501 points

Good!

Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

We’ve had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

permalink
report
reply
149 points

imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
101 points

So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

permalink
report
parent
reply
63 points
*

Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, “It’s not as bad as a nuclear disaster” isn’t exactly going to console them much.

At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It’s not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
*

I mean it’s not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

Nuclear power isn’t 100% safe or risk-free, but it’s hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

While that’s true, we still have for example safe air travel, although I’m pretty sure companies would be happy to ship their passengers minced to maximize their profit.

Also, thorium reactors would be a great step forward, unfortunately its byproducts can’t be used for nuclear weapons, so their development was pretty slowed down.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Big news worthy accidents are a really good way to ensure strong regulation and oversight. And nuclear is very regulated now so that it has lower death rate than wind power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Nationalise energy production.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Much much tighter regulations. Our cars aren’t aluminum cans waiting to crush everybody inside them because of strict safety regulations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Make them live on site?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And we would be expecting these corrupt Cost cutting types to warehouse nuclear waste for hundreds if not thousands of years while requiring regular inspections and rotation of caskets periodically while also maintaining the facilities. All of that for a product that doesn’t produce any value, it just sits there and accumulates.

And where does it get stored? Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution. People will say things like “its just a little bit of toxic waste” or “its cool because we could use it in process we don’t have yet but might in the future” and all I can think of is how this was the same thinking that got us into our dependence on our first environmental catastrophic energy source. I’m not confident we that scaling up to another one will end well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Try to arrange the incentives in such a way that if the plant melts down, the company that owns it loses money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Easy. Have nuclear power plants operate as government run and backed corporations (what we’d call a “Crown Corporation” here in Canada).

That way you can mandate safety and uptime as metrics over profit. It may be less efficient from an economic standpoint (overall cost might be higher), but you also don’t wind up with the nuclear version of Love Canal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I think it’s fine to think of it as imperfect, even if those imperfections can never be truly solved.

We only need nuclear to bridge the gap between now and a time when renewable CO2 neutral power sources or the holy grail of fusion are able to take the place the base load power that we currently use fossil fuels for, and with hope, that may only be a few decades away.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Or that our other imperfect solutions like the fossil fuels we continue to use now aren’t worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Perfect or just secure is even more expensive, that is the problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If the Soviets hadn’t cut corners and Chernobyl hadn’t happened in this first place, this is likely where we would already be.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

One reason it wasn’t made a priority 50 years ago is because Jimmy Carter - a nuclear submariner who understood the risks and economics - decided it wasn’t a good idea.

This is a man who was present at a minor nuclear accident, who helped create the modern nuclear submarine fleet, acknowledging that nukes weren’t going to help during the height of the Oil Embargo.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

If I recall, 50 years ago we didn’t have the technology/understanding of nuclear fuel enough to make as much as we can now. When I did a school paper on the subject like 20 years ago, they were saying nuclear wasn’t sustainable because we didn’t have enough fuel.

My understanding is that that has changed recently with breakthroughs in refinement of fuels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
66 points
*

That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.

https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html

Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:

The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Wealer from Berlin’s Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

“The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically,” he said. “In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available.”

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

“Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build,” he said. “When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant.”

He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. “And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won’t be able to make a significant contribution,” added Schneider.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

when is the best time to plant a tree? 30 years ago. When is the second best time? now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world’s construction capacity.

My counterpoint is that if we had “just got on with it” for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Long lead times, cost overruns, producing power at a higher price point than renewables, long run time needed to break even, even longer dismantling times and a still unsolved waste problem. Compared to renewables that we can build right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we’re here now.

Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.

The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can’t come back from.

Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

the largest fission plant was literally working 5 years after construction started

fission plants are just more expensive now because we don’t make enough of them.

I guess safety standards changed but even wind power kills more people per watt than fission so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Nuclear could’ve easily worked if people didn’t go full nimby in the past few decades

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Sorry. How does wind power kill anyone? Okay, every once in a while you hear about a technician falling off a windmill, but are there any fatalities in regard to the effects of wind power?

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I’m sick and tired of “pro-environment” useful idiots shilling against nuclear power

You know that the idea we should be investing in nuclear is being pushed by the very same people who for decades were telling us we didn’t need to worry about climate change, right?

They’re trying to get “useful idiots”, as you so eloquently put it, to also support nuclear energy, rather than going all-in on renewables.

The “useful idiots” in this scenario are not the people opposing nuclear. They’re the ones suggesting it’s actually an economical idea, and in so doing either explicitly or (more often) implicitly suggesting that we shouldn’t invest too much in actual renewable energy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

If we hadn’t of had Luddites getting in the way of nuclear power for half a century then we wouldn’t have this issue.

I think this insults Luddites. Luddites are not stupid to get in a way of nuclear power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

It’s not just construction workers, it’s the management, it’s the regulators, it’s the suppliers, and the design and engineering teams. Most countries have lost all of that capability apart from places like South Korea, Finland, Russia, France and China.

China currently has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, 70 in the planning phase, and they currently operate 55. Well that is less than the United States, they will surpass the US soon. They seem to have figured it out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can’t wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy pathways 2050_Key results.pdf

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Those aren’t arguments against nuclear power; those are arguments against the incompetence of entities like Southern Company and Westinghouse, as well as the Public Service Commission that fails to impose the burden of cost overruns on the shareholders where they belong.

I should know; I’m a Georgia Power ratepayer who’s on the hook paying for the fuck-ups and cost overruns of Plant Vogtle 3 and 4.

It would’ve been way better if they’d been built back in the '70s, since all indications are that the folks who built units 1 and 2 actually had a fucking clue what they were doing!

permalink
report
parent
reply
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You mean the nation that invented Prince 2 can’t get a project done on time and budget?!

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Your arguments didn’t actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.

We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn’t help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.

Of course, in hindsight it’s difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There’s good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it’s just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

“2009” hahahaha and here we are. More coal more gas plants than ever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

“We should just go nuclear, renewables aren’t viable” is just the next step in the ever-retreating arguments of climate change denial. First climate change wasn’t real. Then it was real but not man-made. One of the popular tactics today is to push nuclear, because they know how effective it can be at winning over progressives to help with their delaying tactics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

So… climate change deniers want to delay action on climate change. So they push for nuclear because it has long lead times and that forestalls action?

Come on man. That’s a pretty ridiculous theory. Climate change deniers are out there yelling “drill baby drill” not going undercover as nuclear advocates.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

We should do both as fast as we possiblity can. Expand all non ghg emitting sources as fast as possible to cut out coal and gas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Thank you. The pro-nuclear bullshit from Reddit seems to be spilling over.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Sadly it looks like the astroturfing has spilled over from reddit to here

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s one of the biggest market in the world and one of the biggest weapon governments have as a leverage on people. Expect a lot of propraganda and psyop

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

It’s literally on every social media platform. 100% psyop.

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points

The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn’t even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it’s just unsuitable for human habitation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
80 points
*

The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

Here’s my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!

And that’s just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is a fun fact but I don’t think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying coal smoke is healthy, it’s fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points
*

I totally agree that current nuclear power generation should be left running until we have enough green energy to pick up the slack, because it does provide clean and safe energy. However, I totally disagree on the scalability, for two main reasons:

  1. Current nuclear power generation is non-renewable. It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen. And it goes without saying that waiting to scale up some novel unproven or inexistent sustainable way of nuclear power production is out of the question, for time and safety reasons. Which brings me to point 2.

  2. We need clean, sustainable energy right now if we want to have any chance of fighting climate change. From start of planning of a new nuclear power plant to first power generation can take 15 or 20 years easily. Currently, about 10% of all electricity worldwide is produced by about 400 nuclear reactors, while around 15 new ones are under construction. So, to make any sort of reasonable impact, we would have to build to the tune of 2000 new reactors, pronto. To do that within 30 years, we’d have to increase our construction capacity 5 to 10 fold. Even if that were possible, which I strongly doubt, I would wager the safety and cost impacts would be totally unjustifiable. And we don’t even have 30 years anymore. That is to say nothing of regulatory checks and maintenance that would also have to be increased 5 fold.

So imho nuclear power as a solution to climate change is a non-starter, simply due to logistical and scaling reasons. And that is before we even talk about the very real dangers of nuclear power generation, which are of course not operational, but due to things like proliferation, terrorist attacks, war, and other unforseen disruptions through e.g. climate change, societal or governmental shifts, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen.

Nuclear fission using Uranium is not sustainable. If we expand current nuclear technologies to tackle climate change then we’d likely run out of Uranium by 2100. Nuclear fusion using Thorium might be sustainable, but it’s not yet a proven, scalable technology. And all of this is ignoring the long lead times, high costs, regulatory hurdles and nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that nuclear typically presents. It’d be great if nuclear was the magic bullet for climate change, but it just ain’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well, there is Plutonium option, but superpowers want to be superpowers. Probably only USA, Russia, France and Britan can do it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

We’d run of our uranium that’s economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nothing is truly renewable, we still don’t know how to cheat thermodynamics. Sun itself is not renewable.

Though sun will be problem million years later.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Small nitpick, but Google says that there are 57 nuclear reactors currently under construction worldwide in 2023. 22 of them are in China alone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

That’s an oversimplification to the point that it is wrong. Nuclear power is not the only form of clean energy like that at all. It can not be scaled in this situation to save us, because it takes too long to build them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

It takes 6 years on a fast paced build. If we had started when we knew of the problem, we could have avoided some of the problem. It is the only energy source we can scale up in that way, however. Every other energy source takes longer for less yield with current technology.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

If we stared when we knew of the problem

Sadly, humanity had other things to do :(

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

If we had started, but we didn’t.

It is not the only source like that at all. It is way easier, cheaper, faster and sustainable to build windmills where the is constant wind, solar cells where there is a lot of sun, hydro where there is… Energy sources should be built depending on the locality so they complement each other.

This kind of talking in absolutes like some of you are doing is just plain wrong and it does disservice to advocacy for nuclear power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

I don’t know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don’t create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Except wind and solar don’t have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I didn’t even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.

How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let’s say on average, it’s half, so 1 million Watt. You’re counting 500k m² per turbine?

What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?

Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people’s roof) unlike the others.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

Long term nuclear is great…

But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.

So we can’t just spam build nuke plants right now to fix everything.

30 years ago that would have worked.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.

That’s not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren’t even remotely equivalent.

(also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Building any sort of new power plant uses a shitload of concrete, so that cost isn’t as dramatic as this would seem.

I think nuclear is dramatically overstated in terms of short term feasibility, but concrete use is not the reason why.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So would it be fair to say you have no concrete objections to the nuclear plan?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

do you have a source for this carbon cost? i can’t find any figures about even the amount of concrete in a nuclear plant nevermind the co2 cost of that.

I do find a lot of literature that states that the lifecycle co2 cost of nuclear is on part with solar and wind per kwh so i find your assertment about the payback time being decades a little unlikely to say the least.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

(What’s with the downvotes?)

Small scale reactors that require almost no maintenance and produce enough power for a single city are the hot topic right now due to what you just mentioned. As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

(What’s with the downvotes?)

Lots of people know virtually nothing about nuclear even tho they’re avid supporters of it. So when you point out a downside, they get mad.

As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.

Hot water (technically superheated steam) is the main (and only immediate) product of a nuclear reactor…

Trying to directly use secondary coolant as hot potable water just makes zero sense though. It’s waaaaay more efficient to move the electricity and then heat different water.

I mean, you’re talking about an open loop nuclear system…

No sane engineer would ever do that. A small primary loop leak and your dosing everyone, all to just essentially lose efficiency.

Where did you even see that suggested?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Imagine living in a snowy city where hot water is pumped through the sidewalks to people’s homes. No frozen pipes, no shoveling snow. No people freezing to death…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Small scale reactors are actually more expensive than larger reactors. Even compared to Vogtle 3 and 4…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

8 years to build, not 30. Instead we are building many many more coal and gas plants. What a terrific alternative. Fallacy of renewables without storage is done. It’s never going to happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Long term nuclear is great

It’s the most expensive option so I’m not sure why people here are so keen on it. It’s much cheaper and faster to scale up renewable energy and in-fill with batteries and gas. Then phase out gas over time for a mix of things like pumped hydro, tidal, etc… This is already working in a lot of places and doesn’t involve long build times like nuclear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.

Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.

Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.

Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it’s already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I’ve heard.

It’s no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.

A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.

Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren’t included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y’know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I’m not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.

I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don’t dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I’d rather have some more solid solutions.

Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

We’ve had the cure for climate change all along

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this simply isn’t true with established nuclear technologies. Expanding our currently nuclear energy production requires us to fully tap all known and speculated Uranium sources, nets us only a 6% CO2 reduction, and we run out of Uranium by 2100. We might be able to use Thorium in fuel cycles to expand our net nuclear capacity, but that technology has to yet to be proven at scale. And all of this ignores the high startup cost, regulatory difficulties, disposal challenges and weapons proliferation risks that nuclear typically presents.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change

Except the plants take so long to build they won’t be ready until we’re at 2°C

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It has been fifty years that “oh no they take so long to build, better never start” that by today we would have completely decarbonized energy generation if we started actually building them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

We could have also built solar collectors in orbit and beamed carbon-free electricity to Earth if we started 50 years ago.

Heck, if we funded fusion research properly there’s a good chance we’d have had that by the mid 90s

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Doesn’t matter, not it’s to late so think about something else

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Knowing nothing about the process, can i ask, is the time it takes to build one based on current standards? Like if we were to focus more resources into the construction of new plants wouldnt they be built faster?

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The latest nuclear power plant built in the US is seven years behind schedule and almost $20 billion over budget. It bankrupted Westinghouse Energy, and is slated to cost consumers more than double what comparable electricity costs because of these overruns.

And this was a plant that was using newer construction techniques like offsite assembly to reduce costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Since I don’t see it mentioned anywhere: Ignoring the economical and environmental issues that nuclear power still has compared to actual renewables, it has a geostrategic problem: Uranium is a geologically limited resources, which just creates political and economical dependencies. And since Russia has a lot of it, keeping working sanctions against them alive is pretty problematic, if you need to buy your energy resources from them. See gas supply.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

New archetypes of NP can run on depleted fuel. There’s enough of that around for more than 50yrs of power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

It’s not like Russia has all of it, there are more uranium in the rest of the world, but it has full supply chain.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Ahh… no. New solar and wind generation can be spun up much faster than nuclear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.

I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.

But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.

We’ve had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they’ll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.

Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Not to mention the conventional plants don’t seem to be faring all that well…

The study also questions the reliability of the nuclear fleet, particularly given the dramatically low availability of French power plants this year – nearly half of the 56 nuclear reactors were closed even though the EU was in a complicated period of electricity supply with frequent peaks in the price of electricity above €3/kWh.

That sounds pretty awful when everyone expects nucleur to handle baseload.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, the argument of nuclear crumbles when you start to peak behind the curtain of operation. Still, renewables have the same problem.

Wind turbines break shafts, studs, bolts, lifts, generator step-up (GSU) units, etc. Then you still need oil for all the mechanical systems in a turbine too, which can degrade. Operations can keep up with this though, and in my experience wind can be up and running a lot more frequently with reference to failures that cause downtime compared with maintenance of nuclear with reference to downtime for it.

Same with solar, or even better with solar because the only moving parts with solar are the axis trackers that move panels such that they always point at the sun. Lots more uptime that doesn’t involve radiation exposure, although that concern for operations has probably been designed out as reactor technology has grown up.

Or at least I’d hope…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Canada is also investing in modular reactors, so there are already several large players in the field.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

emphasis mine:

Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.

First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances. There is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain of any given thing you buy, so boycotting GMO is as accurate as ethical consumers can get to boycotting Monsanto. It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and intent to eventually take control over the world’s food supply.

Then there’s the anti-GMO-tech camp (which is what you had in mind). You have people who are anti-all-GMO and those who are anti-risky-GMO. It’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches at the hands of a profit-driven corporation taking every shortcut they can get away with.

So in short:

  • Boycott all U.S.-sourced GMO if you’re an ethical consumer. (note the EU produces GMO without Monsanto)
  • Boycott just high-risk GMO techniques if you’re unethical but at least wise about the risks. (note this is somewhat impractical because you don’t have the transparency of knowing what technique was used)
  • Boycott no GMO at all if you’re ignorant about risks & simultaneously unethical.
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

What provides me trepidation is the economic system means slack jawed corpos with MBAs will be working tirelessly to skirt safety.

Now if the government was to run … Wait, that is communism and is therefore the bad thing to do /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I am a huge fan of nuclear power, but I wouldn’t say fearing it is ignorance.

You need to make sure it is regulated, secure, well-engineered, and above all, we need a place to store the waste.

Yet, congress and others, at least in America, have done nothing. We should mainly be powered by nuclear and it is rare for a plant to be built. If done correctly you get safe, clean, power.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

But why not skip the expense and nuclear waste and just build up mixed renewable energy instead? It’s cheaper and plenty of places have already done it with great success.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Are you talking about wind mills and solar? They won’t supply enough power and have other draw backs. Everything has pros and cons.

Nuclear is consistent, safe and affordable. We have been using nuclear power for 50 years with few issues.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you’d have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Not that nuclear energy is the ONLY solution, just that it should be used alongside other methods of clean energy, as well as better energy efficiency on the consumer side.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The majority of solid nuclear waste, the kind that lasts milenia, can be reprocessed in to fuel and used again. France is particularly good at this.

The water released from Fukushima contains no solid nuclear waste. Rather, its irradiated water where some of the hydrogen has become tritium. Tritium has a half life of about 12 years, and is naturally occuring from solar radiation. The safest way to deal with it is to filter it, then dilute it so that the percentage of tritium is not much higher than the natural level. This is what Japan is is doing, and will continue doing for several years.

Simply put, safely dealing with nuclear waste is a well understood process, and the main reason it doesn’t get done is because of objections from anti nuclear-power activists

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You should look into the modern tech here, it isn’t just burying millions of tons of toxic waste under New Jersey. There are “breeder reactors” that use the recycled fuel to generate more power. They actually generate more fissile material than they consume, so instead of waste, they mostly produce more fuel.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

They also don’t exist in large scale energy production and likely never will. (Just some test plants) They’re too expensive compared with other energy generation so no-one’s seriously considering them right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

And people’s age and background has so weirdly much to do with how they internalize nuclear safety risk. My best german friend is very opposed to fossil fuels and believes in much stronger renewable focus, but is absolutely opposed to nuclear and basically laughs about how stupid he thinks that risk is. It’s wild.

Especially when you realize how little impact Chernobyl and Fukushima really had. Even including those two accidents, coal plants have emitted vastly more radioisotopes (which occur naturally at low levels in coal, but since we burn such vast quantities of coal…) and vastly more carcinogens.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It doesn’t really matter whether you think nuclear energy is risky or not - it’s economically the worst option. It’s the most expensive of all the main sources of power. It’s much cheaper to just transition to a mix of mostly renewable power and plenty of places have already done it with success. So why do something unnecessary like nuclear when it’s more expensive than the alternatives?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Funfact: РБМК-1000(same model as in Chernobyl) was used on all four blocks in St. Petersburg(Leningrad). Currently 2 out of 4 are still in use, another two were replaced with ВВЭР-1200.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s crazy you got over a hundred down votes, most which are just anti nuclear reactions brainwashed into them by corporations who knew they could make more money off coal, and made nuclear out to be the enemy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Honest question: why shouldn’t we be afraid?

but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

Chernobyl turned an entire city into a radioactive wasteland for the next 10k years. Same goes for 3-mile island and Fukushima. The last of which was just over 10 years ago.

Are we so arrogant to think that that could never happen again? What’s changed?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Chernobyl is a city inhabited today. In fact, the reactors right next to the ones that burnt were still producing energy a few years ago.

Hopefully your ignorance won’t last 10k years and you’ll learn that nuclear is far less dangerous than your car for example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Pripyat is not inhabited in a normal way. There are no children or families and there won’t be. Simply because children eat dirt and dirt is radioactive. Saying it is inhabited like you did implies there is normal life happening. It never will be again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Thank you for the intelligent reply. I just can’t imagine why people are afraid anymore 🖕

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax:

This sort of generalization is ignorance.

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

Wrong, nuclear power plants takes a lot of time to start and nothing can scale up to infinite spending. The solution and cure to climate change is to stop endless consumerism, if you don’t do that society will keep demand yet another power plant to power up some useless shit

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

No, others did that already plenty here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-11 points
*

It also doesn’t help that people got brainwashed that solar energy and heat pumps will solve all our problems. I don’t have enough space to install so many solar panels to provide power to heat pump during the Eastern European winter and even if I did, ROI will be longer than their expected lifetime. And we still use lead during production, and no one wants to recycle them. These geniuses here import broken solar panels and dump them into the ground and cover them, call that recycling. FFS, nuclear waste disposal is less scary than this uncontrolled shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

You do understand that solving the world’s carbon energy crisis is not an individual person’s job, right? We’re not talking about me and you getting a solar lease in lieu of nuclear. We’re talking about spending about 10% of the cost of 100% nuclear to build 100% solar and wind. For startup costs, going 100% renewable is literally orders of magnitude cheaper than going nuclear. And most countries have the space of potential for it. Yes, as I mentioned elsewhere, building power in and around cities is more complicated, but that is where roof units can come in. It is estimated that any major city could be self-sufficient if every building in it had solar panels on the roof and storage batteries. Even at the higher cost of smaller scale builds, the price difference between solar and nuclear is so large that a municipal solar grid is downright cheap, even if it has to be built that way. And it’s pretty cool how effectively it would mitigate large-scale power outages as a free bonus.

Please understand, most people who oppose nuclear do so for more reasons than the nuclear waste. They hate that people keep focusing on this expensive technology that will take too long to solve the problem, when we have renewable energy that is just so much cheaper to build.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Don’t you love it when you get heavily downvoted but no-one is brave enough to challenge your point of view?

I mostly agree with you. Solar is good if you own a house, with a roof and have thousands in disposable cash to invest, but that’s not most people.

Heat pumps can’t be run on your solar power alone and if your house isn’t well insulated, they can be extremely inefficient, ending up costing you substantially more than sticking with gas or oil. And that’s not getting in to the other short comings of heat pumps which I believe is a separate debate.

As many people in this thread have said, the best time to invest in nuclear was thirty years ago, but the next best time is now. Give us tonnes of cheap, carbon free electricity to throw in to a heat pump and then they make sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That usually happens when you call a lot of people brainwashed. I don’t engage with it anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
253 points

Normally I’m not a “lesser of two evils” type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it’s insane people are still against it.

permalink
report
reply
247 points

For the love of everything, at least let’s stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.

permalink
report
reply
74 points

Looking at you, Germany…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

*looking intensifies*

Maybe it was Putin’s sabotage?

Upd: nah, his mentality of 90-ies gang member doesn’t allow him to think this far.

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

For real, God forbid we keep the actual safe, clean nuclear plants running

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Why does it need to be astroturfing? It’s the same point the young climate activist in the article is making.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“Someone has a dissenting opinion it must be ASTROTURFING AAAAAHHHHHHH”-You for some reason…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

This is so pathetic to look at, tons of accounts piling more upvotes on each other than a regular day at lemmy in total and constantly congratulating each other on their oh so based opinions. Bloody clown show, totally organic and not astroturfed at all.
Just a bit funny it looks exactly the same on each social media they pop out all of a sudden. “I am advocating for clean nuclear energy since school, derp”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable economically.

That they definitely have a life cycle of begin, middle, and end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Well other countries have and are doing done so. I really doubt that the reason is anything that politics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Buildings and machinery fatigue and wear out over time.

And highly critical uptime devices and buildings need extra maintenance and upkeep.

Old sites need to be decommissioned. Even if you ignore the financial costs in the upkeep at some point they just fatigue to the point of needing to be replaced.

I’m not anti-nuclear, all I’m saying is if you want nuclear you have to build new sites, you can’t keep the old sites going forever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

He was specifically referring to the serviceable ones.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

At some point in time none of them are serviceable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

That is what taxes are for. God forbid government officials have to cut into their overinflated bonuses to keep a major source of energy in service.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Even if you ignore capitalism, at some point they fatigue and break to the point where they cannot be repaired, but need to be replaced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Russia isn’t really known for their safety rules. A lot of those reactors are running way past their expiration and are deteriorating past the point where they should be running.

It’s a finite fact. A reactor has a lifetime to it, then it needs to be replaced. Unlike other mechanical devices/engines it can’t be serviced because of the radiation involved.

permalink
report
parent
reply
188 points

Anti-nuclear people in here arguing about disasters that killed a few k people in 50 years. Also deeply worried about nuclear waste that won’t have an impact on humans for thousands of years, but ignoring climate change is having an impact and might end our way of life as we know it before 2100.

They’re bike-shedding and blocking a major stepping stone to a coal, petrol and gas free future for the sake of idealism.

The biggest enemy of the left is the left

permalink
report
reply
149 points
*

do not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good enough”

edit: quick addendum, I really cannot stress this enough, everyone who says nuclear is an imperfect solution and just kicks the can down the road – yes, it does, it kicks it a couple thousand years away as opposed to within the next hundred years. We can use all that time to perfect solar and wind, but unless we get really lucky and get everyone on board with solar and wind right now, the next best thing we can hope for is more time.

permalink
report
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 288K

    Comments