4 ms·

I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. AFAIK nuclear so far has the smallest fatality per kWh rati

I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. AFAIK nuclear so far has the smallest fatality per kWh ratio. For certain, salt reactors need a lot more research, but so do many of these other "green" energies. Are we even clear on the full environmental impact of the various "green" energies when factoring in secondary and tertiary costs? I feel like China probably has the right idea of dumping a bunch of R&D into LFTR and whatnot instead of riding the Eco Friendly TM train.

rtpg 9y ago
full lifecycle studies are constantly being done on all power sources, the idea of factoring in the entire process has almost always been there. Solar energy being a great solution to power generation is backed by a lot of research, as well as a good economic situation. It's not just a bandwagon.
totalZero 9y ago
> I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. Perceived tail risk.
tom_mellior 9y ago
For many people it's fatalities, yes. For others like me, it's about not leaving nuclear waste around for many thousands of years. That is, "factoring in secondary and tertiary costs", including ones not necessarily expressed in today's dollars. The world would be all over a nuclear fuel cycle that doesn't produce waste that needs very-long-term storage.
Marazan 9y ago
If this was 15 years ago I'd be saying "Nuclear, hell yeah". But in the last 15 years solar prices have come way the heck down. And are going to go down even further in the coming 15 years. Everyone will get solar panels, they will be just that cheap.
pjc50 9y ago
Among other things, nuclear has a ridiculous cost overrun problem. We can't wait for it to be cheap, we have to deploy the working renewables now while waiting for "better" nuclear to be researched and built.
whyever 9y ago
> AFAIK nuclear so far has the smallest fatality per kWh ratio. Does that include the uranium miners?
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  More importantly, does that includes the projected fatalities due to power plants being destroyed and nuclear waste being unearthed and released in the environment? Given the half life of waste, ignoring that risk is ludicrous.
noonespecial 9y ago
Nuclear's great but even if we could magik up a few dozen reactors tomorrow, our distribution infrastructure still sucks (in the USA at least). Wind and solar seem to address both of these problems. Very likely faster, cheaper, safer availability and goes a long way to decentralizing distribution and easing the "long wires everywhere" problem. Nuclear probably still has some very compelling use cases in niche areas but on the whole, its time as "the power of the future" seems past.

rtpg 9y ago

full lifecycle studies are constantly being done on all power sources, the idea of factoring in the entire process has almost always been there. Solar energy being a great solution to power generation is backed by a lot of research, as well as a good economic situation. It's not just a bandwagon.

totalZero 9y ago

> I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. Perceived tail risk.

tom_mellior 9y ago

For many people it's fatalities, yes. For others like me, it's about not leaving nuclear waste around for many thousands of years. That is, "factoring in secondary and tertiary costs", including ones not necessarily expressed in today's dollars. The world would be all over a nuclear fuel cycle that doesn't produce waste that needs very-long-term storage.

Marazan 9y ago

If this was 15 years ago I'd be saying "Nuclear, hell yeah". But in the last 15 years solar prices have come way the heck down. And are going to go down even further in the coming 15 years. Everyone will get solar panels, they will be just that cheap.

pjc50 9y ago

Among other things, nuclear has a ridiculous cost overrun problem. We can't wait for it to be cheap, we have to deploy the working renewables now while waiting for "better" nuclear to be researched and built.

whyever 9y ago

> AFAIK nuclear so far has the smallest fatality per kWh ratio. Does that include the uranium miners?

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
More importantly, does that includes the projected fatalities due to power plants being destroyed and nuclear waste being unearthed and released in the environment? Given the half life of waste, ignoring that risk is ludicrous.

noonespecial 9y ago

Nuclear's great but even if we could magik up a few dozen reactors tomorrow, our distribution infrastructure still sucks (in the USA at least). Wind and solar seem to address both of these problems. Very likely faster, cheaper, safer availability and goes a long way to decentralizing distribution and easing the "long wires everywhere" problem. Nuclear probably still has some very compelling use cases in niche areas but on the whole, its time as "the power of the future" seems past.