4 ms·

One thing I don’t understand is environmentalists seemingly unbounded hatred of nuclear energy. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and switch to clean en

One thing I don’t understand is environmentalists seemingly unbounded hatred of nuclear energy. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and switch to clean energy, nuclear is a way to do that, but it seems like many of them would rather use coal (see Germany). I simply don’t understand this.

bluGill 3mo ago
You are not alone. There are a lot of people who have been confused since the 1970s. Even people who don't care about the environment have long recognized that hypocrisy.
cbsmith 3mo ago
...because they have other goals beyond reduce carbon emissions.
csb6 3mo ago
I think a lot of it was driven by the Chernobyl disaster, which was a massive environmental and health catastrophe. But plants today are vastly safer than Chernobyl due to better design and processes, which I think anti-nuclear people haven't realized.
- masklinn 3mo ago
  The environmentalist hatred for nukes long predates Chernobyl (if anything Chernobyl was an environmental boon by driving humans out of the zone). It started as a justified disapproval of nuclear tests (especially open air) and military nuclear, but then nuclear militaries made sone pointed remarks about the health and safety of a few beatniks going against the military-industrial complex, oil companies started fl funding groups, and voila civilian nukes are an environmental problem.
- throw0101d 3mo ago
  > But plants today are vastly safer than Chernobyl due to better design and processes, which I think anti-nuclear people haven't realized. Even other plants built in the same timeframe as Chernobyl are safer (not even getting to newer designs/builds), because in the West they were built with containment. The founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank isn't anti-nuclear: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-smoking-more-dangerous-radiation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-...
bryanlarsen 3mo ago
This hatred is irrational, but has incidentally done the world a lot of good. In the 90's/00's when Germany and Denmark decided to start decarbonizing their grid, the sane choice would have been nuclear. At the time it was the cheapest zero carbon viable electricity source. (Geothermal may have been cheaper at the time, but wasn't viable to power their entire grid). But instead they decided to massively overpay for wind & solar. This bootstrapped the insane cost reduction we've seen in wind & solar over the last 30 years. Today solar & wind are significantly cheaper than natural gas, and orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear. > coal (see Germany) Which dropped from 55% of electricity from coal in 1990 to 23% today. From 400 million tons to 130 tons.
- throw0101d 3mo ago
  > Which dropped from 55% of electricity from coal in 1990 to 23% today. From 400 million tons to 130 tons. And how much lower would have it been if they had chosen to keep their existing nuclear and reduce/retire their coal and/or gas? Certainly if they did not want to build new nuclear that's one thing, but they chose to keep the emitting stuff, which was really stupid IMHO. Even now it'd be viable to re-start some of Germany's nuclear if they really wanted to reduce emissions: * https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/restarting-germanys-reactors-feasibility-and-schedule https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/restarting-german... * PDF: https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/_files/ugd/ae75b7_bc5db590cf5a4ac6a4a0d6812a58ada6.pdf https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/_files/ugd/ae75b7_bc5db59...
  - bryanlarsen 3mo ago
    None? In 1990 those power plants were online and yet 55% of electricity was from coal.
    - throw0101d 3mo ago
      What was the European grid mix in 1990? What were German energy imports/exports in that time frame? I would hazard to guess that the larger context of energy has changed quite a bit in the EU in the last few decades. Germany coal is not estimated to be eliminated for another 5-6 years: * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quietly-progressing-and-likely-be-completed-2032-researcher https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quie... How many gigawatts of coal generation could have been shutdown already if nuclear was still generating its gigawatts?
arn3n 3mo ago
I have this stance. It’s, for me, a tail-risk calculation: For a given nuclear power plant to be more environmentally friendly than equivalent coal, you have to price in the probability of a nuclear catastrophe with the fact that such catastrophes create fallout that can outlast human civilization. I can expect that a well-built nuclear plant might not have a catastrophe in my lifetime. But when the consequences are so long-lasting it seems prudent to avoid them entirely. One misbuilt reactor or one governmental regime that rolls back safety regulations and you end up with irreversible consequences. Given the tendency of corporations to “race to the bottom” and abandon safety, and the general unwillingness of the US Government to give proper attention to potential catastrophes (like climate change), I don’t believe that we as a society can handle the responsibility of nuclear reactors. I wish we could have nuclear safely; I don’t trust us to be safe, so I’d rather we not have nuclear at all.
- wiml 3mo ago
  Environmental disasters that will likely outlast human civilization? Coal does that in normal operation.
  - teamonkey 3mo ago
    It’s not an either-or.
    - wiml 3mo ago
      Isn't it, though? A GW generated one way displaces a GW generated another way. As long as we are building and operating coal-fired power plants — which we are — it is reasonable to consider displacing those plants with fission plants. I'm not aware of any system in which coal is better than nuclear. Of course, yes, wind and solar are great. But despite the amazing growth in those sources, we're still burning a huge amount of coal and oil.

bluGill 3mo ago

You are not alone. There are a lot of people who have been confused since the 1970s. Even people who don't care about the environment have long recognized that hypocrisy.

cbsmith 3mo ago

...because they have other goals beyond reduce carbon emissions.

csb6 3mo ago

I think a lot of it was driven by the Chernobyl disaster, which was a massive environmental and health catastrophe. But plants today are vastly safer than Chernobyl due to better design and processes, which I think anti-nuclear people haven't realized.

masklinn 3mo ago
The environmentalist hatred for nukes long predates Chernobyl (if anything Chernobyl was an environmental boon by driving humans out of the zone). It started as a justified disapproval of nuclear tests (especially open air) and military nuclear, but then nuclear militaries made sone pointed remarks about the health and safety of a few beatniks going against the military-industrial complex, oil companies started fl funding groups, and voila civilian nukes are an environmental problem.
throw0101d 3mo ago
> But plants today are vastly safer than Chernobyl due to better design and processes, which I think anti-nuclear people haven't realized. Even other plants built in the same timeframe as Chernobyl are safer (not even getting to newer designs/builds), because in the West they were built with containment. The founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank isn't anti-nuclear: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-smoking-more-dangerous-radiation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-...

bryanlarsen 3mo ago

This hatred is irrational, but has incidentally done the world a lot of good. In the 90's/00's when Germany and Denmark decided to start decarbonizing their grid, the sane choice would have been nuclear. At the time it was the cheapest zero carbon viable electricity source. (Geothermal may have been cheaper at the time, but wasn't viable to power their entire grid). But instead they decided to massively overpay for wind & solar. This bootstrapped the insane cost reduction we've seen in wind & solar over the last 30 years. Today solar & wind are significantly cheaper than natural gas, and orders of magnitude cheaper than nuclear. > coal (see Germany) Which dropped from 55% of electricity from coal in 1990 to 23% today. From 400 million tons to 130 tons.

throw0101d 3mo ago
> Which dropped from 55% of electricity from coal in 1990 to 23% today. From 400 million tons to 130 tons. And how much lower would have it been if they had chosen to keep their existing nuclear and reduce/retire their coal and/or gas? Certainly if they did not want to build new nuclear that's one thing, but they chose to keep the emitting stuff, which was really stupid IMHO. Even now it'd be viable to re-start some of Germany's nuclear if they really wanted to reduce emissions: * https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/restarting-germanys-reactors-feasibility-and-schedule https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/restarting-german... * PDF: https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/_files/ugd/ae75b7_bc5db590cf5a4ac6a4a0d6812a58ada6.pdf https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/_files/ugd/ae75b7_bc5db59...
- bryanlarsen 3mo ago
  None? In 1990 those power plants were online and yet 55% of electricity was from coal.
  - throw0101d 3mo ago
    What was the European grid mix in 1990? What were German energy imports/exports in that time frame? I would hazard to guess that the larger context of energy has changed quite a bit in the EU in the last few decades. Germany coal is not estimated to be eliminated for another 5-6 years: * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quietly-progressing-and-likely-be-completed-2032-researcher https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quie... How many gigawatts of coal generation could have been shutdown already if nuclear was still generating its gigawatts?

arn3n 3mo ago

I have this stance. It’s, for me, a tail-risk calculation: For a given nuclear power plant to be more environmentally friendly than equivalent coal, you have to price in the probability of a nuclear catastrophe with the fact that such catastrophes create fallout that can outlast human civilization. I can expect that a well-built nuclear plant might not have a catastrophe in my lifetime. But when the consequences are so long-lasting it seems prudent to avoid them entirely. One misbuilt reactor or one governmental regime that rolls back safety regulations and you end up with irreversible consequences. Given the tendency of corporations to “race to the bottom” and abandon safety, and the general unwillingness of the US Government to give proper attention to potential catastrophes (like climate change), I don’t believe that we as a society can handle the responsibility of nuclear reactors. I wish we could have nuclear safely; I don’t trust us to be safe, so I’d rather we not have nuclear at all.

wiml 3mo ago
Environmental disasters that will likely outlast human civilization? Coal does that in normal operation.
- teamonkey 3mo ago
  It’s not an either-or.
  - wiml 3mo ago
    Isn't it, though? A GW generated one way displaces a GW generated another way. As long as we are building and operating coal-fired power plants — which we are — it is reasonable to consider displacing those plants with fission plants. I'm not aware of any system in which coal is better than nuclear. Of course, yes, wind and solar are great. But despite the amazing growth in those sources, we're still burning a huge amount of coal and oil.