissions (CO for example). And think about chemical spills like what happened in Bhopal (India). With large scale energy storage we will also have big accidents affecting the lifes of many. Again, there is a price to be paid for having a highly developed society.

You see to imply I'm against affections caused by nuclear energy only. If so you are wrong. BTW, any comparisons with carbon continue to be moot.

Main point is I can't see how capitalism achieved making the common environment they don't own, a place to dump for free the crap resulting from making a money that only they own. Any industries able to create a disaster should a) be strictly controlled and b) either able to pay up until the last penny of compensation, or banned. Call me a commie if you want. I'm just caring for my wallet/health/life.

Unfortunately that is not going to happen. Companies get penalised for doing the right thing. When 'the yes men' pranked Dow Chemical (formerly Union Carbide) to release a statement they where going to clean up the Bhopal spill, the stock plummeted https://theyesmen.org/project/dowbbc/behindthecurtain . The Yes Men made a very interesting film called 'The Yes Men Fix the World ' which shows how big companies have the moral compass of a 4 year old. Worth watching! It is both funny and yaw dropping. The film can be watched for free from several places (including Youtube IIRC).

The point about large storage energy is also debatable, I think. Here we are not using candles at night, you know, and this is a 50-million people country that makes about the fourth economy in the EU.

It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.

[tatel]

How about the operator of a hydro dam? Plenty of scope for financial ruin with that one.

Of course Actually one of these reservoirs I just mentioned is planned to be increased. But the rock where the dam is anchored is the shittiest thing I have seen in my life. So friable. Should I anchor my rope on that rock, the head wouldn't be just a couple spit but a double triangulation. I would probably need clean underwear after that. Still they are thinking about increasing dam about 20 meter more. There's already documented landslides on the left bank. Those guys are crazy reckless.

There is opposition, so we will see. People here is usually organized. Another dam not so far away was paralyzed for some years. You can see how it's done on the video linked below. Sorry no english subtitles, but you dont't need that to understand what you'll see

Those guys naively surrendered to the police. They should have flee instead, they had more than enough time for that. But they didn't want the Guardia Civil harassing inhabitants. It never occurred to them they would be charged with... kidnapping Fernando the segurata, the one that falls face against concrete in the video. They had to pay full 8 4 years in prison.

As you can see, no jokes here.

[tatel]

It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.

Unless it's nuclear energy, of course. Then there wouldn't be the slightest possibility, it isn't?

[pcprogrammer]

... even persistent noise from a (wind) farm. None of the latter are going to kill you.

Don't forget about suicide. Stressed out people can become suicidal.

[nctnico]

It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.

Unless it's nuclear energy, of course. Then there wouldn't be the slightest possibility, it isn't?

You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.

[pcprogrammer]

It is not debatable. Large amounts of stored energy in a small space is an accident waiting to happen.

Unless it's nuclear energy, of course. Then there wouldn't be the slightest possibility, it isn't?

You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.

I wonder if with the rise of home batteries we will see more house fires?

And how will the fire brigade deal with them. For BEV they have to take other measures then for ICE.

[tatel]

You didn't get the message. And the message is: whatever energy source or storage system you put in place, there will be accidents and / or emissions causing lots of damage. You are the one dismissing everything but nuclear.

Please note we don't have any energy mega-storage here and we don't need it. PV doesn't work at night, but wind, hydro and gas do. You can attribute any fictional needs you want to no-nuclear, that isn't going to change the outcome.

Yeah, nuclear is the only thing that will cause damage for thousands of years. You just said there will be accidents, whatever energy source. So you expect to have nuclear accidents. And, it seems, you think that's acceptable. Crazy reckless, I would say.

At this point, this debate doesn't look serious to me anymore.  I don't know why you posted an apology of nukes on a section that has the word "renewable" on it. Unless, of course, you wanted to troll us a little bit.