Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
Swedish teenager Ia Anstoot says group’s ‘unscientific’ opposition to EU nuclear power serves fossil fuel interests
You're viewing a single thread.
Good!
Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don't understand.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.
we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.
So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?
Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, "It's not as bad as a nuclear disaster" isn't exactly going to console them much.
At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It's not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.
An electrician installing faulty wiring doesn't render your home uninhabitable for a few thousand years.
So there's one difference.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety. With a nuclear power plant, you mitigate the disaster potential by having so many more people involved in the design and inspection processes.
The risk of an electrician installing faulty wiring in your home could be mitigated by having a third party inspector review the work. Now do that 1000x over and your risk of “politicians are paid off” is negligible.
Okay, so we've got a safe nuclear power plant that's a decade behind schedule and 100% over budget.
By your logic I suggest you avoid any building constructed in the US as nothing would ever be safe enough.
It's plenty safe now, but my electricity rates have doubled because the plant was so over budget and they need to make their money back.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety
Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they "artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we'll use solar". I'm not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.
If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it's a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.
You are saying, regulations will fix this? Politicians create the regulations, the fines, and enforcement.
Political parties are running on platforms of deregulation right now.
Regulations are actually generally created by regulatory bodies, which are usually non-political. For instance, the underwriter laboratory is the major appliance, building and electrical approval body in the United States.
In most countries, building codes and safety codes are created by industry specialists, people who have been in the industry as professionals for many decades and have practiced and been licensed in the field that they are riding the regulations for.
There's a big difference between politicians who are passing these laws, and those writing them who are the regulatory bodies. Generally, as a politicians will simply adopt the codes as recommended by the professional licensing and certification bodies.
I suppose it will be the end of modern civilization if politicians decide to politicize electrical or building codes. Then we'll be fucked for sure. We've seen that happen before with the Indiana pi bill.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
"The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat."
a wind mill going down and a nuclear plant blowing up have very different ramifications
Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.
The risks are lower in literally everything else...?
I mean it's not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.
Nuclear power isn't 100% safe or risk-free, but it's hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.
The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.
Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.
It's really not that complicated.
Except that nuclear isn't the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn't even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.
This doesn't even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.
You mean under ground from where it was dug out?
The plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.
You mean water under ground? It was in contact million years before any of us was born.
Million years were sufficient for the radioactivity to decay before life started to evolve on earth.
Both sound terrible.
I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.
By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can't fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.
No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.
That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?
I never said we can't do also wind, solar, thermal, and hydro; in fact we have to do all of them. But, hydro isn't possible in most places (and also makes "a part of the world uninhabitable" too — look at how much the Three Gorges Dam displaced, for example), nor is geothermal. And wind and solar are inconsistent — great as part of it, but they can't be the entirety of the grid, unless you want the entire country to go dark on a cloudy day, cuz we simply can't make batteries store that much.
I get so frustrated when I see people recommend hydro as a solution to climate change. Human intervention to fresh water systems is still a major ecological disaster. It’s like cutting off one hand to save the other.
No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.
That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?
You posted this 21 hours ago. I believe I answered you already.
Yeah I’m getting some strange issues with memmy today sorry.
All good
We are on a time limit thanks to climate change. We can't afford to complain about picking the lessor of two evils.
The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.
No. The original comment said the “worst disaster made a very small she’s of the planet uninhabitable”. Keep in mind this disaster was the result of Soviet incompetence and completely avoidable with standards implemented in the US.
They’re saying our “worst case scenario” using nuclear power is better than worst case scenario continuing to use fossil fuels.
Likelihood of worse case scenario using nuclear power is also extremely low. Whereas worst case scenario (billions of people dying) for continuing to use fossil fuels is EXTREMELY HIGH.
Bet you’d feel* differently if you were a resident of one of the island nations that’s going to drown in the next decade or two. That part of the world’s definitely going to be uninhabitable if we continue to do nothing.
So installing a nuclear reactor in my province where we have ample hydro electric power options would save that island?
It’s like you are yell at everyone saying nuclear power or die. There are lots of options to clean reliable energy. In some cases nuclear will be the best option but not always.
You called me suspicious so here I am fulfilling that expectation. Here’s a fucking great video on why dams, and therefore hydro power, are dangerous and ecologically damaging. The only point I was trying to make is that your argument against nuclear, that it might cause an area of land to become uninhabitable, is flawed. Dams always make an area of land uninhabitable.
Hello, my German friend. I hope your gas reserves are full and coal dust is filling your lungs. /joke
Gas reserves are 93% full and prices are back to pre-war level, thanks for asking
I’m not German, I’m Canadian.
Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.
Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.
Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.
And what do YOU know about radioactive waste disposal?
I know it's a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we're talking waste products. It's not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn't let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.
"Easier"? Are you aware of the fact that radioactive waste tombs are meant to stand for millions of years? It requres a lot of territory, construction and servance charges, and lots of prays for nothing destructive happens with it in its "infinite" lifetime.
We can bury it in the ground and it will literally turn into lead. How are you doing with carbon emissions? Got a fix?
I think it's photosynthesis. 'Bury in the ground' is an extreme simplification btw. Also, I am finished with this topic scince long anough. It feels politically biased. If you'd like to reply, I'd hear it gladly. But I m not going to be involved into a discussion.
My country, Sweden, also gets a decent chunk of power from hydro. Back in 2021, about 43% was hydroelectric, and 31% was nuclear.
While that's true, we still have for example safe air travel, although I'm pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.
Also, thorium reactors would be a great step forward, unfortunately its byproducts can't be used for nuclear weapons, so their development was pretty slowed down.
I’m pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.
That actually sounds more comfortable than normal airline travel
Also there was that german experimental Thorium reactor that was so mismanaged, it made Burns' Springfield power plant look well handled. I think that scared a lot of people off of Thorium for a long time.
Source: Lived right next to that reactor during my childhood.
If only we had a non fossil energy source we could safely export to developing nations instead of ICE technology.
(Intenal Combustion Engine)
Nationalise energy production.
Or they could just allow everyone to build nuclear reactors in their backyard, everyone is saying that they are safer than a banana so i don't see any issue
Much much tighter regulations. Our cars aren't aluminum cans waiting to crush everybody inside them because of strict safety regulations.
Make them live on site?
Easy. Have nuclear power plants operate as government run and backed corporations (what we’d call a “Crown Corporation” here in Canada).
That way you can mandate safety and uptime as metrics over profit. It may be less efficient from an economic standpoint (overall cost might be higher), but you also don’t wind up with the nuclear version of Love Canal.
One reason it wasn't made a priority 50 years ago is because Jimmy Carter - a nuclear submariner who understood the risks and economics - decided it wasn't a good idea.
This is a man who was present at a minor nuclear accident, who helped create the modern nuclear submarine fleet, acknowledging that nukes weren't going to help during the height of the Oil Embargo.
Or that our other imperfect solutions like the fossil fuels we continue to use now aren't worse.
Perfect or just secure is even more expensive, that is the problem.
If I recall, 50 years ago we didn’t have the technology/understanding of nuclear fuel enough to make as much as we can now. When I did a school paper on the subject like 20 years ago, they were saying nuclear wasn’t sustainable because we didn’t have enough fuel.
My understanding is that that has changed recently with breakthroughs in refinement of fuels.
If the Soviets hadn’t cut corners and Chernobyl hadn’t happened in this first place, this is likely where we would already be.
That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.
https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html
Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:
The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315
Wealer from Berlin's Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.
"The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically," he said. "In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available."
Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.
"Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build," he said. "When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."
He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. "And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution," added Schneider.
Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.
when is the best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. When is the second best time? now.
Surely the second best time would have been 29 years ago
Don't fuck this up for me bro
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world's construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had "just got on with it" for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
No it wouldn't. China laid more concrete in 5 years than the entire world did in 100 years. I highly doubt that converting the entire world to nuclear is going to use that much more concrete. I mean hell, they laid like 15 or 20,000 miles of high speed rail in just a few years. They built like 300 million apartment units.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you're right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can't, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world's construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems "10x increase world construction capacity" was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can't find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it's dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won't bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I'm still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones..
Not all 7,000 construction workers would be working on the site concurrently. Different trades come and go depending on the phase of the project. So at first you'll have the civil engineering earth movers come in, who clears the site and excavates the foundations. Then you'll have the concrete crews come in who pour the foundations and do all of the concrete work. Obviously on a nuclear power plant there is a lot of foundation work, as well as a lot of above ground concrete so probably a good chunk of the construction workers will fall into this category.
Power plants also have a lot of structural steel work, electrical and special equipment that would likey fall under the piping category but each of these uses a separate set of skilled labor that does not overlap.
If you were going to actually try to build 3,300 nuclear power plants, you would rotate crews from project to project which would increase efficiency rather than hiring 27 million separate workers.
In any case, I don't think converting the world's total electrical power generation to 100% nuclear is by any stretch of the imagination a good idea. Personally I think maybe 15 to 25% nuclear power generation would be a more realistic mix, similar to the US electrical power generation. The rest of the power should be solar, wind, hydro, wave and geothermal as they are absolutely cheaper to build.
I'm not sure I agree with how you'd be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we're also reaching the "impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical" territory, so I'll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don't think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
We do it all the time in the construction industry.
For instance, Bechtel has 55,000 people in the US.
"Since the 1950s, Bechtel has designed, serviced, or delivered 80% of all nuclear plants in the U.S.. Bechtel has provided engineering and construction services for 88 of the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States."
So just hire them. Too bad they lost almost all of their institutional knowledge about nuclear construction compared to what they used to have.
Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we're here now.
Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.
The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can't come back from.
Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.
How much concrete does it take to build a nuclear plant? Concrete production is currently 8% of global emissions, so if you have to scale up construction capacity 10x for the next decade, don't you end up destroying the environment with concrete before they are even operational?
Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I'd say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.
So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.
The cool thing about concrete for renewables (excluding hydro dam) is only the very base pad needs to be virgin. You can make a lot of the rest of the base and fill material with down cycled concrete. So tearing down part of an old factory on land near the solar panels are? Crush it up and only move it a few miles over to where you need it. Rather than hauling that to a landfill where it sits forever, costing energy use to haul, and more energy use to bring the fill and other bade materials from a further destination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
the largest fission plant was literally working 5 years after construction started
fission plants are just more expensive now because we don't make enough of them.
I guess safety standards changed but even wind power kills more people per watt than fission so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nuclear could've easily worked if people didn't go full nimby in the past few decades
There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can't wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy pathways 2050_Key results.pdf
Thank you. The pro-nuclear bullshit from Reddit seems to be spilling over.
Sadly it looks like the astroturfing has spilled over from reddit to here
When and where do I pick up my check?
It's one of the biggest market in the world and one of the biggest weapon governments have as a leverage on people. Expect a lot of propraganda and psyop
"We should just go nuclear, renewables aren’t viable" is just the next step in the ever-retreating arguments of climate change denial. First climate change wasn’t real. Then it was real but not man-made. One of the popular tactics today is to push nuclear, because they know how effective it can be at winning over progressives to help with their delaying tactics.
So… climate change deniers want to delay action on climate change. So they push for nuclear because it has long lead times and that forestalls action?
Come on man. That’s a pretty ridiculous theory. Climate change deniers are out there yelling “drill baby drill” not going undercover as nuclear advocates.
because it has long lead times and that forestalls action
I won't profess to know for sure what their reasoning is. I suspect it's a bit of that, and also a bit of hope/expectation that the fossil fuel industry will be well-situated to pivot into nuclear in a way that they can't as easily do with renewables. The more centralised nature and heavy reliance on large-scale resource extraction is very similar. But they actual explanation isn't what's important.
What's important is the simple fact that the biggest climate change deniers are now trying to promote nuclear. If you want to refute the claim, you need to explain that better than I can.
- Example one.
- Example two. This is the one that was very widely reported about in the news, and which first twigged me to this conservative strategy.
- Example three.
I’m not very familiar with Australian politics or leaders so I can only go with what I see in those articles. First, I don’t see any climate change denial. I see a debate about renewables and nuclear
Why are conservatives against renewables:
They can’t meet our total energy needs.
Wind and solar products are predominantly made in China and conservatives don’t want to feed the Chinese economy or increase dependence (one thing I do know about AU is that Chinese influence is quite heavy and a cause of great concern there).
Why are conservatives pro-nuclear:
It provides baseload capacity that supports wind/solar where they are weak.
It has military applications.
It creates large infrastructure spending within AU and supports mining industry.
They believe it will rankle liberals.
Maybe you have a point that conservatives who are dead-set against renewables will throw nuclear into the conversation as a distraction which they know will not go anywhere. But as an outside observer who doesn’t have built up associations with these characters, I honestly just see rational inclusion of nuclear in the energy mix. This all seems healthy to me.
First, I don’t see any climate change denial
Yeah, that was precisely the point I was making. It's no longer politically viable to be an outright climate change denier. First they retreated to suggesting it's not manmade, but that's no longer viable either. There are a few different strategies they've fallen back on now, including "oh well, it's too late to do anything now", "climate change might be good actually?", and "our country is so small that nothing we do could make any difference compared to America or China". All nonsense, of course. But "renewables are bad actually. Nuclear is the best." is one strategy that's become particularly popular this year.
Some points on Australian politics for context. The three articles I posted focused on Peter Dutton, David Littleproud, and BHP.
Peter Dutton is the current leader of the opposition (think: the minority leader in the House + the non-incumbent presidential candidate all in one, in American terms). He's a member of the Liberal Party*, which despite the name is actually Australia's leading conservative party. They're the Republicans. They've had a longstanding opposition to action on climate change, from refusing to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to running a major campaign to actually revoke the climate-focused legislation we had from 2010–2013 which saw Australia's only period of decreasing carbon emissions. And Dutton has been high in the ranks since that time period.
David Littleproud is the leader of the National Party. They're a separate party from the Liberals technically, but in practice they act in lockstep. The two parties have a coalition agreement that has been in effect uninterrupted since 1946, to the point that in most contexts they're thought of as one party. Littleproud is, effectively, the Vice Presidential candidate as well as second-in-charge of the minority party in the House. The Nationals are even more extreme in their social conservatism than the Liberals, generally speaking.
BHP should, I hope, need no introduction. They're a massive multinational mining conglomerate, headquartered in Australia. The mining sector wields a lot of political power in Australia. Many mining and other energy-related companies are actually getting more and more into renewables themselves, and even BHP has said renewables need to be part of the mix. But their rhetoric has consistently been that it's got to be a slow and careful transition so as not to harm their coal mines.
They can’t meet our total energy needs.
I think here you're trying to get at the notion that renewables are bad for so-called "baseload" power. The thing is, studies suggest that baseload power is actually just not needed. That's a fact that's been known for at least a decade now, and which was called out as a "dinosaur" over half a decade ago. People carrying on about baseload power in 2023 are largely ill-informed, probably in no small part because of deliberate misinformation from vested interests.
It's fundamentally untrue. Renewables can meet our energy needs, if we have the political will to make it so.
* Note to any Australians: I know this is technically not true, but he's a Queensland LNP member who sits in the Liberal Party room, so it's close enough without getting too into the weeds for a non-Australian audience.
Okay thank you for raising these points which were not all on my radar. I’ll be looking out for conservative nuclear excitement (haven’t seen much in the US so far). I will also take another skeptical look at baseload, but I might need more convincing on that.
Thanks for saying this. It's the exact same thing in Denmark, and I just don't get how people don't realise this tactic when it's so fucking blatant.
Oh interesting. Thanks for sharing that detail, because I was beginning to wonder if this tactic might have been unique to conservatives in Australia.
He's completely right, and I don't get why more people don't see that. As an example, here in Denmark, the leader of the far right populist party is both the one saying climate change would be a good thing since it means warmer summer weather as well as constantly bringing up nuclear energy any single time someone starts talking about climate change. It's honestly so transparent. I used to see the same thing all the time on Reddit, and now I guess it's Lemmy's turn for this shit.
Yes in dialogue with him here I learned a lot more. I have never learned a thing before about how this goes in Denmark or his native Australia.
If nuclear is brought up to derail and distract I guess that makes sense. It is a political bog and anyone sent into that big is going to get slowed down or trapped.
This is a little different than purposely leaning on the long plant construction lead times to forestall impact, though, which is the way it was first stated.
We should do both as fast as we possiblity can. Expand all non ghg emitting sources as fast as possible to cut out coal and gas.
It's been a decade since a report came out recognising nuclear as too expensive to be viable, and that the best economic decision is to go all-in on renewables. In that time, the price of nuclear has not changed (really, it's likely gone up, with how much construction in general has gone up, while the technical side of it has not changed), while the cost of renewable energy has continued to go down.
I'm not ideologically opposed to nuclear. But the evidence clearly tells us that it's just not a reasonable option. At least not unless the long-promised affordability improvements from SMRs actually end up realising themselves. Or fusion gets to the point where it can be used for energy generation.
To expensive to be viable against the current solar wind and storage pieces. But when those go up due to saturation and shortages, it may become viable again.
Those aren't arguments against nuclear power; those are arguments against the incompetence of entities like Southern Company and Westinghouse, as well as the Public Service Commission that fails to impose the burden of cost overruns on the shareholders where they belong.
I should know; I'm a Georgia Power ratepayer who's on the hook paying for the fuck-ups and cost overruns of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.
It would've been way better if they'd been built back in the '70s, since all indications are that the folks who built units 1 and 2 actually had a fucking clue what they were doing!
Your arguments didn't actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.
We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.
That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn't help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.
Of course, in hindsight it's difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There's good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it's just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.
“2009” hahahaha and here we are. More coal more gas plants than ever.
The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.
The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn't even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it's just unsuitable for human habitation.
The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.
Here's my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!
And that's just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.
This is a fun fact but I don't think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying coal smoke is healthy, it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.
I think you just contradicted yourself in that same sentence
No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.
You're right coal deaths are just confined to mines, respiratory illnesses and excess cancers from chronic low dose exposure.
it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.
No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.
So chronic low level exposure to radiation is fine?
I'm not saying it's fine, I'm saying it feels like an order of magnitude less of a concern compared to all of the other bad things that can happen from coal smoke.
Federation of American scientists (FAS) believe that the number is actually calculable:
"The quantity of radioactive material liberated by the burn- ing of coal is considerable, since on average it contains a few parts per million of uranium and thorium"
"Per gigawatt- year (GWe-yr) of electrical energy produced by coal, using the current mix of technology throughout the world, the population exposure is estimated to be about 0.8 lethal cancers per plant-year distributed over the affected population."
"Table 7.2 summarizes these data. With 400 GWe of coal-fired power plants in the world, this amounts to some 320 deaths per year; in the world at large, some plants have better filters and cause less harm, while others have little stack-gas cleanup and cause far more."
https://rlg.fas.org/mwmt-p233.pdf
That's about the number of people who died from Chernobyl, every year. From the radiation from coal power plants.
In India alone it is estimated that 112,000 deaths per year are attributed to coal power plants. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2017936118
320 deaths globally is a drop in the in the coal bucket of death. It's not worth specifically worrying about. Coal as a whole is the problem. Not the nuclear byproduct of coal.
Sure sure, but we are still pumping out isotopes of uranium and plutonium into the atmosphere. We are lucky the effects of radioactive isotopes are generally overblown then, huh?
🙏 I need you to listen to me extremely closely. I am not saying nuclear shit in the atmosphere is good. I never said this. I never implied this. All I'm saying is that the nuclear aspects of coal usage are a drop in the bucket in the massive pile of problems it has. I'm not saying coal is good either.
I totally agree that current nuclear power generation should be left running until we have enough green energy to pick up the slack, because it does provide clean and safe energy. However, I totally disagree on the scalability, for two main reasons:
-
Current nuclear power generation is non-renewable. It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen. And it goes without saying that waiting to scale up some novel unproven or inexistent sustainable way of nuclear power production is out of the question, for time and safety reasons. Which brings me to point 2.
-
We need clean, sustainable energy right now if we want to have any chance of fighting climate change. From start of planning of a new nuclear power plant to first power generation can take 15 or 20 years easily. Currently, about 10% of all electricity worldwide is produced by about 400 nuclear reactors, while around 15 new ones are under construction. So, to make any sort of reasonable impact, we would have to build to the tune of 2000 new reactors, pronto. To do that within 30 years, we'd have to increase our construction capacity 5 to 10 fold. Even if that were possible, which I strongly doubt, I would wager the safety and cost impacts would be totally unjustifiable. And we don't even have 30 years anymore. That is to say nothing of regulatory checks and maintenance that would also have to be increased 5 fold.
So imho nuclear power as a solution to climate change is a non-starter, simply due to logistical and scaling reasons. And that is before we even talk about the very real dangers of nuclear power generation, which are of course not operational, but due to things like proliferation, terrorist attacks, war, and other unforseen disruptions through e.g. climate change, societal or governmental shifts, etc.
It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen.
Nuclear fission using Uranium is not sustainable. If we expand current nuclear technologies to tackle climate change then we'd likely run out of Uranium by 2100. Nuclear fusion using Thorium might be sustainable, but it's not yet a proven, scalable technology. And all of this is ignoring the long lead times, high costs, regulatory hurdles and nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that nuclear typically presents. It'd be great if nuclear was the magic bullet for climate change, but it just ain't.
We'd run of our uranium that's economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.
All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.
You got a source for that? Because the one I linked says that we run out of known Uranium deposits by 2100 at current usage rates. Our known Uranium deposits run out mid-century if we use nuclear to follow the IEA Blue Map plan to reduce carbon emissions by 50%, and we run out of even speculated deposits by 2100 under that scenario. Where are you getting "several thousand years" from? Is Thorium part of the mineral reserves to which you're referring?
The source you linked talks about uranium reserves. Mineral reserves, known and unknown deposits, refer explicitly to the known amount of economically minable supplies of that mineral.
Discussion around them can be misleading, especially for a growing industry, because as a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more economically viable to mine difficult deposits, this growing the reserve. On top of that, the effort and technology tend to yield new methods of both mining and refining that increase yields.
Well, there is Plutonium option, but superpowers want to be superpowers. Probably only USA, Russia, France and Britan can do it.
Nothing is truly renewable, we still don't know how to cheat thermodynamics. Sun itself is not renewable.
Though sun will be problem million years later.
Small nitpick, but Google says that there are 57 nuclear reactors currently under construction worldwide in 2023. 22 of them are in China alone.
-
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
Long term nuclear is great...
But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we're paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.
So we can't just spam build nuke plants right now to fix everything.
30 years ago that would have worked.
But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.
That's not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren't even remotely equivalent.
(also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)
Building any sort of new power plant uses a shitload of concrete, so that cost isn't as dramatic as this would seem.
I think nuclear is dramatically overstated in terms of short term feasibility, but concrete use is not the reason why.
do you have a source for this carbon cost? i can't find any figures about even the amount of concrete in a nuclear plant nevermind the co2 cost of that.
I do find a lot of literature that states that the lifecycle co2 cost of nuclear is on part with solar and wind per kwh so i find your assertment about the payback time being decades a little unlikely to say the least.
(What’s with the downvotes?)
Small scale reactors that require almost no maintenance and produce enough power for a single city are the hot topic right now due to what you just mentioned. As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.
(What’s with the downvotes?)
Lots of people know virtually nothing about nuclear even tho they're avid supporters of it. So when you point out a downside, they get mad.
As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.
Hot water (technically superheated steam) is the main (and only immediate) product of a nuclear reactor...
Trying to directly use secondary coolant as hot potable water just makes zero sense though. It's waaaaay more efficient to move the electricity and then heat different water.
I mean, you're talking about an open loop nuclear system...
No sane engineer would ever do that. A small primary loop leak and your dosing everyone, all to just essentially lose efficiency.
Where did you even see that suggested?
Imagine living in a snowy city where hot water is pumped through the sidewalks to people's homes. No frozen pipes, no shoveling snow. No people freezing to death...
You still need to clear snow and ice. The hot water pipes are insulated to ensure that the hot water remains hot until it goes into radiators and faucets. You'd lose all that heat if you use it to heat sidewalks.
My city does this. Hot water is pretty cheap here if you're hooked up to the municipal network. If you have an electric water heater you'll go bankrupt in the winter.
Small scale reactors are actually more expensive than larger reactors. Even compared to Vogtle 3 and 4...
Long term nuclear is great
It's the most expensive option so I'm not sure why people here are so keen on it. It's much cheaper and faster to scale up renewable energy and in-fill with batteries and gas. Then phase out gas over time for a mix of things like pumped hydro, tidal, etc.. This is already working in a lot of places and doesn't involve long build times like nuclear.
8 years to build, not 30. Instead we are building many many more coal and gas plants. What a terrific alternative. Fallacy of renewables without storage is done. It’s never going to happen.
I don't know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don't create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.
Except wind and solar don't have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.
I didn't even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.
Producing wafers for solar panels is indeed one of the most ecologically damaging activities we can engage in. Have you ever been to a semiconductor fab?
Solar does not mean just solar panels. There are methods of using solar without them. Also what about wind, geothermal, or tidal?
What else does it mean, CSP? I'd love to see more CSP projects, but it's not where most of the investment is. Wind, as I've pointed out, is even less space-efficient than solar. And geothermal also isn't seeing the same investment dollars. It should. Tidal power is interesting, but good luck with the fishing lobby. My state has the first commerical offshore wind farm in the US, and it continues to receive significant backlash from the fishing industry. This isn't nearly as invasive as tidal might be.
And this is to ignore the elephant in the room, that without nuclear, we will not get away from fossil fuels soon enough. We don't have the technology to solve the base load problem with renewables yet. Making plans based on some assumed cadence of progress is a recipe for disaster. Storage is a hard problem, and batteries are such a dirty, shitty technology.
Tidal is not a proven technology. The ocean environment is incredibly harsh on equipment. High-temp geothermal power generation is extremely site-specific, though ground-loop technology for heating and cooling is a proven technology that is woefully underutilized (though there are big challenges there as well, since ground loops take up space and done incorrectly overheat the ground temp/water table, etc.).
How would you define tidal as proven? Also correct there is no one solution for all areas. Unless you built a massive solar panel array around the planet I guess.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.
How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let's say on average, it's half, so 1 million Watt. You're counting 500k m² per turbine?
What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?
Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people's roof) unlike the others.
Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.
Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.
Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.
Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it's already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I've heard.
It's no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.
A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.
Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren't included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.
Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y'know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.
So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I'm not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.
So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.
We do both. This isn't a binary choice.
So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.
I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.
We could build them in a lot less time than 15 years, we'd just need to summon up the political will for it. I'm not saying we should stop building Wind or Solar either.
Well demand isn't going to go down, and we're going to have to replace all of the old power plants anyways, even if they are solar or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear... Nothing lasts forever.
Money and manpower are not infinite. Any money spent on one is a choice not to spend it on the other.
Money and manpower are not infinite.
Functionally they are because different Capital Groups will chase different projects. For instance Bill Gates / TerraPower is heavily backing both Fusion and SMR Fission technology.
Meanwhile other Capital Groups like Anschutz are piling money into Wind Farms then there's yet other groups like Silicon Ranch pouring money into Solar Farms.
It seems to have escaped the notice of most Netizens but the big money Capitalists have finally come out to play in the Green / Renewable Energy space. Sure there's an absolute limit on the money and manpower that even they can afford but practically speaking those limits are so high that we're unlikely to reach them.
Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.
Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.
I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.
I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don't dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I'd rather have some more solid solutions.Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).- Dunai, Marton et al. Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report (2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J
- NOS Nieuws, Nieuwe kerncentrale niet mogelijk zonder staatssteun (2018) https://nos.nl/artikel/2258154-nieuwe-kerncentrale-niet-mogelijk-zonder-staatssteun
- WNSIR, World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022, https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2022-v3-lr.pdf
We’ve had the cure for climate change all along
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this simply isn't true with established nuclear technologies. Expanding our currently nuclear energy production requires us to fully tap all known and speculated Uranium sources, nets us only a 6% CO2 reduction, and we run out of Uranium by 2100. We might be able to use Thorium in fuel cycles to expand our net nuclear capacity, but that technology has to yet to be proven at scale. And all of this ignores the high startup cost, regulatory difficulties, disposal challenges and weapons proliferation risks that nuclear typically presents.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change
Except the plants take so long to build they won't be ready until we're at 2°C
It has been fifty years that "oh no they take so long to build, better never start" that by today we would have completely decarbonized energy generation if we started actually building them.
We could have also built solar collectors in orbit and beamed carbon-free electricity to Earth if we started 50 years ago.
Heck, if we funded fusion research properly there's a good chance we'd have had that by the mid 90s
Doesn't matter, not it's to late so think about something else
It was too late ten years ago
It is too late today
It will be too late in ten years
It is always too late.But weirdly it is never too late to be anti nuclear power.
It is also never to late to go full green energies and cut the useless spending such as private jets, luxury yatchs and son on
Knowing nothing about the process, can i ask, is the time it takes to build one based on current standards? Like if we were to focus more resources into the construction of new plants wouldnt they be built faster?
The latest nuclear power plant built in the US is seven years behind schedule and almost $20 billion over budget. It bankrupted Westinghouse Energy, and is slated to cost consumers more than double what comparable electricity costs because of these overruns.
And this was a plant that was using newer construction techniques like offsite assembly to reduce costs.
Were there mistakes during the build process like lowballing spending figures or building time so they are permitted to build or did they just royally fuck up some other way?
It just seems to be a general issue in the industry and not specific to this plant or the US.
Flamanville-3 in France is 5 years overrun already and is projected to be operational 12 years from now. It's budget ballooned from 3.3B to 20B euros.
Olkiluoto-3 was only delayed a year, but the budget went from 3 to 11B Euro.
Hinkley Point C project is behind and esyimates have gone from £16B to almost £30B.
Looks like one holdup nowadays is the ability to source HALEU (Uranium that is 4x as enriched as the typical fuel used in current reactors).
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-high-assay-low-enriched-uranium-haleu
It was sourceable from Russia before they invaded Ukraine.
Ahh... no. New solar and wind generation can be spun up much faster than nuclear.
Since I don't see it mentioned anywhere: Ignoring the economical and environmental issues that nuclear power still has compared to actual renewables, it has a geostrategic problem: Uranium is a geologically limited resources, which just creates political and economical dependencies. And since Russia has a lot of it, keeping working sanctions against them alive is pretty problematic, if you need to buy your energy resources from them. See gas supply.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.
I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.
But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.
We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.
I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they'll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.
Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.
emphasis mine:
Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.
First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances. There is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain of any given thing you buy, so boycotting GMO is as accurate as ethical consumers can get to boycotting Monsanto. It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and intent to eventually take control over the world’s food supply.
Then there’s the anti-GMO-tech camp (which is what you had in mind). You have people who are anti-all-GMO and those who are anti-risky-GMO. It’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches at the hands of a profit-driven corporation taking every shortcut they can get away with.
So in short:
- Boycott all U.S.-sourced GMO if you’re an ethical consumer. (note the EU produces GMO without Monsanto)
- Boycott just high-risk GMO techniques if you’re unethical but at least wise about the risks. (note this is somewhat impractical because you don’t have the transparency of knowing what technique was used)
- Boycott no GMO at all if you’re ignorant about risks & simultaneously unethical.
It also doesn’t help that people got brainwashed that solar energy and heat pumps will solve all our problems. I don’t have enough space to install so many solar panels to provide power to heat pump during the Eastern European winter and even if I did, ROI will be longer than their expected lifetime. And we still use lead during production, and no one wants to recycle them. These geniuses here import broken solar panels and dump them into the ground and cover them, call that recycling. FFS, nuclear waste disposal is less scary than this uncontrolled shit.
You do understand that solving the world's carbon energy crisis is not an individual person's job, right? We're not talking about me and you getting a solar lease in lieu of nuclear. We're talking about spending about 10% of the cost of 100% nuclear to build 100% solar and wind. For startup costs, going 100% renewable is literally orders of magnitude cheaper than going nuclear. And most countries have the space of potential for it. Yes, as I mentioned elsewhere, building power in and around cities is more complicated, but that is where roof units can come in. It is estimated that any major city could be self-sufficient if every building in it had solar panels on the roof and storage batteries. Even at the higher cost of smaller scale builds, the price difference between solar and nuclear is so large that a municipal solar grid is downright cheap, even if it has to be built that way. And it's pretty cool how effectively it would mitigate large-scale power outages as a free bonus.
Please understand, most people who oppose nuclear do so for more reasons than the nuclear waste. They hate that people keep focusing on this expensive technology that will take too long to solve the problem, when we have renewable energy that is just so much cheaper to build.
What provides me trepidation is the economic system means slack jawed corpos with MBAs will be working tirelessly to skirt safety.
Now if the government was to run ... Wait, that is communism and is therefore the bad thing to do /s
And people’s age and background has so weirdly much to do with how they internalize nuclear safety risk. My best german friend is very opposed to fossil fuels and believes in much stronger renewable focus, but is absolutely opposed to nuclear and basically laughs about how stupid he thinks that risk is. It’s wild.
Especially when you realize how little impact Chernobyl and Fukushima really had. Even including those two accidents, coal plants have emitted vastly more radioisotopes (which occur naturally at low levels in coal, but since we burn such vast quantities of coal…) and vastly more carcinogens.
It doesn't really matter whether you think nuclear energy is risky or not - it's economically the worst option. It's the most expensive of all the main sources of power. It's much cheaper to just transition to a mix of mostly renewable power and plenty of places have already done it with success. So why do something unnecessary like nuclear when it's more expensive than the alternatives?
Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax:
This sort of generalization is ignorance.
Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.
Wrong, nuclear power plants takes a lot of time to start and nothing can scale up to infinite spending. The solution and cure to climate change is to stop endless consumerism, if you don't do that society will keep demand yet another power plant to power up some useless shit
Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you'd have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.
Not that nuclear energy is the ONLY solution, just that it should be used alongside other methods of clean energy, as well as better energy efficiency on the consumer side.
Funfact: РБМК-1000(same model as in Chernobyl) was used on all four blocks in St. Petersburg(Leningrad). Currently 2 out of 4 are still in use, another two were replaced with ВВЭР-1200.
