Unfortunately this is an unpopular opinion and the other comments in the thread prove the average person thinks a nuclear power plant produces deadly products. It is literally thousands of times better for the environment than coal and gas plants. Replacing all coal and gas plants with nuclear energy would have an immediate positive impact on the environment. We also don’t need to keep them forever. Eventually they’d be replaced with renewables.
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/
A nuclear fusion power plant (up and coming) would produce zero net, but the energy needed is not yet sustainable. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-repeat-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough-in-a-step-toward-more-clean-energy-180982683/
However, I am not a professional, just a mere student. I think I’d agree that nuclear power overall, would be better now than coal or gas, but would be worse in the long run due to the residual pollution.
A nuclear power plant does produce deadly products.
Those potentially deadly products can be stored in a safe way. Your link doesn’t even claim that it’s actively killing people. They claim that it’s costly to build geologic repositories, and once they’re built you don’t need more for a long time. Meanwhile coal power plants are directly putting deadly waste into people’s lungs.
Take a look at this bar chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17876910/
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
.
.
Eventually they’d be replaced with renewables.
And what if instead you used that decade+ and those $B’s to just build out renewables and storage? You’d make a difference faster, get better/faster return on your Investment, have a more stable grid, and the operating cost would make your investment continue paying off more for the life of the technology
I’m not sure if that’s an unpopular opinion so much as a completely incorrect one.
The simple truth is that nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build.
Renewables and storage are much cheaper and take way less time to start producing energy.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear? Please don’t try and tell me about base load (not needed), SMRs (even more expensive) or fusion (not going to happen in our lifetimes)
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear? Please don’t try and tell me about base load (not needed), SMRs (even more expensive) or fusion (not going to happen in our lifetimes)
Peak-load scaling. The major advantage that fossil fuel generators have is that you can spin them up faster to react to higher demand. You can’t do that with solar or wind, but you can with nuclear.
If we had grid-scale storage solutions, dealing with peak load would be easier but it’s still more cost effective to build pumped hydro storage than large battery arrays. Most electric grids have to produce electricity on-demand which means they have to be highly responsive.
We don’t have good grid-scale storage yet. We need demand-responsive energy production. Fission is better than burning coal.
You can’t do that with solar or wind, but you can with nuclear.
That’s why I said renewables and storage. There are lots of storage technologies such as pumped hydro and various kinds of battery that can react very quickly to increased demand. You categorically cannot do that with nuclear, where did you learn this?
Firstly, nuclear needs to run 24/7 as it’s not economically feasible to do anything else given how much these things cost. Secondly, you’re still heating water to create steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. All of that takes time to ramp up and means that nuclear is not used to generate in response to increased demand.
[…] react very quickly to increased demand. You categorically cannot do that with nuclear, where did you learn this?
This is not correct.
A Brief Survey of Load-Following Capabilities in Modern Nuclear Power Plants
Load-following NPPs in France claim power output ramps as much as 5%/min if necessary, though typical ramps are kept below 1.5%/min.
Certain French NPPs routinely decrease power output 50% at night.
It’s true that load-following is mostly not done with nuclear in the US, but this is policy/common practice/habit, not a technical limitation of nuclear power plants.
Also, I mentioned pumped hydro storage to point out specifically that battery technology really isn’t effective enough yet. It still doesn’t scale well, it’s too expensive for large grids.
thanks for sharing this!
hilarious to see the other guy doubling down even after you cited an actual source.
This is not correct.
It is, you just proved it yourself:
“typical ramps are kept below 1.5%/min.”
Compare that with batteries or pumped hydro.
That’s plenty fast enough for a power grid.
1.5% of 900MW is 13.5MW. That’s plenty of power output scaling per minute.
I think you’re getting peaker plants, e.g gas fired confused with load following.
Nuclear plants are not used as peaker plants. you incorrectly stated that they are.
It’s a shame that you’re being voted down here, even though your points are actually more on the factual side. Well, that’s probably the fate of those who “dare” to say something against nuclear. Even if everyone else demonstrably doesn’t have a clue about the subject: They’re still bashing it. It’s just good that downvotes on Lemmy don’t really matter.
Yes, but your assertion that renewable is cheaper completely ignored the cost of grid scale energy storage suitable to remove fossil fuel generation.
No, it’s cheaper than new nuclear with storage included.
Your statement disagrees with what I could turn up on duckduckgo. Can you provide your sources, I’m not a subject matter expert.
Sure:
“Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city’s electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries. … Conventional nuclear often benefits from optimistic estimates in the range of 12¢/kwh.”
I mean, it’s speculation. Current estimated completion is November this year, and the battery power price was already raised to 4c in 2020 estimated https://www.capdyn.com/news/capital-dynamics-and-8minute-solar-energy-partner-on-breakthrough-400mwac-eland/
This would still be cheaper than nuclear. But it’s not a true comparison. I am asking the cost to replace fossil generation. Which means some degrees of over provisioning and redundancy. The bank of America paints a very different picture in its 2023 report (https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/) but I hardly trust them.
Either way your evidence from anecdote makes it clear you have as little understanding as I do. So I am still none the wiser if solar + generation is a solution today that makes nuclear irrelevant. If it’s not we can’t just keep burning coal till it is though. People have been saying for 30 years let’s just use renewables. But the world would look very different today if we had transition to nuclear energy back then.
nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build
So what? Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower. Also, I suspect it’s much cheaper than carbon recapture.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear?
I think you’ve lost the point entirely. The question is “what do we need to effectively generate electricity without fossil fuels?” Nuclear is one such answer. Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower.
Cost is cost and with new nuclear you can add on a fair chunk to whatever amount is quoted because they often go way over budget.
Given renewables and storage is cheaper, why would you want to piss money away?
Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
We’re been developing nuclear for 70 years. In that time it’s not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened. Time to let go.
Cost is cost … [in 70 years] it’s not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened.
I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market … and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it’s another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?
Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?
There it is.
If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I’d be pushing new nuclear hard. I could argue that we should continue to burn coal and gas while we make the leap to nuclear … in 10-15 year’s time. No, let’s make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.
Hey, wait. Are you shilling for the fossil fuel industry?
No, let’s make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.
Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody’s arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That’s the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.
make the leap to nuclear … in 10-15 year’s time
We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.
If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I’d be pushing new nuclear hard.
Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?
If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.
All your sophistry, ignorance, and rudeness aside, you’ve yet to make a single compelling argument for nuclear.
I think we’re done here.
I think we’re done here.
On that we can agree.
To be fair, solar and wind are dependent on wind availability and solar availability year-round. Nuclear is buildable nearly anywhere. There are a lot of places other options aren’t as possible or efficient.
Nuclear is buildable nearly anywhere
It’s really not. It needs a reliable water source for a start.
Small scale reactors with stirling generators can power neighborhoods with simple air cooling.
Do you have any examples of them in operation, hooked up to a grid? How much does the energy they produce cost?
Even large scale nuclear plants are not economically viable without huge subsidies. Small scale reactors are even less cost effective. I haven’t really seen any of them “in the wild” except for research reactors or something like that.
Oh, I know. Making a wild claim about SMRs and then running for the hills when asked for evidence is pretty standard around here.
Yeah, unfortunately.
BTW, do you work in the field or something? Cause you sound kinda knowledgeable.
I don’t like it, but I’ll have to go along with it
Presumably you mean “Rufen Sie ein Taxi bitte sonst verpass’ ich meinen Flug”?
There are plenty of environmentalists with binary thought patterns. If they can’t have the perfect system now, they’d rather let it all burn.
Not limited to environmentalists
glares at Lemmy doomers, vote splitters, and “revolutionaries”
Ice free Arctic by 2025
“Yeah we can probably still pull out of this nose dive by consuming MORE power”
- The utterly deranged.
mortality rate in deaths per thousand terawatt hour
if you disagree with OP, do some research and understand that you have been propogandized
I am 100% supportive of nuclear and still disagree with OP. Not supporting nuclear does NOT automatically mean you are not an environmentalist. That is just beyond stupid to me.
ok but i think there’s a big distinction between “not supporting” and being anti-nuclear energy, which is what OP actually said.
I disagree. I think it’s a small, nitpicky distinction. OP made his meaning clear.
From your link:
How many lives were lost in these accidents?
So they are just looking at deaths from nuclear accidents, and not construction or mining? You would have to do the same for the others. What kind of wind and solar “accidents” are there (excluding construction and mining)? Was the sun or wind too powerful one day?
You’re going to have to do better than that. Nuclear plants are guarded by barbed wire and guys with guns. Wind turbines are guarded by sheep. The solar panels on your roof are guarded by squirrels and crows. It’s pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
You’re going to have to do better than that.
No I’m not. You are moving the goalposts. The source of the article I linked specifically speaks to mortalities from accidents and air pollution. Asking that statistic to do overtime and somehow speak to mining fatalities is whataboutism and totally ignores that coal mining has exactly the same problem. Mining fatalities are significant and not to be ignored, but to cite them as a reason to prefer coal over uranium is foolish.
It’s pretty obvious which one is more dangerous.
Self-reporting that you didn’t even read the article lol. The cited graphic clearly indicates that more than 4x as many individuals have died from rooftop solar accidents, such as electricution and falls than have died from nuclear power, per unit of energy. Statistics like “look who is guarding the power source” are obscenely unfit to describe the situation in comparison to raw numbers of human deaths.
4x as many individuals have died from rooftop solar accidents, such as electricution and falls
Those are from installation and construction. Your statistic doesn’t include construction deaths for nuclear plants. So the metric is biased. People fall doing any type of construction, including nuclear plants and solar panels.
Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The “construction team” adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.
You can’t prove your point with flawed metrics, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. Nuclear plants are expensive and require constant maintenance. Solar panels are literally mounted on top of elementary schools. They’re cheap and easy to put up and take down. Wind turbines need a little more maintenance and construction but they are also simple compared to nuclear plants. These are facts.
Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The “construction team” adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.
Even if every construction worker was hopped up on whatever you can imagine, it wouldn’t even matter.
It takes 2 workers to install 10 kW in solar panels that (might) last 15 years. That’s 75 kW-years of energy per construction worker.
It takes 1200 construction workers to build a 1000 MW reactor which will operate for (at least) 50 years. That’s about 42 MW-years per construction worker, or 42000 kW-years per construction worker.
Nuclear construction could have over 500x the accident rate of rooftop solar installation and still be safer. Try again.
You linked an article about how hard it is to find nuclear plant construction workers, and you think it’s a point in their favor?
Direct employment for a single unit 1,000 MW advanced light water reactor during site preparation and construction at any point in time for 10 years is around 1,200 professional and construction staff, or about 12,000 labor years, the study shows.
You’re comparing 10 years of construction to build a nuclear plant with one day of putting up some solar panels. And you’re amazed that 10 years of work is more productive?
When you divide by the 10 years of construction you get:
Nuclear plant: (1,000,000 kW x 50 years) / (1,200 workers x 10 years) = 4,167 kW / worker
Solar panels: (10 kW x 15 years x 365 days per year) / (2 workers x 1 day) = 27,375 kW / worker
Looks like you’re completely wrong. I don’t know why you’d compare it this way, but it’s definitely more efficient to install solar panels.
That’s fair: construction workers aren’t magically able to construct more than one reactor over those 10 years. It was late at night and I also lost track of the original point of this whole thread. The study cherry-picked rooftop solar, as opposed to utility solar, in order to prove a point. Nuclear power is safe. Fossil fuels are not safe.
the other account whom i blocked is still also totally ignoring that someone has to build the solar panels. it’s not like two (apparently drugged up) roofing dudes just pull some solar cells off the solar cell tree and slap them on a roof; there’s probably hundreds to thousands of man hours going into producing those.
id look into the math against the nuclear plant example if i thought it mattered. but compare stupid numbers and ya get a stupid answers yknow?
lol your meth comment made me lose all interest in this conversation. that was gross. im blocking you and standing by my words until someone who can actually cite a stat in good faith comes through, because i have based all my arguments off the best reasearch i can find and you have provided nothing but baseless assertions. take care ❤️
For other people reading this: yes, roofers take meth. I don’t advocate doing roofing work on meth (or meth in general), but they do it. It’s reality.
Reality is more than just numbers on a page. If anyone has fatality stats for different energy generation methods that stand up to mild scrutiny, please post them.
Of course you can. Because nuclear energy is NOT a solution. Especially not in the long run.
This is accurate, however we can’t sacrifice good enough for the perfect we don’t have yet. I get there is no solution that lasts longer than a temporary one, but environmentally, nuclear absolutely should be implemented.
OK. Are we on the same page, that we need to abolish fossil energy ASAP?
And: How much (in % of global energy production) should be covered by nuclear power in your opinion?
Yep. Fossil fuels need to disappear yesterday.
Your second question is way, way out of my league. All I can toss out there as a guess is enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand vs ebb and flow of natural systems like sun and wind, maybe plus a little for contingency.
Your second question is way, way out of my league
Hats off to you for being so honest and admitting this.
enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand
OK, please correct me if I haven’t understood you correctly, but you mean: “We should basically utilize natural systems energy (sun, wind, water, …) completely and turn off and on nuclear plants “on demand” to cover the peaks/gaps in demand.” Did I get that right?
Pretty much, yeah; but again, out of my league. I don’t think nuclear can be just “turned off”, but in the context of this discussion whatever the minimum output is to keep them operating, and then power up to cover whatever output is needed to cover low wind, overcast, night, etc.
I’ll offer this also - and again I have no real scientific knowledge to back it up, but possibly this could be sorted out with some digging - that I think batteries should also be used to help buffer power output swings, but I also think that the environmental impact of batteries and their manufacturing need to be balanced against the same for nuclear power. It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid vs a relative few nuclear plants.
Pretty much
OK, cool.
What you are describing is called “load following”. Different power plants have different capabilities of doing this. E.g. coal plants (or other thermal plants) are pretty bad at this while e.g. gas turbines can be turned on/off very quickly to buffer out short peaks of fluctuations. Power plants get categorized into different groups: e.g. Base Load plants or Peak Load plants. Base load is basically the load that is “always need to be supplied” and everything else is modulated on top of that.
To do effective load following, you would NOT want base load plants.
To categorize power plants we need to look at 2 different things: the technical capability to do “load following” with a plant - and the economical viability of throttling the power output of a plant.
Nuclear power plants have extremely high investment costs and a greater proportion of fixed costs (e.g. for personnel) while having very low variable costs, as nuclear plants are not really “using up more/less fuel” during their operation. That means: The cost of nuclear power plants is pretty much constant over time - no matter if they are producing more or less power, but you only get an return on invest if you output power.
That is why nuclear power plants are normally used as base load power plants, as their economic viability goes pretty bad when you do (extensive) load following with them. However, they have at least some technical capabilities of being operated in a (slower) load following mode.
When we add in the fact, that there was probably not a single nuclear power plant, yet, that was economically viable without huge subsidies and the mere costs of keeping the radioactive waste products safe FOREVER are enormous, investors/plant owners don’t really like the idea of “throttling” their plants as they will be loosing money.
That is why - if you have a great amount of base load power plants in your grid - you tend to turn off the generators that are easy to regulate but hard to calculate: Wind & Solar. That’s why a high percentage of nuclear power in your energy mix will PREVENT the utilization of true renewable energy sources, making them a less viable investment.
This is one of the reasons why I asked about the percentage of “needed nuclear power” in the beginning. Different percentages of these plants will have different effects on the entire energy production system and it’s trajectory.
So I am coming back to my original question. And there is not right or wrong answer, just a gut feeling: How much nuclear do we need to make this work? Our current energy mix (primary energy consumption) consists globally roughly of 75% fossil energy and 4% nuclear. So do you think we will need to replace the 75% fossils with nuclear by 1:1? Or maybe 1:2 and fill the rest with Wind/Solar? Or do we keep the current 4%? Really, it’s about your gut feeling about what you think will be necessary. From that point on, we can then further explore the general viability and consequences of nuclear power in the grid.
It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid
The beauty of it is: You wouldn’t really need to do this - but I’m getting ahead of myself. This a different rabbit hole that I don’t think is needed to be explored right now.
But just a short pointers:
- By controlling and deferring energy consumption in a “smart” way, you can match up the demand with the volatile supply (e.g. of Wind/Solar) pretty well.
- In energy systems, we have other types of energy storing systems that are bigger, cheaper and more reliable than the ones we know from “consumer electronics” - e.g. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
Well I think I just got jumped. You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them, particularly the environmental issues inherent in battery production and recycling, and sorta handwaved in the general direction of alternative sources like pumped-up hydro. I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that Science Will Save Us via some future solution or construction. The proverbial can keeps getting kicked down the road to do something about the issues immediately with the excuse that technology will jump in and save the day before it’s too late. People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built to meet the professed goal. Ideas are great, but if we don’t have it now it’s technically already too late.
And that segues into nuclear. It is not a perfect solution. However it is a known tech, and an effective one. Nuclear waste is at the top of the issues I though of when I mentioned it, however that issue can be somewhat ameliorated if the US gets around to reprocessing the waste which is currently hindered by a non-proliferation treaty. We can argue costs and all that about nuclear operations, but at what point do we say that the enemy of good enough is constantly looking for perfection while sitting on our hands?
Summed up: Yes, there are alternatives. Many are conceptual and have never been implemented, or at least not on a large scale. They need to be implemented yesterday and not just viewed through hopeful rose-tinted glasses. Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
you make a weird assumption that a solution that can’t work forever won’t work as a transition strategy
OK. How much (in % of global energy production) do you think we will need from nuclear power to make it work as a “transition strategy”?
i’m sorry i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask. a % global nuclear energy production value is purely symbolic and not a goal.
the real percentage i want is 100% clean and safe energy, because the world is already basically ending. we must run headlong at eliminating fossil fuels as soon as possible, and we already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up.
the reality is, market conditions and the state of energy research will determine the actual global distribution of energy. there are probably experts out there who can estimate where those numbers are headed, but i’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask
But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.
Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?
I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn’t.)
We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up
Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don’t want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.
you are asking me to be an expert on topics i have already admitted to being not studied in. that’s not fair because i came into this conversation to defend my position that being anti-nuclear is not well suited to the environmentalist agenda. and nothing else.
i know that france has successfully achieved like 70% nuclear power production, while renewables are slowly ticking up. and i am not against that. that is good. because they aren’t using fossil fuel to get that electricity. if they had waited around for renewables research to catch up they’d still be reliant on coal and oil like the rest of us. if they were forced to shut down all nuclear plants, fossil fuels would spike to take up the slack.
that’s my position. that’s all i’m expressing. you are trying to drag the discussion somewhere else, and that’s not a winning move.
This opinion is true, unpopular and truly unpolular.
Logical fallacy: “you can’t claim to support $GENERAL_AREA and be anti-$MY_SPECIFIC_THING at the same time “? I’m sure there’s a name for that type of fallacy
No True Scotsman: defending an ingroup by excluding members that don’t agree with a particular stance. A subset of the Appeal to Purity fallacy, which argues that someone doesn’t do enough or have enough of some attribute to be included in a group. Other examples (deliberately inflammatory to cause a knee-jerk reaction to show how easy it is to fall into these things) would be “You can’t be a good person and support Donald Trump for Persident” or “You can’t support Palestine and still vote for Biden.”
I don’t agree with OPs statement, but I do agree with their sentiment. Nuclear energy is one of the best options available from an environmental standpoint to meet our baseline energy needs and supplement grids using non-persistant renewable loke wind and solar.
Thanks. I like to think I’m an advocate for the environment but disagree with both the statement and the intent.
Nuclear fission has some nice properties we could use, but as an ideal. However the industry has also demonstrated it to be expensive and too long to build. It’s not practical
Renewables have some weaknesses we don’t entirely know how to fill yet. Storage is in infancy: great for stabilization but still trying to grow. However we’re not at the point where those weaknesses matter yet. The fastest and cheapest approach is to build out renewables and storage as much as possible, while continuing to develop more scalable storage or Fusion, or figure out how to make fission practical again, or simply how to minimize use of gas peaker plants
How high a percentage of renewables can we get, with current storage technology and still have a reliable grid? Let’s find out, plus that’s the amount of time where we need to decide on a more complete answer. We’re (US) not even close to that point, and easily have more than a decade at current rates before we do.
Edit: another answer is we no longer have time for nuclear. Given the history of how long it takes to build nuclear power plants, and our current emissions/climate change, we can’t afford to wait the decades it would take to build those out. Renewables can make an impact immediately
I mostly agree but it’s also important to look at updating the grid so power can be moved around using high voltage DC transmission.
We’ve got reliable solar in the Southern US, and massive potential for wind offshore and in the prairie states. If we can route power to where it’s needed that decreases the need to store it.
We’re running into that up in the northeast too. Massachusetts had big plans to buy Canadian hydro, but can’t get the transmission lines built to get it here
There will be some breakthrough that makes it practical, I think.
Maybe, and we should certainly continue to look for that breakthrough. However, renewables can be built out now, are lowest cost, most immediate impact: we need to be building these out as fast as possible
At some point we’ll have diminishing returns with stability and might change our approach, but let’s get to that point as fast as we cab
yeah. OP’s title sucks but the general gist is true, that making such a claim is either hypocritical or uninformed, maybe both.
Nicely done OP. This is the best post I’ve seen on this community on lemmy.
Also amusing how many ignorant and uneducated people are calling your take/nuclear energy “stupid” simply because they don’t understand it.
“Nuclear = bad” is about as far as their level of thinking goes…
Nuclear waste = bad because we don’t currently have a proper way to dispose of it. We bury it in a container with hopes that we’ll find a way in the future.
IIRC we have 2 solutions 1 is what we currently use and the second is more or less the best but a tad expensive so we don’t. (This is for the highly radioactive waste that has long decay and makes up about 1-3% of waste, the stuff we “worry” about)
The former is we mix the radioactive material with glass, ceramic, and concrete into large pieces and just leave em. Standing next to them you actually receive more radiation from the sun and they cannot be recovered into usable material because of how they are melted and mixed together.
The latter is more or less the same, but we dig, on site, an L shaped bore into the ground a long way into the earths crust where it can be stored indefinitely, is not recoverable, and can keep a site running for it’s entire lifetime without filling the hole. You then fill in the hole at end of life and done. No harm to people, environment, or earth. Basically a DGR (Deep Geological Repository)
And we can think about a 3rd and actually ship the materials in rockets and space them. Throwing them beyond Earth SOI would prevent accumulating garbage in orbit
That’s a lot of risk of spreading high-level radioactive materials across large areas of earth. Rockets explode sometimes, and even the RTGs many probes use required special attention to rocket reliability. Moving tonnes of material like that wouod be an inevitable disaster with current rocket reliability and abort systems.
Or we could put it in a hole.
i don’t know if you checked in on what we do with excess matter from carbon fuels?
you are breathing it in right now 😌🤤😌
literally! incredible work OP in giving this unworthy, unmoderated troll den of a community some real content. 😼
edit: sorry if this sounded like sarcasm i do mean to compliment OP with this comment lol.
Bullshit, nuclear waste is incredibly toxic.
Yeah it’s a good thing we have clean burning gas and coal
There is this crazy new trend called renewables. Also, please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels.
It’s not as toxic as coal. It is only that you are used to those effects. It’s also a safer industry to work in. Technically safer even than wind and solar last I looked. I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
Agreed, that´s the compromise I would propose too.
I know some people in nuclear power and get in arguments with them all the time about this. (they’re not big fans of renewables. shocker.) But they’re right that renewables just aren’t ready to take over yet. Where I’d say we need to fund renewable research and development—they are deadset it’s a waste of money. But fossil fuels have got to go. I think it’d be for the best if no one was ever comfortable with nuclear but I just don’t see another alternative that works with how quickly we are killing the planet. 🤷♂️
The guy is obviously an advertiser/influencer working for the nuclear industry, which makes his opinion on the topic irrelevant.
“Obvously…” /s
Or, when you run the numbers yourself, you realize that it’s about as dangerous as offshore wind turbines are to birds and fish. Which is to say, not very, but a lot of extremely dumb people still parrot it.
Stop pretending. It is obvious that the guy is a pro nuclear advertiser. Anyone can see that in a 5 minute google search.
Whatever you say, bud. It’s not worth the time or crayons to debate you further on this.
That is also how I feel about you :)
You drank the Kool-aid and asked for seconds didn’t you?
It’s impressive to see the massive power of oil-industry-paid propaganda.
Please quote the part where I supported fossil fuels. I am pro renewables, not pro fossil.
I never said you supported fossil fuels. Please point to the part where I said or implied such a thing.
I’m affirming that the notion that “nuclear waste is incredibly toxic” is false and it’s a propaganda piece that was inserted into popular culture by the oil industry who paid to make the idea mainstream. Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun. But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in pop culture.
Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun.
Nuclear waste contains Plutonium and that is only one of several highly toxic substances it contains. Are you seriously trying to tell me Plutonium is not extremely toxic?
But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in pop culture.
Both, the nuclear and the fossil lobby have spread disinformation systematically, you are a good example for the pro nuclear propaganda. I on the other hand reject both, fossil and nuclear because both are harmful.
There’s a qualitative difference between the fact “Plutonium is toxic“ and the propaganda piece “nuclear waste is toxic”. The first is an statement of truth about a chemical element, the second is an attempt to halt rational thinking. Nuclear waste is depleted fuel encased in concrete. You can stand next to it without any ill consequence to your health and it is not toxic. Unless you actively try to break into it, you won’t be harmed anymore than standing under the sun.
But seeing the way you reacted to some other person showing evidence, with the construction of an ugly ad-hominem attack and the equivalent of a child sticking fingers in their ears and singing. I would not be wasting any more electricity on you. You say pro-nuclear propaganda, as if both positive and negative propaganda aren’t nuances to take into account. That truth can lie at the core of propaganda, and that the best propaganda is the one that doesn’t have to lie to make its point. While still regurgitating and supporting negative propaganda based on scientific falsehoods that goes against your own self-proclaimed principles and goals.
Excellent and well written counter. 👍
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change, although I’ve seen some articles that it’s supposed to be faster now than the past 10 years.
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Fortunately, opposing nuclear power does not mean supporting fossil fuels.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change
Agreed, that is another good argument against nuklear.
New Zealand says you can.
I mean, you can. It’s stupid, yes but when has this ever stopped people?
I’m not personally strongly opposed, but “stupid” is kind of a dumb simplistic judgment. There are arguments for nuclear power, but there are definitely also many valid arguments against it. Key among them having to source uranium from locations on which we’d rather not be dependant.
australia and canada are among the top 4 uranium producers in the world, and australia has huge reserves that we just don’t mine because we have relatively expensive labour: our uranium is a byproduct of iron and other mining operations… i’d bet you’re not talking about australia when you said “rather not be dependant”, so ramping up our production is a clear, albeit more expensive option
“stupid” here stands for uninformed, succeptible to propaganda, and unwilling to examine presupposed beliefs in light of empirical evidence.
also # of arguments in favor or against something is an absolutely useless metric unless you properly weight every one of them. “we don’t know what to do with the waste which actually hasn’t killed anyone yet” does not outweigh “we are dumping the waste into the air and millions are already dying from the consequences.”
And the reason uranium is sourced there is because it is too expensive to dig up in the West, where there is plenty but laws against poisoning and abandoning your workforce make it too expensive.
If you care about not having the environment be poisoned by nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years, then you kinda have to.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, and it has been solved for a long time.
It can also be reprocessed to further reduce the waste amounts:
Bro this is “Unpopular Opinion” not “Unpopular Opinion and also pretend it’s 1979”
You can claim anything you want.
Also, nuclear power has a huge environmental impact, it just offsets that impact by generating a fuckton of electricity.
In an idea world, we would look to make existing devices more efficient, and use them more responsibly rather than just generate more power to offset those losses.
Environmental and Health Consequences of Uranium Mining
Tailing deposits can cause landslides, air contamination, and wildlife exposure. Uranium tailings contain small particles that are picked up and transported by the wind. The radioactive particulates in the air can be concentrated enough to cause health issues including lung cancer and kidney disease. [6] These particles also contaminate soil and water. Furthermore, growing piles of mining debris become unstable and can result in fatal landslides, such as the 1966 landslide of Aberfan, which resulted in the death of 144 people. [7] Tailing ponds pose serious hazards to the environment as well through leaks, in which underground water becomes contaminated with heavy metals. [5] This can lead to the pollution of lakes and rivers. Local ecosystems, too, are harmed and destroyed by waste piles and ponds. Rain can interact with tailings and introduce sulfuric acid in aquatic ecosystems, similar to in-situ leaching. Wildlife exposure can also occur directly through interaction with tailing ponds. In particular, waterfowl often land and use tailing ponds, resulting in dire consequences. In 2008, 1600 ducks flew into a tailing pond and died in Alberta, Canada. [8] Evidently, the repercussions of uranium mining are far-reaching. Certain groups of people, however, are at greater risk of exposure to associated hazards.
The United States has a history of environmental inequity in which people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately subjected to environmental risks and consequent health hazards. Uranium mining is no different. Navajo Nation land, for example, is littered with tailing piles, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has mapped 521 abandoned uranium mines on the reservation. [5,9] In this regard, uranium mining serves as an avenue for continued environmental racism, and the issue demands close examination and public awareness.
Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2021/ph241/radzyminski2/
thank you for this, but keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer. nuclear power has FAR more energy per mass unit, which means FAR less mining than coal to get equivalent output.
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer
What half is missing in your opinion?
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
I oppose both though, fossil and nuclear, because both are harmful. The world has enough energy as it is now, so why invest huge sums in transition technologies like nuclear instead of going fully renewable plus storage right away?
What half is missing in your opinion?
The part that I wrote immediately after that. You don’t need as much mining to get an equivalent amount of nuclear energy, by several orders of magnitude.
I oppose both though.
Yeah I just wasn’t aware of your position since your top comment was just a big quote. I’m with you, sorry for coming in harder than was necessary.
I’d just say, when I say I “oppose both” I oppose nuclear in a very minor sense in comparison to my vehement opposition to fossil fuel. In a situation where a region or country finds it more cost effective to build nuclear plants in order to replace coal in the short term? I’d never describe myself as “anti-nuclear” in that case.
I think a lot of comments here are equivocating being “anti-nuclear” (NIMBY style, which is what OP actually wrote) with being concious of nuclear’s downsides. The reality is is that current gen renewables cannot keep up with certain demands, such as peak loads, in the same way nuclear can. Which means that *for now, in some cases and areas*, going full nuclear energy is a very healthy option in comparison to waiting it out on coal fumes until one day renewables hopefully get better.
tldr, Do both at once. Ditch fossils always. Renewable > nuclear, except when experts find that it is more cost effective in the short term.
I agree with that as long as nuclear is used as transition tech and phased out asap.
