2 ms·

It is a very costly choice. We don't know how to store waste securely. We don't know how to process the waste efficiently and somewhat without it being an ecolo

It is a very costly choice. We don't know how to store waste securely. We don't know how to process the waste efficiently and somewhat without it being an ecological disaster. We don't know how to extract and process nuclear 'fuel' without it bei g an ecological disaster as well. Just because the atom doesn't produce smoke at the plant doesn't make it an alternative. Additionally there is the whole thing about the dangers of an accident and the cost for insurance against it. The cost of building and maintaining a somewhat secure reactor and the later cost of dismantling it and storing the additional waste. Nearly all these costs for externalities were not factored into the price of energy. Calculating in all these costs mskes renewable energy look more than interesting. And also makes the question of storing excessive energy an interesting case. But governments/lobbies argue for cheap (read subsidized) nuclear, while not factoring the same subsidiaries into energy storage for renewables. Investing into the future with a broad renewable energy and storage infrastructure program could ensure not only less dependency on Russia (for oil or gas) but also have a positive impact on the topic of climate change. On the other hand. The German/European dependency on Russian gas and Russias dependency on the money from the sale of said gas was done to reduce the risk of war. The idea being that both sides could loose too much in the case of war and that would act as a deterrent. Even during the height of the Cold War Russian gas flowed towards the western world (aka Europe/Germany).

JohnBooty 5y ago
Additionally there is the whole thing about the dangers of an accident Sure, let's talk about that. - As a species, we've been running hundreds of nuclear reactors (440 currently) for a while now. - Their cumulative track record is (very roughly) "one Chernobyl every 25 years." - The cost of a Chernobyl-scale incident is that it renders a region uninhabitable and kills several hundred people. - With plants getting safer and safer, we might reasonably expect the risk to be more like "one Chernobyl every 50 or 100 years" for modern plants. - Waste storage is obviously a challenge. The US has apparently produced enough nuclear waste "to cover a football field about seven yards deep." (64,000 metric tons) That is steep but manageable. Relative to fossil fuels, this is less-bad by orders of magnitude. It is regrettable (to put it laughably mildly) that the Fukushima and Chernobyl regions are no longer inhabitable, but fossil fuels have pushed us to the point where everything near the equator is going to be uninhabitable soon. As for the waste issue, again, compare it to the alternatives. 64,000 cumulative tons of nuclear waste in America's history versus 6,500,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions last year. Obviously a ton of nuclear waste is not directly comparable to a ton of CO2 emission, but at least nuclear waste can be collected and sequestered. It is a local problem, not one that irrevocably poisons the entire planet. Yeah, green energy sources are better than nuclear, for sure, and maybe fusion will save our butts eventually. But we need energy in the meantime. We should use the least-bad thing until we get something great, and nuclear is the least-bad option by such a ridiculous margin that it's not even funny.
- sdoering 5y ago
  I have to say you lost me at: > The cost of a Chernobyl-scale incident is that it renders a region uninhabitable and kills several hundred people. There are quite a few interesting numbers regarding Chernobyl: 31 deaths, for example, is an official figure. But the credits for the TV series also state that estimates of deaths would vary between 4,000 and 93,000 victims. A bit more about the numbers and some additional estimations: The environmental organization Greenpeace estimates the total number of dead as a result of the Chernobyl accident at 93,000. Kate Brown, a professor at MIT, considers up to 150,000 deaths realistic for Ukraine alone. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) says Chernobyl caused 50,000 to 100,000 deaths and up to 900,000 disabled. 34,499 rescue workers died, according to the Ukrainian Commission for Radiation Protection. However this figure is considered to be wrong because there is usually no such precise information on this scale. So the number just seems to be doctored to look more precise than is possible at estimations like these. So now we can pick and choose to support our ideology. I don't pick and chose, but state that there are quite a few nuclear reactors that sit in areas way more densely populated with massively more inhabitants in the zone of imminent danger. So any extrapolation from Chernobyl numbers (whichever one selects) would need to factor this into their argument imho. Edit: One question ==> > Waste storage is obviously a challenge. The US has apparently produced enough nuclear waste "to cover a football field about seven yards deep." (64,000 metric tons) Does this number include the parts of the reactor buildings being contaminated? >
  - sdoering 5y ago
    I dug a little deeper for those interested. In Germany there are currently reactor being demolished. None is done, so the numbers are still estimates. For a 1.3MW reactor block the amount of highly contaminated material will probably be in the range of 3000 to 5000 metric tons. For the US with around 96 active reactors (2020) this would imply something (back of a napkin calculation) 280,000 to 470,000 metric tons of additional waste on top of burned nuclear fuel. Depending on the peculiarities of the reactors and so on. I know there are error margins. Highly contaminated material that needs to be secured for thousands of years. This is a multi generational cost factor for our generations convenience. For the ability to burn electricity like there is no tomorrow. Today the lower half (poorer half) of US population is living a live that would enable the US to reach Paris Climate goals. The same applies roughly to most western/northern countries. People like me in the upper income half are the culprits so to speak (statistically speaking).

JohnBooty 5y ago

Additionally there is the whole thing about the dangers of an accident Sure, let's talk about that. - As a species, we've been running hundreds of nuclear reactors (440 currently) for a while now. - Their cumulative track record is (very roughly) "one Chernobyl every 25 years." - The cost of a Chernobyl-scale incident is that it renders a region uninhabitable and kills several hundred people. - With plants getting safer and safer, we might reasonably expect the risk to be more like "one Chernobyl every 50 or 100 years" for modern plants. - Waste storage is obviously a challenge. The US has apparently produced enough nuclear waste "to cover a football field about seven yards deep." (64,000 metric tons) That is steep but manageable. Relative to fossil fuels, this is less-bad by orders of magnitude. It is regrettable (to put it laughably mildly) that the Fukushima and Chernobyl regions are no longer inhabitable, but fossil fuels have pushed us to the point where everything near the equator is going to be uninhabitable soon. As for the waste issue, again, compare it to the alternatives. 64,000 cumulative tons of nuclear waste in America's history versus 6,500,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions last year. Obviously a ton of nuclear waste is not directly comparable to a ton of CO2 emission, but at least nuclear waste can be collected and sequestered. It is a local problem, not one that irrevocably poisons the entire planet. Yeah, green energy sources are better than nuclear, for sure, and maybe fusion will save our butts eventually. But we need energy in the meantime. We should use the least-bad thing until we get something great, and nuclear is the least-bad option by such a ridiculous margin that it's not even funny.

sdoering 5y ago
I have to say you lost me at: > The cost of a Chernobyl-scale incident is that it renders a region uninhabitable and kills several hundred people. There are quite a few interesting numbers regarding Chernobyl: 31 deaths, for example, is an official figure. But the credits for the TV series also state that estimates of deaths would vary between 4,000 and 93,000 victims. A bit more about the numbers and some additional estimations: The environmental organization Greenpeace estimates the total number of dead as a result of the Chernobyl accident at 93,000. Kate Brown, a professor at MIT, considers up to 150,000 deaths realistic for Ukraine alone. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) says Chernobyl caused 50,000 to 100,000 deaths and up to 900,000 disabled. 34,499 rescue workers died, according to the Ukrainian Commission for Radiation Protection. However this figure is considered to be wrong because there is usually no such precise information on this scale. So the number just seems to be doctored to look more precise than is possible at estimations like these. So now we can pick and choose to support our ideology. I don't pick and chose, but state that there are quite a few nuclear reactors that sit in areas way more densely populated with massively more inhabitants in the zone of imminent danger. So any extrapolation from Chernobyl numbers (whichever one selects) would need to factor this into their argument imho. Edit: One question ==> > Waste storage is obviously a challenge. The US has apparently produced enough nuclear waste "to cover a football field about seven yards deep." (64,000 metric tons) Does this number include the parts of the reactor buildings being contaminated? >
- sdoering 5y ago
  I dug a little deeper for those interested. In Germany there are currently reactor being demolished. None is done, so the numbers are still estimates. For a 1.3MW reactor block the amount of highly contaminated material will probably be in the range of 3000 to 5000 metric tons. For the US with around 96 active reactors (2020) this would imply something (back of a napkin calculation) 280,000 to 470,000 metric tons of additional waste on top of burned nuclear fuel. Depending on the peculiarities of the reactors and so on. I know there are error margins. Highly contaminated material that needs to be secured for thousands of years. This is a multi generational cost factor for our generations convenience. For the ability to burn electricity like there is no tomorrow. Today the lower half (poorer half) of US population is living a live that would enable the US to reach Paris Climate goals. The same applies roughly to most western/northern countries. People like me in the upper income half are the culprits so to speak (statistically speaking).