3 ms·

Well nuclear proponents handwave away the massively higher costs, the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there s

Well nuclear proponents handwave away the massively higher costs, the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world), and insurance for the case of a disaster.

philwelch 4y ago
> it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Nukes' problems are not caused by activists. They have nowhere near that much influence. Nukes' problems are inherent. Biggest, by a large margin, is capex which simply prices it completely out of the market.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ever solved any of the issues?
  - belorn 4y ago
    The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth. The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.
    - worik 4y ago
      No. The storage problem has not been solved because we do not have the technology. There is no evidence that the technology os possible. The long term waste (not much in quantity, but it does mount up. A few million litres at the moment I believe ??) has to be stored for periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. There is no way we can write a warning sign that we know can be read for that long. We cannot build a structure that will last that long. There are no places on this planet that we can be sure are stable for that long. It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
      - Consultant32452 4y ago
        >It is making future generations pay for our current consumption. Okay, then in places where wind/solar/storage aren't up to snuff we'll just keep burning coal.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - philwelch 4y ago
    The US had a solution at Yucca Mountain, except the solution has been legally and politically sabotaged by activists.
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    > So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues The technical issues are solved. The political issue is that the "green lobby" will not accept any nuclear waste storage solution.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    > A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. O_o There's been a significant and influential anti-nuclear movement for the last 60 years...
fomine3 4y ago
I think the only one very valid criticism for nuclear is long term storage problem. But also I think it's sunk cost. It's a big problem to have 10000t of nuclear waste from zero, but adding another 15000t from 10000t can be ignored, isn't it?
cthalupa 4y ago
>the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world) Storage has /been solved/ for decades. High Level Waste is only a tiny fraction of total waste. As it stands, all of the HLW created by all the nuclear plants in the world could be kept in a football field sized area. The vast majority of the rest of the generated waste will decay to to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant. HLW regulations around transport are so high in most countries that the standards for transport casks has made them practically indestructible. They can literally be hit by trains and no be breached. Solutions like those developed by Deep Isolation also effectively solve any long term storage problem for the HLW.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Here [1] is a picture of the temporary storage at the Yankee nuclear power plant temporary storage (sorry I could not find better pictures from above to give more accurate size). There are ~90 commercial nuclear reactor in the US. I can immediately see that this would not fit into a football field sized area. And this is for a single country and ignores waste that was already transported away. And no things will not decay to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant. They decay to a level where the containers are not very warm anymore so they can be more easily transported. Also low level waste is not harmless either, and there's going to be a lot of it when decommissioning a plant.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Sorry here's the link: https://vtdigger.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Aerial-from-NE.jpg https://vtdigger.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Aerial-from-...
Paradigma11 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... Operation will start next year.

philwelch 4y ago

> it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"

ncmncm 4y ago
Nukes' problems are not caused by activists. They have nowhere near that much influence. Nukes' problems are inherent. Biggest, by a large margin, is capex which simply prices it completely out of the market.
cycomanic 4y ago
Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ever solved any of the issues?
- belorn 4y ago
  The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth. The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.
  - worik 4y ago
    No. The storage problem has not been solved because we do not have the technology. There is no evidence that the technology os possible. The long term waste (not much in quantity, but it does mount up. A few million litres at the moment I believe ??) has to be stored for periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands of years. There is no way we can write a warning sign that we know can be read for that long. We cannot build a structure that will last that long. There are no places on this planet that we can be sure are stable for that long. It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      >It is making future generations pay for our current consumption. Okay, then in places where wind/solar/storage aren't up to snuff we'll just keep burning coal.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- philwelch 4y ago
  The US had a solution at Yucca Mountain, except the solution has been legally and politically sabotaged by activists.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  > So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues The technical issues are solved. The political issue is that the "green lobby" will not accept any nuclear waste storage solution.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  > A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. O_o There's been a significant and influential anti-nuclear movement for the last 60 years...

fomine3 4y ago

I think the only one very valid criticism for nuclear is long term storage problem. But also I think it's sunk cost. It's a big problem to have 10000t of nuclear waste from zero, but adding another 15000t from 10000t can be ignored, isn't it?

cthalupa 4y ago

>the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world) Storage has /been solved/ for decades. High Level Waste is only a tiny fraction of total waste. As it stands, all of the HLW created by all the nuclear plants in the world could be kept in a football field sized area. The vast majority of the rest of the generated waste will decay to to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant. HLW regulations around transport are so high in most countries that the standards for transport casks has made them practically indestructible. They can literally be hit by trains and no be breached. Solutions like those developed by Deep Isolation also effectively solve any long term storage problem for the HLW.

cycomanic 4y ago
Here [1] is a picture of the temporary storage at the Yankee nuclear power plant temporary storage (sorry I could not find better pictures from above to give more accurate size). There are ~90 commercial nuclear reactor in the US. I can immediately see that this would not fit into a football field sized area. And this is for a single country and ignores waste that was already transported away. And no things will not decay to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant. They decay to a level where the containers are not very warm anymore so they can be more easily transported. Also low level waste is not harmless either, and there's going to be a lot of it when decommissioning a plant.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Sorry here's the link: https://vtdigger.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Aerial-from-NE.jpg https://vtdigger.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Aerial-from-...

Paradigma11 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... Operation will start next year.