Oliver Stone's 'Nuclear now' documentary.

[pcprogrammer]

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.

You seem to overlook that both hydro and gas use mega energy storage too.

One of your own posts is about the risk of a hydro power dam in your country. The amount of water behind the dam has a shitload of energy stored in it. If the dam breaks the havoc the water can wreak is enormous. Sure the aftermath is not as lasting as from nuclear, but still.

Gas needs to be stored in tanks and is transported through pipes. Both are potential hazards. Again, no long lasting effects after an event, but it can still kill many people.

And what about Groningen in the Netherlands, where they have earthquakes caused by the extraction of gas.

Everything humankind does in the race to improve our way of living brings risks with it, only to be seen in a later stage and then new actions are taking to counter the original risks, bringing new risks, and so on.

Take food and (medical) drugs safety. Oh sugar is bad, lets replace it with something synthetic, oh no, the synthetic stuff causes other illnesses, lets find something else to replace it with.

What about the thalidomide scandal (Softenon) or any of those other medical failures. 

[tatel]

You seem to overlook that both hydro and gas use mega energy storage too.

One of your own posts is about the risk of a hydro power dam in your country. The amount of water behind the dam has a shitload of energy stored in it. If the dam breaks the havoc the water can wreak is enormous. Sure the aftermath is not as lasting as from nuclear, but still.

Gas needs to be stored in tanks and is transported through pipes. Both are potential hazards. Again, no long lasting effects after an event, but it can still kill many people.

Yeah, I agree with that. Many things can break havoc. However, only nuclear can last hundreds/thousands of years, hand have effects over a so huge range. Remember, when Chernobyl exploded, just the Iberian Peninsula, of all Europe, escaped by a whisker from getting that radiation. Compared with that, if that dam fails, well, that will be a huge disaster -it goes to the Ebro valley- , but anyway that's much, much less than all of Europe, and rebuilding could begin next day. No need to decontamination, no need to wait some hundred years until radiation decays.

Not that I'm not opposing to make that dam higher, but compared to a big level nuclear accident, those dangers look to me like getting a tooth extracted, against brain surgery.

[schmitt trigger]

Let my add my two cents to the doom and gloom........
The modern World's high standard of living rests solely on the availability of inexpensive, abundant energy. As others have already mentioned, this situation is rapidly reaching an inflection point.

IMHO, the key will be that energy consumption in all its forms, will have to be significantly reduced in the future. For this to happen, energy has to become extremely expensive for humanity to take decisive action.

This is easier said than done. Whole industries will be decimated. Take for instance, tourism. Tens of millions of people worldwide depend on tourism for their main income. Heck, whole countries depend on it. Air travel will plummet, and with it many airlines and the Western World's aerospace industries.
A small sampling was glimpsed during the Covid pandemic.

[nctnico]

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.

I never said accidents are acceptable. I'm saying accidents are an inherent cost of a high-tech society as accidents and/or unforeseen effects can never be prevented. I didn't verify Kleinstein's number for the global warming effect to remain for about the next 28000 years, but in what way does that not count for causing damage lasting thousands of years? And not to a small area, but to the entire planet!

And it is also a mistake to think only nuclear accidents are expensive to clean up afterwards. The costs for Fukushima and the Deep water horizon oil spill are in the same order of magnitude (US$ 50 billion to US$ 200 billion).

[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.

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

Likely that will happen. Or toxic spills in case some chemical is used (like amonia to bind hydrogen). I'm not planning on installing storage any time soon, but as I need a new power cable to the shed I choose a much thicker one which can carry 7kW. I'm also going to put extra piping in the ground to add signalling wiring so I can put the storage system in the shed far from my home.