3 ms·

No. Takes decades to build/ projects run over time and budget/ where would you build?/ where would you store nuclear waste (bonus points for: in your region)?/

No. Takes decades to build/ projects run over time and budget/ where would you build?/ where would you store nuclear waste (bonus points for: in your region)?/ contributes little to global energy mix atm/ uranium is limited. Where do you get it from? Etc

rapsey 5mo ago
Nuclear waste is a hilariously small amount of mass. It takes decades to build because of permitting and excessive regulations, the current UK plant build being one public insanity after another. Mining uranium is not an issue, it is all over the place and so on. Every one of your points is a non issue, made into a big deal because of ideology.
- expedition32 5mo ago
  Nuclear was built in the 60s and 70s when Europe was still somewhat poor. As countries become decadent standards go up. Folks suddenly have rights and they can afford lawyers. And that house that you want to bulldoze is a half million property.
dotancohen 5mo ago
> where would you store nuclear waste This is my favourite objection to nuclear energy. Why wouldn't we just burn the nuclear waste and vent it to the atmosphere? That's acceptable for the fossil fuel industry, so why not for nuclear? The fact that nuclear energy produces globs of concentrated, easily collected waste is a feature, not a problem. Air pollution from fossil fuels (including radioactive particles) is a leading cause of death worldwide.
- rapsey 5mo ago
  Not only that, that nuclear waste is still incredibly energy dense and could be used in the future, if we actually invested more into developing nuclear technologies.
lloeki 5mo ago
>> Takes decades to build/ projects run over time and budget As much as any large scale energy project. Per kW it is quite effective. The implication of GP's reasoning is that were Green not yelling about nuclear these would already be built because the projects would have started long ago. >> where would you store nuclear waste (bonus points for: in your region) People don't want solar farms, windmills, or oil rigs in their backyard either. Fun fact, coal emits orders of magnitude more toxic waste (including nuclear!) than nuclear itself; it's just stored in the atmosphere. Also people largely don't want to cook themselves to death because the atmosphere has turned into a literal oven. Instead they read the news, yap "oh my god 50degC shadowside that is horrible", turn the newspaper page and Gell-Mann-amnesia-forget about it because it's happening at the other side of the world, comfortably sitting on their couch with their HVAC pumping heat outside further contributing to the problem. >> contributes little to global energy mix atm Catch-22. Because there's not enough nuclear reactors. France has a ~ 70% nuclear 10% renewable 10% fossil 10% hydro mix. > France generates roughly two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear power, well above the global average of just under 10%. This heavy reliance on nuclear energy allows France to have one of the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity in the world at 85 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, compared to the global average of 438 grams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France >> uranium is limited. Uranium is aplenty. > more than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver [~40x!], and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence The problem is enrichment, and it is not even a technical problem. We're doing more difficult things producing nanometer scale compute wafers by the millions. Nuclear has drawbacks. I don't think it is the endgame. I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a less bad solution that actually a) addresses nuclear drawbacks and b) works, because all I see is yelling at nuclear and the proposed alternatives are either unobtainium or nothing at all, both equivalent to the status quo that turns the planet into a death trap.
- ZeroGravitas 5mo ago
  >> Takes decades to build/ projects run over time and budget > As much as any large scale energy project. We have data on this. Nuclear is not only the energy source most likely to overrun time and cost, it's one of the worst big projects period. Right up there with big IT and Defence projects, "Nuclear waste storage sites" and "the Olympics".

rapsey 5mo ago

Nuclear waste is a hilariously small amount of mass. It takes decades to build because of permitting and excessive regulations, the current UK plant build being one public insanity after another. Mining uranium is not an issue, it is all over the place and so on. Every one of your points is a non issue, made into a big deal because of ideology.

expedition32 5mo ago
Nuclear was built in the 60s and 70s when Europe was still somewhat poor. As countries become decadent standards go up. Folks suddenly have rights and they can afford lawyers. And that house that you want to bulldoze is a half million property.

dotancohen 5mo ago

> where would you store nuclear waste This is my favourite objection to nuclear energy. Why wouldn't we just burn the nuclear waste and vent it to the atmosphere? That's acceptable for the fossil fuel industry, so why not for nuclear? The fact that nuclear energy produces globs of concentrated, easily collected waste is a feature, not a problem. Air pollution from fossil fuels (including radioactive particles) is a leading cause of death worldwide.

rapsey 5mo ago
Not only that, that nuclear waste is still incredibly energy dense and could be used in the future, if we actually invested more into developing nuclear technologies.

lloeki 5mo ago

>> Takes decades to build/ projects run over time and budget As much as any large scale energy project. Per kW it is quite effective. The implication of GP's reasoning is that were Green not yelling about nuclear these would already be built because the projects would have started long ago. >> where would you store nuclear waste (bonus points for: in your region) People don't want solar farms, windmills, or oil rigs in their backyard either. Fun fact, coal emits orders of magnitude more toxic waste (including nuclear!) than nuclear itself; it's just stored in the atmosphere. Also people largely don't want to cook themselves to death because the atmosphere has turned into a literal oven. Instead they read the news, yap "oh my god 50degC shadowside that is horrible", turn the newspaper page and Gell-Mann-amnesia-forget about it because it's happening at the other side of the world, comfortably sitting on their couch with their HVAC pumping heat outside further contributing to the problem. >> contributes little to global energy mix atm Catch-22. Because there's not enough nuclear reactors. France has a ~ 70% nuclear 10% renewable 10% fossil 10% hydro mix. > France generates roughly two-thirds of its electricity from nuclear power, well above the global average of just under 10%. This heavy reliance on nuclear energy allows France to have one of the lowest carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity in the world at 85 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, compared to the global average of 438 grams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France >> uranium is limited. Uranium is aplenty. > more than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver [~40x!], and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence The problem is enrichment, and it is not even a technical problem. We're doing more difficult things producing nanometer scale compute wafers by the millions. Nuclear has drawbacks. I don't think it is the endgame. I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a less bad solution that actually a) addresses nuclear drawbacks and b) works, because all I see is yelling at nuclear and the proposed alternatives are either unobtainium or nothing at all, both equivalent to the status quo that turns the planet into a death trap.

ZeroGravitas 5mo ago
>> Takes decades to build/ projects run over time and budget > As much as any large scale energy project. We have data on this. Nuclear is not only the energy source most likely to overrun time and cost, it's one of the worst big projects period. Right up there with big IT and Defence projects, "Nuclear waste storage sites" and "the Olympics".