undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmlyle4y ago0 comments

> storing chemical emissions(CO2) is not.

My comment isn't talking about CO2. I'm talking about e.g. benzene.

Nuclear waste disposal is concerned/stymied by the possibility that the water table in remote areas where no one lives currently may be moderately contaminated in thousands of years if it fails, and this contamination may last thousands of years.

Whereas we have contaminated the water table in populated areas with benzene and aromatics -- where they will remain contaminated for thousands of tens of thousands of years.

That is, we're trying to prevent theoretical harms in the distant future, and in so doing, we're accepting much larger present harms.

0 pointsmlyle4y ago0 comments

> storing chemical emissions(CO2) is not.

My comment isn't talking about CO2. I'm talking about e.g. benzene.

Whereas we have contaminated the water table in populated areas with benzene and aromatics -- where they will remain contaminated for thousands of tens of thousands of years.

That is, we're trying to prevent theoretical harms in the distant future, and in so doing, we're accepting much larger present harms.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

manquer4y ago· 2 in thread

The point remains the same for benzene or other containments as well, there is not much regulatory requirements in most countries for what you should do with these effluents, so today dumping it is acceptable, if safe handling/disposal is mandatory then it would factor in the actual financial costs analysis/model.

mlyleOP4y ago

We're talking about real costs of each alternative, though-- not just the viability of enterprises. After all, we're really talking about policymaking, and externalities like contaminating your groundwater like chemicals still "count" in overall outcomes.

manquer4y ago

There is a clear intrinsic value ( and critical need) to avoid fossil fuels, nobody is disputing that. However to imply nuclear is actually cheaper today fiscally is not accurate as original commenter was saying, given variances[1] in plant construction between estimates and actual cost incurred, also uncertainty over long term disposal method and poor understanding of those end of life costs makes it very poor choice for policy making on selecting between clean options.

If there are no other(clean) options having equivalent characteristics (consistent base load, scalability, location etc) to augment solar/wind etc ( whose costs are very well understood now including end of life costs) , then we are not choosing because it is cheaper, we are doing it because there is no choice.

[1] All plants will have some cost deviations, but nuclear has much higher both time and cost deviation from plan estimates.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse