4 ms·

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was anc

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person. Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cause a lot of noise pollution. And they aren't all that pretty, either. The risk of nuclear is low to none, barring any unforeseen freak accidents. Yes, if a tsunami hits the nuclear plant, it might break down. If a meteor hits it, it might break down. By that logic we shouldn't build cities. After all, if a tsunami hits a city many people will die. I wish politics around the world would just leave the decision-making up to smart people instead of vote-gatherers.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Are you accounting for costs of mining the source material? As I understand it the cost to acquire and safely handle the nuclear material is significant.
- mnemonicsloth 6y ago
  Significantly less than digging up millions of tons of coal. Note also that coal is somewhat radioactive too, and there is a lot more of it, so the radiation difference is small and might even favor nuclear
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Coal is terrible. That doesn't make nuclear power the best option compared to all the others. The radiation difference isn't small if you include accidents. (Are we somehow supposed to pretend they never happened, and no nuclear accident - even if it's "just" a fuel spill, or a small fire - will ever happen again?)
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      Which current option is better than nuclear? Please take into account the lack of battery storage capacity and water pumped storage capacity that makes an all solar and wind grid completely impractical, and that adding extensive hydro power would cause further degradation of our rivers. Nuclear power is our best option among coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear, if you believe that reducing carbon/methane emissions to slow or halt global warming is important.
- korantu 6y ago
  For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh Also one has to consider how much energy needs to be spent to get certain amount of energy generated, so called EROI. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1] Given the investment energy is mostly in shape of fossil fuels, one, for example, cannot fuel carbon capture with anything other than nuclear, as in balance it will not reduce co2. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/#3de9a2a2a027 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to...
hanniabu 6y ago
Human factors are always an issue. In the US there's a lot of regulations that are being relaxed to allow nuclear power plants to continue to function. This is the issue I've always seen.
- jeirinkfk9 6y ago
  Yeah it’s called “kick an old can” down the road rather than throw it away. It’s easier to rewrite some words on paper than do actual planning, and implementation of upgrade work. A rich nation seeks financial efficiency, circling around tried and true solutions, whittling them down to pointless husks. Costing it self reliability and resiliency. With big projects like nuclear plants and nation states, only so much whittling of resiliency can happen before ... poor. The structural support fails and the systems is no more.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds compared to other threats. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc... It's not actually known definitively how many people Fukushima killed, but it is known definitively that the final economic costs wildly outweighed the "cheap" energy it produced. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1301/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1301/pdf Nuclear is not clean. There is still no solution to nuclear waste, which makes it impossible to cost the TOC of nuclear. And considering the number of accidents to date - and their economic cost - nuclear certainly isn't safe either. Is it really a good idea to create pools of extremely toxic heavy metal waste which is also radioactive? It also isn't cheap. Renewables have been consistently undercut the cost of nuclear electricity, and that's without any significant push towards an improved smart grid, a combination of centralised and local distribution, and clean pumped storage facilities that would be possible with a Green New Deal. As you say - these decisions should be left to smart people, and not to an industry which has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  Renewables are riding on the shoulders of a gigantic fossil-powered grid that (usually) handles their intermittency for them for free. When you deeply decarbonize with intermittent energy sources you have to add in new costs: storage, new transmission, smart loads. These costs add $40-60/MWh of electricity, which brings the actual system cost right up to the cost of nuclear today. So nuclear is already economic with any other decarbonized grid. Related info in [1]. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 "No solution to the waste" is a myth [2]. The waste is stored in dry casks which have never injured a soul. Meanwhile combustion waste from fossil and renewable biofuel kills 8 million/yr [3]. [2] https://whataboutthewaste.com https://whataboutthewaste.com [3] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution Yes, by those numbers, fossil and biofuel kill the same number of people every single week than have ever been attributed to nuclear accidents in the history of the industry. Plus nuclear solves climate change. If fossil and renewable biofuel had to pay insurance for climate change, we'd be building nuclear like crazy. Also, wind turbines kill large raptors and migratory bats, not songbirds.
Factfull 6y ago
"Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy" Did you even read the article? Or at least the summary? It's a pro nuclear piece.
tinco 6y ago
If you don't understand an article maybe ask a question about it, instead of listing random vaguely related factoids?

paulryanrogers 6y ago

Are you accounting for costs of mining the source material? As I understand it the cost to acquire and safely handle the nuclear material is significant.

mnemonicsloth 6y ago
Significantly less than digging up millions of tons of coal. Note also that coal is somewhat radioactive too, and there is a lot more of it, so the radiation difference is small and might even favor nuclear
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Coal is terrible. That doesn't make nuclear power the best option compared to all the others. The radiation difference isn't small if you include accidents. (Are we somehow supposed to pretend they never happened, and no nuclear accident - even if it's "just" a fuel spill, or a small fire - will ever happen again?)
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    Which current option is better than nuclear? Please take into account the lack of battery storage capacity and water pumped storage capacity that makes an all solar and wind grid completely impractical, and that adding extensive hydro power would cause further degradation of our rivers. Nuclear power is our best option among coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear, if you believe that reducing carbon/methane emissions to slow or halt global warming is important.
korantu 6y ago
For nuclear, as it is much denser energy-wise then anything else, you need to do the least amount of digging per MW capacity / let alone overall produced MWh Also one has to consider how much energy needs to be spent to get certain amount of energy generated, so called EROI. Nuclear is orders of magnitude better than other low-co2 options. For example for solar it is about 6, versus 75 for nuclear. [1] Given the investment energy is mostly in shape of fossil fuels, one, for example, cannot fuel carbon capture with anything other than nuclear, as in balance it will not reduce co2. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/#3de9a2a2a027 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-to...

hanniabu 6y ago

Human factors are always an issue. In the US there's a lot of regulations that are being relaxed to allow nuclear power plants to continue to function. This is the issue I've always seen.

jeirinkfk9 6y ago
Yeah it’s called “kick an old can” down the road rather than throw it away. It’s easier to rewrite some words on paper than do actual planning, and implementation of upgrade work. A rich nation seeks financial efficiency, circling around tried and true solutions, whittling them down to pointless husks. Costing it self reliability and resiliency. With big projects like nuclear plants and nation states, only so much whittling of resiliency can happen before ... poor. The structural support fails and the systems is no more.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

Wind turbines kill a negligible number of birds compared to other threats. https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-scienc... It's not actually known definitively how many people Fukushima killed, but it is known definitively that the final economic costs wildly outweighed the "cheap" energy it produced. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1301/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/12/1301/pdf Nuclear is not clean. There is still no solution to nuclear waste, which makes it impossible to cost the TOC of nuclear. And considering the number of accidents to date - and their economic cost - nuclear certainly isn't safe either. Is it really a good idea to create pools of extremely toxic heavy metal waste which is also radioactive? It also isn't cheap. Renewables have been consistently undercut the cost of nuclear electricity, and that's without any significant push towards an improved smart grid, a combination of centralised and local distribution, and clean pumped storage facilities that would be possible with a Green New Deal. As you say - these decisions should be left to smart people, and not to an industry which has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.

acidburnNSA 6y ago
Renewables are riding on the shoulders of a gigantic fossil-powered grid that (usually) handles their intermittency for them for free. When you deeply decarbonize with intermittent energy sources you have to add in new costs: storage, new transmission, smart loads. These costs add $40-60/MWh of electricity, which brings the actual system cost right up to the cost of nuclear today. So nuclear is already economic with any other decarbonized grid. Related info in [1]. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 "No solution to the waste" is a myth [2]. The waste is stored in dry casks which have never injured a soul. Meanwhile combustion waste from fossil and renewable biofuel kills 8 million/yr [3]. [2] https://whataboutthewaste.com https://whataboutthewaste.com [3] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution Yes, by those numbers, fossil and biofuel kill the same number of people every single week than have ever been attributed to nuclear accidents in the history of the industry. Plus nuclear solves climate change. If fossil and renewable biofuel had to pay insurance for climate change, we'd be building nuclear like crazy. Also, wind turbines kill large raptors and migratory bats, not songbirds.

Factfull 6y ago

"Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy" Did you even read the article? Or at least the summary? It's a pro nuclear piece.

tinco 6y ago

If you don't understand an article maybe ask a question about it, instead of listing random vaguely related factoids?