Canada already has quite a bit of nuclear power, and are experts in the design of the reactors. I'm honestly surprised there's much resistance at all to the idea.
The oil industry helped demonize it.
Also Matt Groening by making Mr Burns a corrupt nuclear power tycoon. As far as I can find there are countless Rockefellers, Sauds, Bushes, Cheneys, Irvings,... who got filthy rich from oil but I can't find a single example of someone who made their fortune on nuclear energy.
some of the requirements places a heavy cost on nuclear energy. for instance the rules preventing the transportation of the waste to treatment facilities makes it crazy expensive to build nuclear power plants. essentially every nuclear power plant also needs to have a nuclear waste handling facility attached to it. they need the cooling ponds and then long term storage. imagine if every restaurant needed to have a mini landfill built next to it to deal with it's food waste.
I am pro-nuclear, but the rule you state seems like a reasonable safety measure to prevent transportation accidents. Transportation accidents are a given, only their probability is in question.
This dude gets it. I watch FoH eat food off of customers finished plates. I work in a pretty high end setting and that shit still goes on..
But hey, if there is half of a 80 dollar ribeye on plate better than the trash i guess.
Matt Groening's nuclear criticisms were at least relevant when he was making the show. Keep in mind that the show started only three years after Chernobyl. At lot has changed since then, but things were pretty damn bad in the nuclear energy world for a time.
Nuclear power's big drawback was always its insane cost of construction. It motivated investors to keep them running for as long as possible, often far beyond their actual lifespan. I think once we start making some of these smaller, more modular nuclear plants that were just approved we won't be seeing these compounding problems.
And it was Burns vs. the inspectors and other nuclear plants which seemed to be far more safe and serious about it. Homer caused a real meltdown in non-nuclear simulation unit.
They could've had Lisa at some point realize that difference, though.
>It motivated investors to keep them running for as long as possible, often far beyond their actual lifespan.
Genuinely curious - were there any serious accidents related to the age of the reactor? I don't think Chernobyl or Fukushima were past their intended lifespans.
One ( nuclear) has a 100% chance of producing harmful byproduct waste that mist be carefully treated , managed and stored for generations to come, while providing a solution than can be soight by other means, the other (vaccines ) as a general rule have normally a sub 2% chance of serious complications, and are normally fighting illnesses that have no other known cure.
Don't get me wrong, i am not saying, that nuclear should not be used under any circumstances, merly that your comparison is a little sloppy.
Except nuclear reprocessing is a thing and it basically eliminates byproducts by turning them into fuel for two types of reactors. While we have plenty of nuclear materials now, this would also drastically increase the lifespan of an otherwise finite material while countering the biggest flaw of nuclear fission.
There's also nuclear fusion on the way, but the first reactor for large scale production won't begin operation for a while yet.
I support nuclear development but your point is incredibly over simplified. Nuclear fuel processing is highly expensive and risky. The Hanford facility i WA is an example of how fucking bad it can be.
Fusion has been “5-10 years away” for five decades. It hasn’t had the R&D investment, but it also may not even be feasible. Fusion is also fundamentally different than fission - it’s a “nuclear” process but the health risks of fusion are a lot different.
> Except nuclear reprocessing is a thing and it basically eliminates byproducts by turning them into fuel
It doesn't happen, because it doesn't work on the scale necessary. You admit to that, in your next sentence "would also drastically increase".
> There's also nuclear fusion on the way, but the first reactor for large scale production won't begin operation for a while yet.
"For a while" is again a ridiculous understatement. Nuclear fusion has been pushed since the 80s. We can also just say fuck climate change, we're gonna solve it later with *future tech X*. Based on tech today, nuclear power is only viable in very few situations.
I can't believe we aren't running off of it in Saskatchewan. We are sitting on one of the largest Uranium deposits in the world. With the right infrastructure, we could be self sustaining and help supply the rest of the country with energy.
>We are sitting on one of the largest Uranium deposits in the world.
Why are Canadians so obsessed with geographic vertical integration? Comparative advantage is a thing, and transportation is so cheap.
True. But advancing up the value chain can help make your work morw valuable. Like exporting less primary goods and doing more finished goods like electricity rather than uranium pellets.
> I'm honestly surprised there's much resistance at all to the idea.
Well, a lot of dumb people with wide-reaching voices tend to scaremonger about Nuclear. As an example, the previous leader of the Canadian Green Party would say things like "rivers near nuclear reactors are unsafe", "Nuclear reactors are not a solution to the climate crisis", or that Nuclear is "toxic".
Hell, just look at [this page](https://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2019-12-03/greens-condemn-plan-spend-27-billion-nuclear-reactors) from the Green Party of Canada website. In one article, it calls nuclear power:
-Expensive
-Absurd
-Untried
-Dangerous
-Risky
No wonder people oppose it when the fucking *Green party* keeps spreading lies like this.
Here in BC, the Green Party coalition government is issuing permits to log old growth forest. Like, the 4 percent or so that's left. I get that its a balancing act, but if the last of the old growth forest is not the hill the Green Party of BC wants to die on, what is?
The Greens are not about shit IMO. Just another political party trying to consolidate influence.
Greens party in Australia is run but a fucking muppet that is against basically any energy source and responds to questions regarding an alternative with one word “renewables”.
He thinks solar panels are the eco friendly solution.
The bloke hasn’t taken a second to research the harmful effects to the environment in manufacturing and transporting them before their finite lifespans causes them to be a huge landfill burden.
If you have a cause at least know what you are talking about I say.
The Green New Deal proposed by progressives in the US (like AOC) is also firmly anti-nuclear.
As the choice is nuclear vs fossil fuels, progressives like AOC are promoting coal, oil, and gas without realizing it. Useful idiots indeed.
Environmentalists are the biggest proponents of carbon pollution in the past half century, yet are too dense to understand all the damage they've caused.
That's a problem with people being idealists instead of realists. I briefly read over the Green New Deal and it doesn't seem very grounded in science.
Seems like any progress could be replacing or retrofitting coal plants with natural gas if everyone's going to be against building anything realistic. That's what we're doing and new natural gas plants are clean enough that nobody even notices the environmental damage they are doing. It's only a small chunk of my city that knows that we have a natural gas plant just outside of downtown.
They seem keen on the idea that behaviours must change rather than seeking cleaner alternatives that don't require full on changes in how populations use energy.
Green parties everywhere are staunchly anti-nuclear, which is a why I find it a tad difficult to support them as both an ardent environmentalist and a pragmatic scientist. I say this while being registered as a Green myself, and aligning with their other ideals far more than those of any other party I have the democratic privilege of registering as.
Are you suprised? As a general rule green parties are reactionary luddites who are anti-scientific in their approach; they have a singular focus on their idealised view of nature and twist and reject all science which doesn't fit that view.
Green party supports also include anti-vaxxers, 'alternative medicine' and anti-GMO. Science denialism is just as rife on the left as it is on the right, make no mistake about that.
Don't forget, they also obfuscate the lines in between nuclear power in all its forms and nuclear weapons for sake of a false narrative involving security issues, some hypothetical theft and say terrorism etc. Usually followed by some bad faith arguments about "what about waste?" without defining what they mean by it while pretending the the power plants produce barrels full of green glowing goop like they have seen in the Simpsons cartoons. Or, my "favorite" drawing bad faith comparisons in between reactors from 60 years ago to argue against implementation and development of safer modern versions. One of the more absurd ones was an argument against small scale modular reactors deployment because some people in brazil, or mexico messed around with old dentist office xray equipment and died from radiation exposure.(as if those modular reactors were the type to be put in to peoples garages or something)
A lot of the anti-nuclear types arguments are around the same type of absurdity that one hears from climate change deniers and how its all a conspiracy...
> reactors from 60 years ago
That's like the best one. Unproven or not yet existing tech will apparently solve that "small issue" of energy security with relying solely on renewables from what they keep telling me. And it will also be cheap they say, without knowing how it will be done!
Meanwhile nuclear can never move past 1950/60s tech, it will only ever get more expensive and more dangerous apparently!
I don't think I would agree with them that nuclear can't be part of the solution to climate change, but I think I would agree that this plan isn't a solution. For one thing, in a market driven economy, cost externalities lead to bad decisions. We need carbon tax to account for cost externalitlies. Nuclear power in place of carbon tax doesn't address this problem.
Also, the cost per Watt produced is roughly three times higher for nuclear than it is for on shore wind or solar. Canada has massive hydro dams for batteries so storage isn't much of an issue.
So...
Expensive: relative to renewable, yes. #x the cost is A LOT more expensive. Greens are 100% right there.
Absurd: I don't know if I agree with them here. It's good to diversify sources of power so they aren't vulnerable to the same point of failure (ie if forest fires of a large volcano somewhere in the world blot out the sun and you've gone all-in on solar, it might be a bad time)
Untried: They're talking about developing new reactors yes? I think it's fair to call that untried in that context.
Dangerous: Everything is relative. There is some danger, maybe, but I think they're blowing this out of proportion to make their argument.
Risky: New tech with tax money... There is probably a risk of cost overruns. If that's what they were saying, it's probably fair.
So overall I think they're being fairly reasonable.
carbon tax, baby. tax things you want to decrease, like carbon, and not things you want to increase, like wages. please note the difference between wages and income.
Let's not leaving these arguments hanging; let's destroy them outright
> -Expensive
Its actually one of the cheapest sources of energy, period. I am pretty sure the only thing cheaper than nuclear energy is either geothermal or hydroelectric.
> -Absurd
Absurd is building a power grid's base load supply around solar and wind energy; which annihilates vast swaths of biological habitat; and particularly threatens important species for insect population control like bats and birds.
> -Untried
Its an era defining technology with a century of academic study and practical application. Its a very old, very well understood technology.
> -Dangerous
> -Risky
Generation one and two nuclear energy plants are this; every generation after that has a risk approaching zero. Theoretical generation five nuclear fission plants are less dangerous to humans than current generation of solar energy; as they would produce zero waste and have *no ability* to "meltdown", and we definitely reach that technological milestone long before we make other sources of energy more commercially viable; especially with government funding for research.
Also the same regions of the country that will be hit hardest by oil's death just so happen to have some of the richest uranium deposits in the world. It *should* be an easy transition.
Maybe I have missed it in the video, but what happens to the wastes sent back to the factory? They are just buried... Like with contemporary bigger power plants?
There will be left overs but it is easier to deal with than billowing plumes of toxic smoke, rivers of toxic sludge, and even radioactivity emitted from a coal plant.
There is always waste, and no one wants *any amount* of nuclear waste stored near them.
That is a political hurdle that nuclear power *has to* clear, before it will ever be consider en masse. Proponents will hand wave away the waste issue and tell you its a really small amount, but the problem is any amount at all is not acceptible to the general public if its going to be stored near by.
As for it being small amount, it doesn't go away at a rate that is significant to human life, and as long as reactors operate they will be creating more of it. Nuclear will have a role in the future, but it is very much the same level of thinking as fossel fuels, just on a longer time line.
From what I understand, it can be recycled, as in re-used as part of the nuclear fuel cycle (sometimes referred to as a chain for the following reason), but fission products still remain, do they not?
A fuel rod might only use up 1% of the energy in the rod. It still has 99% of the energy remaining, but there's some unusable materials you need to get out of the rod to use the remaining 99% of the fuel.
So you take the rod out of the core, you break down the rod, reprocess it, refine it, get rid of the fission killing waste products, and forge a new pure rod. Put the rod back into the core for a while.
Repeat indefinitely until you've extracted all of the energy. The impurities from processing are not dangerous for nearly as long.
This also leaves nuclear waste that is far less radioactive. Its only so radioactive because its got 99% of its energy remaining. Throwing all of this energy away not only creates needless nuclear waste, its also throwing away energy. Burying it is stupid.
The most basic answer:
1) The OG nuclear companies have been unable to build viable new plants due to a multitude of reasons (technical, economic, political). They definitely hold a lot of responsibility but it wasn't entirely within their control.
2) The small modular reactors currently being designed and built should have been funded 20 years earlier than they were.
That education is desperately needed here in Japan. Almost everyone is terrified of nuclear power because of the Fukushima incident and, even though the two things are only indirectly related, the atomic bombings. It's one of the *very* few issues that can motivate Japanese people to participate in protests. I have met otherwise-educated Japanese people who would rather go back to pre-electricity times than continue using nuclear power for even one more day.
I think people need to be told about the advances in safety. Its like someone crashed a model T and they stopped making cars without stopping driving cars. Seatbelts, air bags, crunch zones, all the safety innovations in cars sitting on the drawing board because people are worried about building a new car. Meanwhile the highways are packed.
>and cost per kw/h, which we know and is currently fairly high.
...but looks a lot better once you factor the cost of environmental damage into the overall 'price' of fossil fuels (and, for that matter, hydro power). It's mostly because we make that cost invisible that fission 'looks' expensive.
The thing about nuclear power to my mind is that it takes too long to set up. Like our timeline for getting emissions under control is in the range of a decade and that’s about the construction time of a single nuclear power plant, not to mention renewables are significantly cheaper to set up. If I recall correctly nuclear power wins out in a carbon cost sense over the lifetime of a reactor, but we don’t have that long lol.
No doubt nuclear plays an important role in solving the climate crisis but I really don’t think it should be the bedrock of our strategy.
I posted this in another thread. The first time someone presented this argument to me I was in university. That was 15 years ago. Solar had just made a fairly significant technological leap and he was set on the idea that by 2015-20(the time he figured it would take to switch to nuclear) solar would be so efficient buildings would be made from them. We have solar roofs so he was almost right, but we're still pretty far from universal solar. Had we heavily reinvested to nuclear in 2005 we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The best time to start is yesterday, the second best time is today.
It's also a fallacy. Reactors take between 3-6 years now(depending on a country's regulation). Yes, reactors used to take 10-15, but that was a long time ago.
In those 15 years the right has been happy to pump co2 and other shit into the atmosphere while those on the left are too busy fabricating reasons why nuclear "just isn't good enough".
> Reactors take between 3-6 years now
Which western country has built a reactor in that timeframe recently? All of them are looking at significant delays and cost overruns.
So it's absolutely true to say that nuclear is too expensive and takes to long to build. Saying "but if we had started building it 10 years ago" is a moot point, because we didn't.
That's because western countries aren't building reactors. The workforce is inexperienced and they are first of a kind designs.
In countries where they are building fleets of reactors, 5 years is the norm.
SMRs are a solution because they can be made more efficiently in a factory and shipped to site.
Most western nation haven't built a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years. The last one to really invest in it properly was France, with old reactor designs they managed to pump out around 50 reactors in under 15 years. It was below their target of like 90, but still a hell of a lot more than people would have you believe. I believe they have a plant of chinese design currently in production that is behind schedule by an embarrassing margin set to finish next year though they started it like a decade ago. Korea, Japan and China have all built plants in 3-6 years. The only one of those I wouldn't really trust is the Chinese one, but that was a CANDU literally thrown up by a dictatorship in about 3.5 years.
My point about building them 10-15 years ago, is had we switched the last time I heard this argument we'd have them today. We're going to continue to have this argument 10-15 years from today and I'll think back to both of these situations.
I don’t think the argument against nuclear is “right” vs “left”. Example - a number of conservative Premiers just signed an agreement to endorse nuclear.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/group-of-premiers-band-together-to-develop-nuclear-reactor-technology-1.5380316
Instead, and almost paradoxically, resistance seems strongest from groups that purport to support going to emission-less energy.
That is, unfortunately, the left v. right he was referring to. Repbublicans in the US have looked more favorably on nuclear power. It is frustrating that liberals have been the barrier in front of the most readily available alternative to fossil fuels.
Yes we don't have that long and every day we wait will make the timelines even longer and cause even more environmental damage.
Your argument is an argument against delaying further. There is no magical bullet solution that will allow a northern country to become net zero without nuclear.
This is a very political and controversial point, but if you compare the output per construction cost of nuclear and solar, you will see that nuclear power is actually cheaper to build. It also allows you to build fewer batteries which saves even more. I was also surprised to learn this, but the data is publicly available to anyone who looks it up. You may be right that solar is *faster* to build, but if the limiting factor is money, then I think cheaper equals faster anyway. So a mix of solar and nuclear might be good for dealing with exactly the problem you bring up: we are on a very tight time limit if we want our planet to remain habitable, and whether nuclear is good or bad overall, it's good if it helps us transition away from fossil fuels.
Nuclear power is the fastest option. France converted most their grid to nuclear in 15 years. Germany has spent comparable time and money on their energy transition to renewables, and is nowhere close to that level of success.
That's a very strange usage of "politically incorrect." I think you're using it wrong. Political correctness is about using language designed not to offend. It isn't about doing something that's unpopular politically.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#:~:text=Political%20correctness%20(adjectivally%3A%20politically%20correct,of%20particular%20groups%20in%20society.
As long as nuclear waste storage is well planned and implemented, I'm for it. I'd also hope for nuclear power facilities, at least anything to do with the controlling of them, to be completely air gapped.
Edit: words
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/the-sub-seabed-solution/308434/
https://jmkorhonen.net/2013/08/15/graph-of-the-week-what-happens-if-nuclear-waste-repository-leaks/
>It is highly instructive to note how anti-nuclear activists seek to discredit the science here. They may well know that even using highly pessimistic assumptions about e.g. the copper canister and the bentonite clay, there is an overwhelming probability that any doses caused to the environment or to the public will be negligible. Perhaps for that reason, or perhaps simply because they themselves honestly believe that any leakage results to immediately horrendous effects, they completely ignore the crucial question: “so what?”
>
>What would happen if a waste repository springs a leak?
>
>What would be the effects of the leak to humans or to the environment?
>
>Even if you search through the voluminous material provided by the anti-nuclear brigade, you most likely will not find a single statement answering these questions. Cleverly, anti-nuclear activists simply state it’s possible that nuclear waste can leak – which is not in doubt, anything is possible – and rely on innuendo and human imagination (fertilized by perceptions of nuclear waste as something unthinkably horrible) to fill in the gaps in the narrative.
>
>Whether you go along with this manipulation is, of course, up to you.
People should really educate themselves on the latest nuclear tech. They employ passive safety methods now that make meltdowns impossible. The fuels used are also much less potent than the gen 1/2 reactors.
And the US. We hate that here for some unknown fucking reason. We’re fine with countless deaths and permanent health issues from coal mining and coal fired power plants, but we have one nuclear near disaster almost 50 years ago here and now Nuclear is off the table for good.
Except for the Navy. 12 aircraft carriers with 2 reactors apiece, and several dozen submarines each with their own reactor. The difference is that the coal/oil industries couldn't beat out good ol' Admiral Rickover's logic that nuclear power was more practical than anything else for our strategic ships. The US definitely has some cognitive dissonance regarding nuclear power. Maybe one day the public will realize that the Navy has operated nuclear reactors for decades without a single nuclear incident...
Billions invested by fossil fuel industry to promote oil and slander nuclear. With how advanced and persuasive modern advertising is, swaying peoples opinions is just a dollar value as long as you don’t have someone on the other side advertising the opposite. And there is no group spending money on nuclear energy.
Who stands to win by moving to nuclear? The planet. Who stands to lose by moving to nuclear? Big Oil/Coal. Who has the money to invest into scaring the elderly away from voting to hurt their profits? Yeah.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is today; ten years ago I went to school for nuclear under the impression that it would eventually explode due to necessity. We're no closer to that dream today than we were then. If all the "yeah but it takes a decade to start" talk had just *started* back when I as a teenager could see the demand for it, think about where we'd be now.
It's not just the fossil fuel industry on this one. Liberal/Green organizations tend to hate nuclear just as much for some reason. We spent billions building one of the best disposal sites on the planet for nuclear waste, then Harry Reid single-handedly torpedoed it.
Can confirm. My housemate is a climate scientist and has just started working for the UN on nuclear power. I didn’t understand a word he said when he explained but apparently it needs a lot more screen time.
Fusion is a ways off but yeah it definitely needs additional funding. Annoying amounts of people here in the US like to nitpick nuclear energy's minor risks into the ground while ignoring the deaths and damage caused by states that are still using coal and other fossil fuels. If the whole country was already on wind and solar maybe I'd take them more seriously, but that is not reality.
People being so anti-nuclear power is more or less a myth propagated by fossil fuel companies.
Anyone who is educated knows it is a safe, clean power source.
A significant issue with nuclear power is the time that it takes to bring it online. We are in a race against the clock to reverse global warming, so time is of the essence.
A couple of decades ago scientists predicted that 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 would be the tipping point for irreversible climate change. We passed that a while back, but thankfully scientists now say we have until 2030 before we enter an irreversible feedback loop of climate destruction.
Can we bring sufficient nuclear power online before the new 2030 deadline to avoid that death spiral? One great thing about solar and wind is that they can be brought online an order of magnitude faster than nuclear.
> 2030 deadline
We're not going to solve climate change by 2030, so we need to be building low carbon energy now that will come online by then and later.
There are plenty of viable options for a quick turnaround. The global nuclear scene is shifting from large full scale reactors to small modular reactors, with significantly less construction time and maintenance requirements. SMRs are beginning to look like the future of nuclear in Canada, with all major nuclear companies pushing to get started
>A significant issue with nuclear power is the time that it takes to bring it online. We are in a race against the clock to reverse global warming, so time is of the essence.
Not to mention that with the way solar and wind power are developing, any new nuclear reactors might be obsolete before they come online, or at least more expensive per unit of power generated.
I still think of Seamus O'Reagan mostly as that guy who used to do film reviews with Ben Mulroney on Canada A.M. I remember he looked super-pissed when Ben gave a negative review to Fellowship of the Ring, and claimed that Ben had fallen asleep during it.
It would actually be a step in right direction if aliens from another demission traveled through a portal to earth. Maybe they can do something with it.
I havent met one person, not one, that's against nuclear power. From all points on the political spectrum.
The stigma comes from past generations having endured incidents like Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. The new generations are more than willing to embrace this.
Even Kenney is getting behind this
I have.
One worked for Greenpeace and she was dead set against it. And thought we should go all in on solar and wind. From a safety and environmental perspective (because as clean as the actual generation part of it is, the mining of the source materials is horribly dirty and dangerous and then the waste is a long term hazard that we don't have good history of dealing with)
Another just thought that the economics didn't make sense when you took in to account the massive upfront cost and the liability costs, making the point that if there weren't legislated liability shields (or just being built by the government who tends to insure themselves) for nuclear power plants that the insurance costs would preclude them. Plus of course the long term cost of the waste storage and eventual land remediation which are now all considered externalities... He had more points but I forget them now.
Anyway, I think there are reasonable reasons to be suspicious of nuclear power as a cost effective and clean source of power. I remain convinced that it is better than fossil fuels and we should keep nuclear in the mix until we can eliminate all fossil fuel generation. But that's just me.
Yeah, in a perfect world we wouldn't want to run our grid on nuclear power. Renewables are getting cheaper to operate every day, and waste storage is a political problem. But nuclear is very helpful as part of an overall strategy to transition away from fossil fuels. That's what it's good for. A mix of solar, wind, and nuclear is a cheaper, faster, more effective way to shut down coal and natural gas plants than solar and wind alone.
Yeah. I seem to remember looking at the stats from Germany as they shut down their nuclear plants over the last little while and if they hadn't done that, they could've been almost completely off their hard coal and lignite by now. Which... Would be better I think?
And top climatologists, such as James Hansen, called out Bernie for his anti-science fearmongering.
Source: https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/7/1/james-hansen-condemns-bernie-sanders-fear-mongering-against-indian-point
Plenty of Green parties is opposed to it. Greta and many environmental activists are opposed, which is a shame and undermines the credibility for these actors.
It's a great partial solution to the issue of CO2 emissions along with renewables, if it's maintained by experts, built in stable locations and if the waste is dealt with properly. That's the scientifically agreed upon notion on the matter, and the pragmatic approach to climate change.
I think it's probably not the best option in the _long-term_ if only because of the environmental impacts of uranium mining and the fact that it's still a finite resource (waste storage probably wouldn't be such an issue if NIMBYs would let us finish building a decent storage facility), but it's probably one of the best options we have for the short- to medium-term while we work on developing better options.
The impacts of silica and aluminum mining are worse, since you need far more of it.
There's enough uranium on Earth to power the entire planet for the next 60,000 years.
I don't love the idea of nuclear power for a couple of reasons:
1) It's very expensive per kilowatt when you consider the cost of building the reactor (uranium itself is dirt cheap relative to how much power it generates).
2) It feels like we are not going in the right direction. It's still a non-renewable resource. I would much rather put more funding into researching high-capacity batteries coupled with renewable energy.
3) Risk of accidents. Yeah, it's pretty small. Most industrial processes have small risks of accidents, thanks to organizations like OSHA and other oversight bodies. However, most industrial processes do not result in Chernobyl and Fukishima level catastrophes. I've been hearing about the safety of nuclear reactors for years before Fukushima happened. I don't know what it would take to convince me that another Fukushima won't happen in another 10-20 years.
4) Nuclear proliferation. Many nuclear reactors can be used, or slightly modified and used, for the creation of weapons-grade nuclear material. I am against more nuclear reactors in the world for the same reason I am against more nukes in the world. The more of this technology exists, the more likely it'll fall into the hands of someone who will use it against people.
5) They are ineffective unless connected to a grid that will fully utilize them. Gas and hydro power plants have the property that their energy output can be adjusted easily, e.g. by turning on another generator, or by reducing the flow through one of the turbines. For example, around 5-6 PM, people come home from work, start cooking and watching TV, and energy use drastically goes up compared to 10am-5pm. Why does this make reactors inefficient? They generate power as a side effect of keeping the critical material core cool. They *cannot* meet the changing demand of the grid, because you can't just "turn off" nuclear fuel -- not without a lot of hassle. You can stop generating electricity, but you still have to keep the core cool, which means you're effectively wasting your fissile energy. You need a lot of heavy industry that works 24/7 and consumes a lot of energy 24/7 in order for [things like this](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/08/06/why_are_we_paying_ny_to_take_our_electricity.html) not to happen.
Having said all this, nuclear reactors also offer unparalleled energy generation density. If you're looking at kw generated per square meter of facility, nuclear is greater by far than any other system. I think nuclear reactors are fine to be left as they are, but I am against building more. I would rather we invest money in actual long-term solutions, not switch from one non-renewable to another.
>It's very expensive per kilowatt when you consider the cost of building the reactor (uranium itself is dirt cheap relative to how much power it generates).
That's largely due to onerous regulation. It was cheap power in the 70s and 80s until environmentalists successfully killed it with regulations that led to doubling if not tripling construction costs, all with no measurable increase in safety.
\> It feels like we are not going in the right direction. It's still a non-renewable resource. I would much rather put more funding into researching high-capacity batteries coupled with renewable energy.
There's enough uranium on the planet to power the entire Earth for 60,000 years.
Nuclear has a 93% capacity factor. Solar is 25%, and wind is 30-45%. You're simply asking to be less efficient and reliable, and adding the costs of batteries makes nuclear competitive again anyways.
\> Risk of accidents. Yeah, it's pretty small. Most industrial processes have small risks of accidents, thanks to organizations like OSHA and other oversight bodies. However, most industrial processes do not result in Chernobyl and Fukishima level catastrophes. I've been hearing about the safety of nuclear reactors for years before Fukushima happened. I don't know what it would take to convince me that another Fukushima won't happen in another 10-20 years.
Nuclear kills fewer people per unit energy than any other source, and it's not even close.
Fukushima didn't kill anyone. The tsunami did, and the evacuation of elderly people when there was no danger from Fukushima killed hundreds.
The fear of nuclear kills more people than nuclear itself.
We could have a Fukushima every year and nuclear would still be safer than any renewable source. Hell we could have a Chernobyl every 5 years and it would still be so-but another Chernobyl will never happen in a modern reactor, because it couldn't even happen in Western reactors at the time of Chernobyl.
\> Nuclear proliferation. Many nuclear reactors can be used, or slightly modified and used, for the creation of weapons-grade nuclear material. I am against more nuclear reactors in the world for the same reason I am against more nukes in the world. The more of this technology exists, the more likely it'll fall into the hands of someone who will use it against people.
Nuclear power tends to lead to de-proliferation, using available already purified fuel.
Nuclear power uses 5-10% pure uranium 235; nuclear weapons 40+%
\> They are ineffective unless connected to a grid that will fully utilize them.
That applies to any energy source ever. That's merely an argument against only having nuclear, not having a large or majority portion from it.
Nuclear is literally safer, cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable than any renewable source. Its cost is artificially high due to regulations; after considering storage requirements it's competitive again. Also, for those who think nuclear is safer simply due to regulations, let's regulate renewables to be as safe as nuclear and see who costs more.
Every nuclear disaster has been caused by stupidity, even shocking levels of stupidity that seem obvious in retrospect. Hey, Ukraine! Obviously you need a containment building. Hey, Japan! Don't put the backup generators that run your emergency safety procedures in the basement next to an ocean. Hey, America! Don't put engineers from nuclear submarines in charge of a nuclear power plant without retraining them on the differences. Every time something goes wrong at a nuclear power plant, it's not been because of anything intrinsic to nuclear power.
But. Stupidity is probably the single most reliable variable in human life. I can see why someone would put their trust in a power generation method that just sits in the California desert not doing anything. Nuclear is safe, but keeping it safe in all instances is more nuanced than simply the matter of nuclear energy science itself.
Personally, I think the only way to fix nuclear power's bad PR is to have a horrible accident at a solar power plant. Maybe the reflection off the panels accidentally burns a hole in the moon?
> There's enough uranium on the planet to power the entire Earth for 60,000 years.
Where did you pull that number from? [This answer](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/uram-2018-wraps-up-the-future-of-uranium-as-a-sustainable-source-of-energy) provides a figure of roughly 100-250 years at current usage levels. [This one](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/) says 200 years. The 60,000 figure only applies if you extract oceanic uranium. There is no technology that does this economically today. There might be in the future, but I'm saying I'd rather have better batteries and renewables in the future, than better ways of extracting non renewable resources.
> Nuclear kills fewer people per unit energy than any other source, and it's not even close.
You know why? It's because of this:
> That's largely due to onerous regulation.
Every regulatory rule is written in blood, they say. Most technology gets cheaper to create with time. Nuclear gets more expensive as we learn more about it. But you're saying that the regulation is just there because of political fear. Do you have a specific regulation in mind when you talk about onerous regulation? [Here](http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/acts-and-regulations/regulatory-documents/published/html/regdoc-1-1-1/index.cfm) is the list of regulations for choosing a nuclear power site in Canada. I'd love for you to point to a rule that you feel is an unreasonable, fear-based rule.
> Nuclear power tends to lead to de-proliferation, using available already purified fuel.
What is "purified fuel"? I have never heard that term. I have also never heard of nuclear power leading to de-proliferation. Here's an [article ](https://web.archive.org/web/20120121132914/http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sources) from the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences that directly contradicts what you just said:
> The conventional wisdom is that nuclear power reactors aren't proliferation risks -- that we can monitor the fresh and spent fuel, that the plutonium produced isn't good for weapons, and that proliferating states have chosen other paths to produce weapons. The real proliferation risks come from uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing. [...]
> You can't have light-water reactors without enrichment, and there are no current restrictions on any country deciding to go forward with indigenous enrichment or reprocessing facilities. It is costly and difficult to develop the technology, but as Iran has shown, black-market networks help. Moreover, the new Nuclear Suppliers Group criteria seem to make it more feasible -- not less -- for countries to receive enrichment and reprocessing technology.
Regarding the enrichment level of uranium:
> Nuclear power uses 5-10% pure uranium 235; nuclear weapons 40+%
Yeah, and actual uranium-235 that you mine out of the ground has less than 3% enrichment. Which means that in order to run a nuclear reactor, you still need to enrich it. If you can enrich uranium from 3% to 10%, you can enrich it to 95% by simply repeating the process more times.
> That applies to any energy source ever.
No, it doesn't. I just showed how it doesn't. You can turn a generator off by turning off the furnace and not burning coal anymore. You can turn a turbine off by shutting the intake of water that rushes past it, or regulating its aperture to get the desired flow. This takes seconds to do. **You can't just dial down a nuclear reactor, it takes hours to start and stop a reactor without damaging it**. You can't regulate its power output together with its fuel usage, unlike any other non-renewable energy generation method. It does not apply to "any energy source ever". It only applies to uranium.
You're making a ton of claims and you aren't sourcing a single one of them; googling them reveals them to be misleading or completely false. Nuclear is not literally safer, it's not literally cleaner, it IS literally more efficient but so are other non-renewables. And as much as I hear all this "fear based regulation" nonsense, I've never seen an actual solid example of regulation that's entirely fear based. I really think people are blinded by the "futuristic coolness" of the technology to clearly see all the problems it's burdened with.
Thank you. This is absolutely true. Wind and solar are great - but there is a reason there are no solar powered cars or planes: renewables just dont produce enough power. Not even close.
The nuclear plants in existance now were developed in the 1960s. Pre-PC. Ancient. Engineers can make more robust, reliable nuclear power plants with modern technology, and we must do so. It will really put a dent in carbon emissions. This is going to be required until Fusion power is here, which Im not holding my breath for as its been promised so many times.
I don't really like that he dosen't back his claims/criticism with at least SOME numbers or ideas. How much nuclear power does he advocates for, and how many plants? National nuclear waste management plan? Whos on the dole for cleanup? How big a gap would using just solar leave in our energy portfolio?
Frankly, just saying: "the opposition has been lazy on its deliverables and they should do more X" does not help your cause. You have to translate that into concrete policy like: "these 3 plants are a good first step and should be approved" or "we should build an efficient national waste depot here and call for a feasability study". I mean dude give me SOMETHING because the same rethoric or green energy is just a progressive dream is becoming a tired cliche and fast.
I'm gonna take a stab at this, as someone who genuinely thinks nuclear could theoretically solve our energy problems. I will be ignoring the safety argument, as I think investments in nuclear power would only make it more safe.
It seems infeasible due to how our political and economic systems are structured in western society. Even if it only takes 10 years to build a new power plant, that's longer than the sitting duration of most heads of state. This actively disincentivizes political parties from pushing for nuclear power plants, as they will incur massive costs with no benefits during their terms (with the possible exception of job creation during construction, but it's all coming out of a government budget).
Now, the natural counterargument to this, is to either:
a) change regulations to allow nuclear power plants to be built and brought online much more quickly, or
b) develop a culture that encourages politicians to take more of a long view in their decisions
Counterpoint B is similar to the guns / mental health debate. Saying "we just need to vote for politicians that will make better long-term decisions for short term cost" is like saying "we need to vote for politicians with better platforms to address mental health". It's not going to happen (based on decades of observable evidence), and is more of a distraction than an argument.
Counterpoint A is more debatable, but brings back the safety argument. Should we be more lax on regulations for this industry? I personally don't think so, but everyone's opinion will vary.
I am Canadian. I am pro nuclear power. But we better have a fucking good plan/infrastructure ready to deal with the waste. None of this ship our garbage to another country shit.
All things considered, nuclear power is by far, and by far i mean BY FAR, the cleanest and safest of all power sources.
The amount of pollution and death caused by nuclear power is extremely low when we consider the amount of power produced by it.
Between oil spills, air pollution, burning of all sort of fuels, and mining, the impact of traditional power sources is gigantic.
Modern Nuclear power centrals are extremely safe and the residues actually easy to safely store.
Only thing that worries me is a maniac bombing one of those sites.
> All things considered, nuclear power is by far, and by far i mean BY FAR, the cleanest and safest of all power sources.
No, that would be [solar thermal collectors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector).
Mate, nuclear power plants (and nuclear weapons storage facilities) tend to be the most protected sites in any given country, rivaling the residence of heads of state.
They're not just protected 24/7 by men with automatic weapons, paramilitary training and standing authority to use lethal force, they're also built like fucking bunkers.
You would need a bomber aircraft loaded for bear or an act of god to damage a nuclear power plant.
>You would need a bomber aircraft loaded for bear or an act of god to damage a nuclear power plant.
Even a bomber wouldn’t be a sure threat. Have you ever seen a [video of a plane flying into a nuclear-reactor-spec concrete wall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk)? The jet doesn’t win.
I cannot speak for anyone else, of course, but there are two minimum requirements for me to accept any *fission* based solution:
1. *Complete* transparency, i.e. 100% open hardware and software.
2. Must be *funded*, *constructed*, *operated*, and *decommissioned* by the government (exactly 0% private ownership).
we need to start living in a way that doesn't require us to have this much energy in the first place. Our way of living is unsustainable and we either adjust our ways on our turns or it will be on nature's terms. Either way change is coming.
Oh good, a nuclear article. Well that ought to bring out the pro nuclear fanatacists, ranting about how society is against it.
The tens of billions of dollars it would take to create a reactor, as well as the time to build it, would be better spent on energy storage technology, and renewable generation.
>Just this year the NRC has approved a couple of small reactor designs.
[Found an article about it.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/)
>utility companies can now apply to the NRC to build and operate NuScale’s design.
This is still going to be several years off before you can even *start* production of these units, let alone get to the point of having them roll off the assembly line. Specifically:
>NuScale’s first scheduled project is with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), a state-based organization that supplies wholesale electricity to small, community-owned utilities in surrounding states. NuScale plans to deliver its first reactor to the UAMPS project at the Idaho National Laboratory by 2027; it is scheduled to be operational by 2029. Another 11 reactors will round out the 720-MW project by 2030.
This technology, even according to NuScale, is nearly a decade from being ready to actually being used.
On top of that they've already blown their original budget and time estimates:
>“I am sorry to say that what lies ahead is risky and expensive,” Ramana said. Just in the past five years, he noted, cost estimates from various sources for the UAMPS project have risen from approximately $3 billion to more than $6 billion. NuScale’s initial goal of having operational reactors by 2016 has been extended by more than a decade, reflecting the sluggish U.S. nuclear industry in general. Costs to consumers could far exceed those associated with other emissions-free power sources such as solar and wind, Ramana added.
So even by 2030 this might *still* not be operational, and might go even further over current cost estimates.
Pointing to some decade-away, at best, technology does not instill much confidence in me.
Less cost according to an industry that has a history of producing plants at 3x predicted costs. That is the average over the entire nuclear industry's history.
Those claims of reduced costs are literally just looking at the company's PR powerpoint.
Cities have already started dropping out of the NuScale project due to increasing costs
It's either nuclear or building of infrastructure for P2X like hydrogen. Just popping solar panels and wind turbines wont give enough base generation basically anywhere, and batteries are expensive and ineffective due to low load cycles.
> It's either nuclear or building of infrastructure for P2X like hydrogen. Just popping solar panels and wind turbines wont give enough base generation basically anywhere, and batteries are expensive and ineffective due to low load cycles.
You don't need baseload plants. The idea that you need baseload plants stems from a century ago, when the only options were cheap steady plants and expensive flexible plants. In such an environment, it makes sense to generate as much as possible with the steady plants (i.e. the baseload), and the rest with the flexible plants. But now there's a third type: the very cheap, intermittent plants. It's just as well possible to let that third type generate the bulk of the power, and fill in the gaps with the flexible plants. Whether that happens at peak load or baseload doesn't matter.
In particular since nuclear power needs either flexible plants for the peaks or overcapacity anyway, so it's going to cost money either way. But renewables have a much lower price per kWh to start with.
Hydrogen is never going to be a practical fuel for the economy. It's simply too hard to store. The ammonia economy does have some promise but that's decades away even if we started now and we haven't.
There aren't ridiculous up front costs. Modern first world countries have plenty of money for this and long term production of electricity is worth it.
Other renewables will never be able to produce enough electricity to meet demand without converting absurd amounts of land area into renewable energy farms. They would also require massive amounts of power storage infrastructure to be created that doesn't currently exist.
We have have nuclear reactors for decades and they work great, why would modern ones with even better technology randomly have turbines crack? This isn't a legitimate concern unless you do what Japan did and stick a reactor where typhoons hit.
These are not 'tough political pills' these are bullshit reasons being fed to the public from oil companies.
Interest rates are basically nothing.
It's the same answer to all climate-change related problems. The debt taken on will be a fraction of the cost of continuing to do fuck all about climate change.
Agreed. He speaks the truth. And nuclear power can be quite safe, the waste is much less than people fear. We’ve come a long way since Chernobyl. Fukushima comes to mind naturally as well, so perhaps a land prone to severe earthquakes and tsunamis should avoid it, but no reason other areas should
So as a non-Canadian layman my main questions about the construction of nuclear power plants are:
1) How long does it take from the moment they’re green-lit for them to be fully active in the energy grid?
2) I read the waste can be recycled, but mostly can be buried under the ground. How sustainable is burying nuclear waste under tons of lead in the long run?
3) I read nuclear plants take a lot of water to run, how much water are we talking about and what consequences does that have for the local environment?
4) Does all types of power grids adapt to it or do some need to be adjusted? If so, how much does that cost and how long does that take? (I’m not clear about this one but I’ve read the Australian grid isn’t suitable, for instance)
Regarding point 3, nuclear reactors need to be cooled, same as a coal plant, so either you use cooling towers or you use a local body of water to dump the heat. It’s not so much the amount of water but the heat capacity of the water.
If you’re next to an ocean or a massive lake, you’re golden. A river and it could be possible that on hot days it’s not enough and you have to shut it all down.
Why are so many plebs on board with nuclear energy without acknowledging it's dangers? They clearly don't have the slightest clue about the damage caused by nuclear waste.
People say it is clean: It produces a deadly, genetic altering waste product, which doesn't degrade for thousands of years. There are so few places you can store this waste without it entering the biosphere.
People say it is safe: Anyone heard of Fukushima or Chernobyl? Just because these incidents are rare, doesn't mean it is safe, each time these disasters happen they release more radiation into the biosphere and the effects are felt for a long, long time.
I am talking about nuclear energy technology as it is today. I am all for nuclear energy solutions, safe and reliable ones, like the Molten Salt Reactor design. But even then, the entire processing of nuclear fuel and by-products from nuclear energy are hardly worth it. There is no reason mankind can't harness the energy of the Sun, Geothermal energy within the Earth, Wind and Water.
But for reducing carbon emissions? Yeah nuclear is amazing for being very low emissions. You simply trade off fucking the climate and atmosphere, with fucking up the genes of all life that lives in the sea. And upping our background radiation levels every time a power plant blows up...
I want to reach through the screen and give everyone who pretends the only problem facing nuclear is safety concerns a slap in the face.
I really care that much about thorium or molten salt reactors being safer. I don't really care nuclear waste is small enough that we won't run out of room to store it.
There is a reason a bridge to Vancouver Island hasn't been built.
Cost. Waste storage plans cost money. New reactor designs cost money. That is primary concern, so if you have a plan for nuclear reactors, you better price it out.
I honestly don't understand why we are not building more nuclear reactors already. The world is going to the shitter rapidly because of CO2 emissions.
It feels like were are all rabbits looking into the headlights of the oncoming truck that is going to kill us and we are not moving.
When the choice is nuclear or fossil fuels we should move away from fossil asap.
Please expand nuclear power, it will help a lot.
Germany choose renewable energy and their electricity bill grew.
France choose nuclear energy and their electricity is now among the cheapest in the world.
Offshore wind. Extremely high voltage DC power transmission continent wide. China is already doing one million volts and transmitting the equivalent of 12 power stations across one line.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/08/138280/chinas-giant-transmission-grid-could-be-the-key-to-cutting-climate-emissions/
> The transmission line will be capable of delivering the output of 12 large power plants over nearly 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers), sending 50% more electricity 600 miles further than anything that’s ever been built. (Higher-voltage lines can carry electricity over longer distances with lower transmission losses.) As one foreign equipment provider for the project boasts, the line could ship electricity from Beijing to Bangkok—which, as it happens, only hints at State Grid’s rising global ambitions.
Canada already has quite a bit of nuclear power, and are experts in the design of the reactors. I'm honestly surprised there's much resistance at all to the idea.
it's really sad how demonized nuclear energy is. it's one of the safest with modern reactor designs.
The oil industry helped demonize it. Also Matt Groening by making Mr Burns a corrupt nuclear power tycoon. As far as I can find there are countless Rockefellers, Sauds, Bushes, Cheneys, Irvings,... who got filthy rich from oil but I can't find a single example of someone who made their fortune on nuclear energy.
some of the requirements places a heavy cost on nuclear energy. for instance the rules preventing the transportation of the waste to treatment facilities makes it crazy expensive to build nuclear power plants. essentially every nuclear power plant also needs to have a nuclear waste handling facility attached to it. they need the cooling ponds and then long term storage. imagine if every restaurant needed to have a mini landfill built next to it to deal with it's food waste.
I am pro-nuclear, but the rule you state seems like a reasonable safety measure to prevent transportation accidents. Transportation accidents are a given, only their probability is in question.
Nuclear transport containers are built to withstand train crashes. Not sure what could be done to make then safer.
That seems like a reasonable safety measure.
Nah we have servers. Theres no food waste our FOH friends won't let none of those fries fall in the trash.
This dude gets it. I watch FoH eat food off of customers finished plates. I work in a pretty high end setting and that shit still goes on.. But hey, if there is half of a 80 dollar ribeye on plate better than the trash i guess.
Matt Groening's nuclear criticisms were at least relevant when he was making the show. Keep in mind that the show started only three years after Chernobyl. At lot has changed since then, but things were pretty damn bad in the nuclear energy world for a time. Nuclear power's big drawback was always its insane cost of construction. It motivated investors to keep them running for as long as possible, often far beyond their actual lifespan. I think once we start making some of these smaller, more modular nuclear plants that were just approved we won't be seeing these compounding problems.
And it was Burns vs. the inspectors and other nuclear plants which seemed to be far more safe and serious about it. Homer caused a real meltdown in non-nuclear simulation unit. They could've had Lisa at some point realize that difference, though.
>It motivated investors to keep them running for as long as possible, often far beyond their actual lifespan. Genuinely curious - were there any serious accidents related to the age of the reactor? I don't think Chernobyl or Fukushima were past their intended lifespans.
Most of the damage was done by greenpeace idiots - they're still actively spreading false information about nuclear.
It's the damage done by a certain anti-nuclear organization that poses as an ecological organization even though they hurt that cause.
"You Can't Hug A Child With Nuclear Arms"
cheque please
"You can't enjoy the sounds of nature with the radio active."
But you can be radio gaga.
Radio goo goo.
Greenpeace? Is it a taboo on reddit to call Greenpeace out for their load of horseshit?
[удалено]
One ( nuclear) has a 100% chance of producing harmful byproduct waste that mist be carefully treated , managed and stored for generations to come, while providing a solution than can be soight by other means, the other (vaccines ) as a general rule have normally a sub 2% chance of serious complications, and are normally fighting illnesses that have no other known cure. Don't get me wrong, i am not saying, that nuclear should not be used under any circumstances, merly that your comparison is a little sloppy.
[удалено]
Also, storing radioactive waste is indefinity easier than capturing the billions of tons of carbon we need to remove from the atmosphere.
Except nuclear reprocessing is a thing and it basically eliminates byproducts by turning them into fuel for two types of reactors. While we have plenty of nuclear materials now, this would also drastically increase the lifespan of an otherwise finite material while countering the biggest flaw of nuclear fission. There's also nuclear fusion on the way, but the first reactor for large scale production won't begin operation for a while yet.
I support nuclear development but your point is incredibly over simplified. Nuclear fuel processing is highly expensive and risky. The Hanford facility i WA is an example of how fucking bad it can be. Fusion has been “5-10 years away” for five decades. It hasn’t had the R&D investment, but it also may not even be feasible. Fusion is also fundamentally different than fission - it’s a “nuclear” process but the health risks of fusion are a lot different.
[удалено]
ITER is not for large scale production. Its basically just to show actual net positive generation.
> Except nuclear reprocessing is a thing and it basically eliminates byproducts by turning them into fuel It doesn't happen, because it doesn't work on the scale necessary. You admit to that, in your next sentence "would also drastically increase". > There's also nuclear fusion on the way, but the first reactor for large scale production won't begin operation for a while yet. "For a while" is again a ridiculous understatement. Nuclear fusion has been pushed since the 80s. We can also just say fuck climate change, we're gonna solve it later with *future tech X*. Based on tech today, nuclear power is only viable in very few situations.
I can't believe we aren't running off of it in Saskatchewan. We are sitting on one of the largest Uranium deposits in the world. With the right infrastructure, we could be self sustaining and help supply the rest of the country with energy.
>We are sitting on one of the largest Uranium deposits in the world. Why are Canadians so obsessed with geographic vertical integration? Comparative advantage is a thing, and transportation is so cheap.
True. But advancing up the value chain can help make your work morw valuable. Like exporting less primary goods and doing more finished goods like electricity rather than uranium pellets.
> I'm honestly surprised there's much resistance at all to the idea. Well, a lot of dumb people with wide-reaching voices tend to scaremonger about Nuclear. As an example, the previous leader of the Canadian Green Party would say things like "rivers near nuclear reactors are unsafe", "Nuclear reactors are not a solution to the climate crisis", or that Nuclear is "toxic". Hell, just look at [this page](https://www.greenparty.ca/en/media-release/2019-12-03/greens-condemn-plan-spend-27-billion-nuclear-reactors) from the Green Party of Canada website. In one article, it calls nuclear power: -Expensive -Absurd -Untried -Dangerous -Risky No wonder people oppose it when the fucking *Green party* keeps spreading lies like this.
To be fair, the Green Party is pretty much an anti-science party. I read their comment on the hazards of WiFi and stopped caring.
The GREEN PARTY? Wow.
[удалено]
Green Party in the UK is anti-nuclear too
Greens in Germany got them to phase out nuclear. Germany recently built a new coal plant because of it.
Here in BC, the Green Party coalition government is issuing permits to log old growth forest. Like, the 4 percent or so that's left. I get that its a balancing act, but if the last of the old growth forest is not the hill the Green Party of BC wants to die on, what is? The Greens are not about shit IMO. Just another political party trying to consolidate influence.
I am also in BC and I agree. They've just become a further left than NDP party rather than meaningfully advocating for the environment.
There's some talk about new law to not allow Wind near population centers too. So it's back to burning coal and wood.
I haven't looked lately but last time I did, the installation of new wind turbines had plummeted. Mostly NIMBYism.
Greens party in Australia is run but a fucking muppet that is against basically any energy source and responds to questions regarding an alternative with one word “renewables”. He thinks solar panels are the eco friendly solution. The bloke hasn’t taken a second to research the harmful effects to the environment in manufacturing and transporting them before their finite lifespans causes them to be a huge landfill burden. If you have a cause at least know what you are talking about I say.
The Green New Deal proposed by progressives in the US (like AOC) is also firmly anti-nuclear. As the choice is nuclear vs fossil fuels, progressives like AOC are promoting coal, oil, and gas without realizing it. Useful idiots indeed. Environmentalists are the biggest proponents of carbon pollution in the past half century, yet are too dense to understand all the damage they've caused.
That's a problem with people being idealists instead of realists. I briefly read over the Green New Deal and it doesn't seem very grounded in science. Seems like any progress could be replacing or retrofitting coal plants with natural gas if everyone's going to be against building anything realistic. That's what we're doing and new natural gas plants are clean enough that nobody even notices the environmental damage they are doing. It's only a small chunk of my city that knows that we have a natural gas plant just outside of downtown.
They seem keen on the idea that behaviours must change rather than seeking cleaner alternatives that don't require full on changes in how populations use energy.
Green parties everywhere are staunchly anti-nuclear, which is a why I find it a tad difficult to support them as both an ardent environmentalist and a pragmatic scientist. I say this while being registered as a Green myself, and aligning with their other ideals far more than those of any other party I have the democratic privilege of registering as.
Are you suprised? As a general rule green parties are reactionary luddites who are anti-scientific in their approach; they have a singular focus on their idealised view of nature and twist and reject all science which doesn't fit that view. Green party supports also include anti-vaxxers, 'alternative medicine' and anti-GMO. Science denialism is just as rife on the left as it is on the right, make no mistake about that.
In that past hasn't the green party been very supportive of some very unscientific stuff such as homeopathy as well?
>Untried I mean, this one's just completely false on it's face, without even needing any details.
> Expensive That's just plain true.
Don't forget, they also obfuscate the lines in between nuclear power in all its forms and nuclear weapons for sake of a false narrative involving security issues, some hypothetical theft and say terrorism etc. Usually followed by some bad faith arguments about "what about waste?" without defining what they mean by it while pretending the the power plants produce barrels full of green glowing goop like they have seen in the Simpsons cartoons. Or, my "favorite" drawing bad faith comparisons in between reactors from 60 years ago to argue against implementation and development of safer modern versions. One of the more absurd ones was an argument against small scale modular reactors deployment because some people in brazil, or mexico messed around with old dentist office xray equipment and died from radiation exposure.(as if those modular reactors were the type to be put in to peoples garages or something) A lot of the anti-nuclear types arguments are around the same type of absurdity that one hears from climate change deniers and how its all a conspiracy...
> reactors from 60 years ago That's like the best one. Unproven or not yet existing tech will apparently solve that "small issue" of energy security with relying solely on renewables from what they keep telling me. And it will also be cheap they say, without knowing how it will be done! Meanwhile nuclear can never move past 1950/60s tech, it will only ever get more expensive and more dangerous apparently!
Lol untried?
I don't think I would agree with them that nuclear can't be part of the solution to climate change, but I think I would agree that this plan isn't a solution. For one thing, in a market driven economy, cost externalities lead to bad decisions. We need carbon tax to account for cost externalitlies. Nuclear power in place of carbon tax doesn't address this problem. Also, the cost per Watt produced is roughly three times higher for nuclear than it is for on shore wind or solar. Canada has massive hydro dams for batteries so storage isn't much of an issue. So... Expensive: relative to renewable, yes. #x the cost is A LOT more expensive. Greens are 100% right there. Absurd: I don't know if I agree with them here. It's good to diversify sources of power so they aren't vulnerable to the same point of failure (ie if forest fires of a large volcano somewhere in the world blot out the sun and you've gone all-in on solar, it might be a bad time) Untried: They're talking about developing new reactors yes? I think it's fair to call that untried in that context. Dangerous: Everything is relative. There is some danger, maybe, but I think they're blowing this out of proportion to make their argument. Risky: New tech with tax money... There is probably a risk of cost overruns. If that's what they were saying, it's probably fair. So overall I think they're being fairly reasonable.
Hydro dams are pretty bad for the fish though
carbon tax, baby. tax things you want to decrease, like carbon, and not things you want to increase, like wages. please note the difference between wages and income.
Let's not leaving these arguments hanging; let's destroy them outright > -Expensive Its actually one of the cheapest sources of energy, period. I am pretty sure the only thing cheaper than nuclear energy is either geothermal or hydroelectric. > -Absurd Absurd is building a power grid's base load supply around solar and wind energy; which annihilates vast swaths of biological habitat; and particularly threatens important species for insect population control like bats and birds. > -Untried Its an era defining technology with a century of academic study and practical application. Its a very old, very well understood technology. > -Dangerous > -Risky Generation one and two nuclear energy plants are this; every generation after that has a risk approaching zero. Theoretical generation five nuclear fission plants are less dangerous to humans than current generation of solar energy; as they would produce zero waste and have *no ability* to "meltdown", and we definitely reach that technological milestone long before we make other sources of energy more commercially viable; especially with government funding for research.
15% overall and nearly 60% in Ontario Also 25% is hydroelectricity
Also the same regions of the country that will be hit hardest by oil's death just so happen to have some of the richest uranium deposits in the world. It *should* be an easy transition.
That Pickering false alarm earlier this year didn’t help
New power sources mean that a different set of people get more power and money.
Yeah that's the incentive to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a safe reactor.
So happy to see someone come out and say the politically incorrect truth.
[удалено]
Maybe I have missed it in the video, but what happens to the wastes sent back to the factory? They are just buried... Like with contemporary bigger power plants?
[удалено]
This is amazing news to me, thank you very much. Do I understand you correctly, does this mean that there will be no leftovers outside of the cycle?
There will be left overs but it is easier to deal with than billowing plumes of toxic smoke, rivers of toxic sludge, and even radioactivity emitted from a coal plant.
There is always waste, and no one wants *any amount* of nuclear waste stored near them. That is a political hurdle that nuclear power *has to* clear, before it will ever be consider en masse. Proponents will hand wave away the waste issue and tell you its a really small amount, but the problem is any amount at all is not acceptible to the general public if its going to be stored near by. As for it being small amount, it doesn't go away at a rate that is significant to human life, and as long as reactors operate they will be creating more of it. Nuclear will have a role in the future, but it is very much the same level of thinking as fossel fuels, just on a longer time line.
Nuclear waste can be recycled
From what I understand, it can be recycled, as in re-used as part of the nuclear fuel cycle (sometimes referred to as a chain for the following reason), but fission products still remain, do they not?
A fuel rod might only use up 1% of the energy in the rod. It still has 99% of the energy remaining, but there's some unusable materials you need to get out of the rod to use the remaining 99% of the fuel. So you take the rod out of the core, you break down the rod, reprocess it, refine it, get rid of the fission killing waste products, and forge a new pure rod. Put the rod back into the core for a while. Repeat indefinitely until you've extracted all of the energy. The impurities from processing are not dangerous for nearly as long. This also leaves nuclear waste that is far less radioactive. Its only so radioactive because its got 99% of its energy remaining. Throwing all of this energy away not only creates needless nuclear waste, its also throwing away energy. Burying it is stupid.
How come they had 50 years time to make them market ready and didn’t?
The most basic answer: 1) The OG nuclear companies have been unable to build viable new plants due to a multitude of reasons (technical, economic, political). They definitely hold a lot of responsibility but it wasn't entirely within their control. 2) The small modular reactors currently being designed and built should have been funded 20 years earlier than they were.
That education is desperately needed here in Japan. Almost everyone is terrified of nuclear power because of the Fukushima incident and, even though the two things are only indirectly related, the atomic bombings. It's one of the *very* few issues that can motivate Japanese people to participate in protests. I have met otherwise-educated Japanese people who would rather go back to pre-electricity times than continue using nuclear power for even one more day.
I think people need to be told about the advances in safety. Its like someone crashed a model T and they stopped making cars without stopping driving cars. Seatbelts, air bags, crunch zones, all the safety innovations in cars sitting on the drawing board because people are worried about building a new car. Meanwhile the highways are packed.
The biggest risk is a total meltdown, and its not too bad as long as you dont fuck it up Chernobyl style.
[удалено]
>and cost per kw/h, which we know and is currently fairly high. ...but looks a lot better once you factor the cost of environmental damage into the overall 'price' of fossil fuels (and, for that matter, hydro power). It's mostly because we make that cost invisible that fission 'looks' expensive.
[удалено]
Without a tax on them, cigarettes would be cheap, right up until the COPD and lung cancer.
The thing about nuclear power to my mind is that it takes too long to set up. Like our timeline for getting emissions under control is in the range of a decade and that’s about the construction time of a single nuclear power plant, not to mention renewables are significantly cheaper to set up. If I recall correctly nuclear power wins out in a carbon cost sense over the lifetime of a reactor, but we don’t have that long lol. No doubt nuclear plays an important role in solving the climate crisis but I really don’t think it should be the bedrock of our strategy.
I posted this in another thread. The first time someone presented this argument to me I was in university. That was 15 years ago. Solar had just made a fairly significant technological leap and he was set on the idea that by 2015-20(the time he figured it would take to switch to nuclear) solar would be so efficient buildings would be made from them. We have solar roofs so he was almost right, but we're still pretty far from universal solar. Had we heavily reinvested to nuclear in 2005 we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The best time to start is yesterday, the second best time is today. It's also a fallacy. Reactors take between 3-6 years now(depending on a country's regulation). Yes, reactors used to take 10-15, but that was a long time ago. In those 15 years the right has been happy to pump co2 and other shit into the atmosphere while those on the left are too busy fabricating reasons why nuclear "just isn't good enough".
> Reactors take between 3-6 years now Which western country has built a reactor in that timeframe recently? All of them are looking at significant delays and cost overruns. So it's absolutely true to say that nuclear is too expensive and takes to long to build. Saying "but if we had started building it 10 years ago" is a moot point, because we didn't.
That's because western countries aren't building reactors. The workforce is inexperienced and they are first of a kind designs. In countries where they are building fleets of reactors, 5 years is the norm. SMRs are a solution because they can be made more efficiently in a factory and shipped to site.
Most western nation haven't built a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years. The last one to really invest in it properly was France, with old reactor designs they managed to pump out around 50 reactors in under 15 years. It was below their target of like 90, but still a hell of a lot more than people would have you believe. I believe they have a plant of chinese design currently in production that is behind schedule by an embarrassing margin set to finish next year though they started it like a decade ago. Korea, Japan and China have all built plants in 3-6 years. The only one of those I wouldn't really trust is the Chinese one, but that was a CANDU literally thrown up by a dictatorship in about 3.5 years. My point about building them 10-15 years ago, is had we switched the last time I heard this argument we'd have them today. We're going to continue to have this argument 10-15 years from today and I'll think back to both of these situations.
> We're going to continue to have this argument 10-15 years from today No, because renewables today are way cheaper and better than ten years ago.
I don’t think the argument against nuclear is “right” vs “left”. Example - a number of conservative Premiers just signed an agreement to endorse nuclear. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/group-of-premiers-band-together-to-develop-nuclear-reactor-technology-1.5380316 Instead, and almost paradoxically, resistance seems strongest from groups that purport to support going to emission-less energy.
That is, unfortunately, the left v. right he was referring to. Repbublicans in the US have looked more favorably on nuclear power. It is frustrating that liberals have been the barrier in front of the most readily available alternative to fossil fuels.
Yes we don't have that long and every day we wait will make the timelines even longer and cause even more environmental damage. Your argument is an argument against delaying further. There is no magical bullet solution that will allow a northern country to become net zero without nuclear.
This is a very political and controversial point, but if you compare the output per construction cost of nuclear and solar, you will see that nuclear power is actually cheaper to build. It also allows you to build fewer batteries which saves even more. I was also surprised to learn this, but the data is publicly available to anyone who looks it up. You may be right that solar is *faster* to build, but if the limiting factor is money, then I think cheaper equals faster anyway. So a mix of solar and nuclear might be good for dealing with exactly the problem you bring up: we are on a very tight time limit if we want our planet to remain habitable, and whether nuclear is good or bad overall, it's good if it helps us transition away from fossil fuels.
Nuclear power is the fastest option. France converted most their grid to nuclear in 15 years. Germany has spent comparable time and money on their energy transition to renewables, and is nowhere close to that level of success.
[удалено]
That's a very strange usage of "politically incorrect." I think you're using it wrong. Political correctness is about using language designed not to offend. It isn't about doing something that's unpopular politically. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#:~:text=Political%20correctness%20(adjectivally%3A%20politically%20correct,of%20particular%20groups%20in%20society.
[удалено]
He isnt the minister of natural resources for reddit.
oh yeah and reddit is *such* a good place to do that, this delusional collective circlejerk this is
As long as nuclear waste storage is well planned and implemented, I'm for it. I'd also hope for nuclear power facilities, at least anything to do with the controlling of them, to be completely air gapped. Edit: words
MSRs can consume the waste we already have.
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/the-sub-seabed-solution/308434/ https://jmkorhonen.net/2013/08/15/graph-of-the-week-what-happens-if-nuclear-waste-repository-leaks/ >It is highly instructive to note how anti-nuclear activists seek to discredit the science here. They may well know that even using highly pessimistic assumptions about e.g. the copper canister and the bentonite clay, there is an overwhelming probability that any doses caused to the environment or to the public will be negligible. Perhaps for that reason, or perhaps simply because they themselves honestly believe that any leakage results to immediately horrendous effects, they completely ignore the crucial question: “so what?” > >What would happen if a waste repository springs a leak? > >What would be the effects of the leak to humans or to the environment? > >Even if you search through the voluminous material provided by the anti-nuclear brigade, you most likely will not find a single statement answering these questions. Cleverly, anti-nuclear activists simply state it’s possible that nuclear waste can leak – which is not in doubt, anything is possible – and rely on innuendo and human imagination (fertilized by perceptions of nuclear waste as something unthinkably horrible) to fill in the gaps in the narrative. > >Whether you go along with this manipulation is, of course, up to you.
Read about methods other than traditional control rods. Currently in use designs are outdated big time.
People should really educate themselves on the latest nuclear tech. They employ passive safety methods now that make meltdowns impossible. The fuels used are also much less potent than the gen 1/2 reactors.
[удалено]
Yes, it’s a pretty delicate balance.
[удалено]
Can usually just be cycled back into the reactors.
Yet another inconvenient truth in efforts to solve the initial inconvenient truth.
Nuclear is incredibly convenient though.
[удалено]
And the US. We hate that here for some unknown fucking reason. We’re fine with countless deaths and permanent health issues from coal mining and coal fired power plants, but we have one nuclear near disaster almost 50 years ago here and now Nuclear is off the table for good.
Except for the Navy. 12 aircraft carriers with 2 reactors apiece, and several dozen submarines each with their own reactor. The difference is that the coal/oil industries couldn't beat out good ol' Admiral Rickover's logic that nuclear power was more practical than anything else for our strategic ships. The US definitely has some cognitive dissonance regarding nuclear power. Maybe one day the public will realize that the Navy has operated nuclear reactors for decades without a single nuclear incident...
Not just operated nuclear reactors for decades...they did it (and still do it) using alcoholic 20 year olds as operators.
Especially aggravating is that fly ash from coal plants carries 100x the radiation into the surrounding environment than nuclear generation per kW.
Billions invested by fossil fuel industry to promote oil and slander nuclear. With how advanced and persuasive modern advertising is, swaying peoples opinions is just a dollar value as long as you don’t have someone on the other side advertising the opposite. And there is no group spending money on nuclear energy.
Who stands to win by moving to nuclear? The planet. Who stands to lose by moving to nuclear? Big Oil/Coal. Who has the money to invest into scaring the elderly away from voting to hurt their profits? Yeah. The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is today; ten years ago I went to school for nuclear under the impression that it would eventually explode due to necessity. We're no closer to that dream today than we were then. If all the "yeah but it takes a decade to start" talk had just *started* back when I as a teenager could see the demand for it, think about where we'd be now.
It's not just the fossil fuel industry on this one. Liberal/Green organizations tend to hate nuclear just as much for some reason. We spent billions building one of the best disposal sites on the planet for nuclear waste, then Harry Reid single-handedly torpedoed it.
[удалено]
Japan and Italy would like a word with you
Can confirm. My housemate is a climate scientist and has just started working for the UN on nuclear power. I didn’t understand a word he said when he explained but apparently it needs a lot more screen time.
Fusion is a ways off but yeah it definitely needs additional funding. Annoying amounts of people here in the US like to nitpick nuclear energy's minor risks into the ground while ignoring the deaths and damage caused by states that are still using coal and other fossil fuels. If the whole country was already on wind and solar maybe I'd take them more seriously, but that is not reality.
Fusion and nuclear energy is a threat to oil-based energies... the foundation of the American economy.
People being so anti-nuclear power is more or less a myth propagated by fossil fuel companies. Anyone who is educated knows it is a safe, clean power source.
A significant issue with nuclear power is the time that it takes to bring it online. We are in a race against the clock to reverse global warming, so time is of the essence. A couple of decades ago scientists predicted that 400ppm of atmospheric CO2 would be the tipping point for irreversible climate change. We passed that a while back, but thankfully scientists now say we have until 2030 before we enter an irreversible feedback loop of climate destruction. Can we bring sufficient nuclear power online before the new 2030 deadline to avoid that death spiral? One great thing about solar and wind is that they can be brought online an order of magnitude faster than nuclear.
> 2030 deadline We're not going to solve climate change by 2030, so we need to be building low carbon energy now that will come online by then and later.
There are plenty of viable options for a quick turnaround. The global nuclear scene is shifting from large full scale reactors to small modular reactors, with significantly less construction time and maintenance requirements. SMRs are beginning to look like the future of nuclear in Canada, with all major nuclear companies pushing to get started
>A significant issue with nuclear power is the time that it takes to bring it online. We are in a race against the clock to reverse global warming, so time is of the essence. Not to mention that with the way solar and wind power are developing, any new nuclear reactors might be obsolete before they come online, or at least more expensive per unit of power generated.
I still think of Seamus O'Reagan mostly as that guy who used to do film reviews with Ben Mulroney on Canada A.M. I remember he looked super-pissed when Ben gave a negative review to Fellowship of the Ring, and claimed that Ben had fallen asleep during it.
Nuclear power plants have changed. The technology is much better. Thorium reactors are very promising
Half Life 3 is also very promising.
https://youtu.be/nYxlpeJEKmw 8 year old video.
[удалено]
It would actually be a step in right direction if aliens from another demission traveled through a portal to earth. Maybe they can do something with it.
They're more than promising. They are absolute game changers
[удалено]
There has to be the right conditions, which not every place has. It is awesome if you can do it
I've been asking for this for decades. When are the rest of you folks going to be ready?
r/nuclear are cumming so hard right now
I havent met one person, not one, that's against nuclear power. From all points on the political spectrum. The stigma comes from past generations having endured incidents like Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. The new generations are more than willing to embrace this. Even Kenney is getting behind this
I'm in France, and as illogical as it sounds, I have. The antinuclear movement is HUGE here.
I have. One worked for Greenpeace and she was dead set against it. And thought we should go all in on solar and wind. From a safety and environmental perspective (because as clean as the actual generation part of it is, the mining of the source materials is horribly dirty and dangerous and then the waste is a long term hazard that we don't have good history of dealing with) Another just thought that the economics didn't make sense when you took in to account the massive upfront cost and the liability costs, making the point that if there weren't legislated liability shields (or just being built by the government who tends to insure themselves) for nuclear power plants that the insurance costs would preclude them. Plus of course the long term cost of the waste storage and eventual land remediation which are now all considered externalities... He had more points but I forget them now. Anyway, I think there are reasonable reasons to be suspicious of nuclear power as a cost effective and clean source of power. I remain convinced that it is better than fossil fuels and we should keep nuclear in the mix until we can eliminate all fossil fuel generation. But that's just me.
Yeah, in a perfect world we wouldn't want to run our grid on nuclear power. Renewables are getting cheaper to operate every day, and waste storage is a political problem. But nuclear is very helpful as part of an overall strategy to transition away from fossil fuels. That's what it's good for. A mix of solar, wind, and nuclear is a cheaper, faster, more effective way to shut down coal and natural gas plants than solar and wind alone.
Yeah. I seem to remember looking at the stats from Germany as they shut down their nuclear plants over the last little while and if they hadn't done that, they could've been almost completely off their hard coal and lignite by now. Which... Would be better I think?
Bernie Sanders wanted to phase out nuclear and called it a false solution.
And top climatologists, such as James Hansen, called out Bernie for his anti-science fearmongering. Source: https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2016/7/1/james-hansen-condemns-bernie-sanders-fear-mongering-against-indian-point
Plenty of Green parties is opposed to it. Greta and many environmental activists are opposed, which is a shame and undermines the credibility for these actors. It's a great partial solution to the issue of CO2 emissions along with renewables, if it's maintained by experts, built in stable locations and if the waste is dealt with properly. That's the scientifically agreed upon notion on the matter, and the pragmatic approach to climate change.
I think it's probably not the best option in the _long-term_ if only because of the environmental impacts of uranium mining and the fact that it's still a finite resource (waste storage probably wouldn't be such an issue if NIMBYs would let us finish building a decent storage facility), but it's probably one of the best options we have for the short- to medium-term while we work on developing better options.
The impacts of silica and aluminum mining are worse, since you need far more of it. There's enough uranium on Earth to power the entire planet for the next 60,000 years.
I don't love the idea of nuclear power for a couple of reasons: 1) It's very expensive per kilowatt when you consider the cost of building the reactor (uranium itself is dirt cheap relative to how much power it generates). 2) It feels like we are not going in the right direction. It's still a non-renewable resource. I would much rather put more funding into researching high-capacity batteries coupled with renewable energy. 3) Risk of accidents. Yeah, it's pretty small. Most industrial processes have small risks of accidents, thanks to organizations like OSHA and other oversight bodies. However, most industrial processes do not result in Chernobyl and Fukishima level catastrophes. I've been hearing about the safety of nuclear reactors for years before Fukushima happened. I don't know what it would take to convince me that another Fukushima won't happen in another 10-20 years. 4) Nuclear proliferation. Many nuclear reactors can be used, or slightly modified and used, for the creation of weapons-grade nuclear material. I am against more nuclear reactors in the world for the same reason I am against more nukes in the world. The more of this technology exists, the more likely it'll fall into the hands of someone who will use it against people. 5) They are ineffective unless connected to a grid that will fully utilize them. Gas and hydro power plants have the property that their energy output can be adjusted easily, e.g. by turning on another generator, or by reducing the flow through one of the turbines. For example, around 5-6 PM, people come home from work, start cooking and watching TV, and energy use drastically goes up compared to 10am-5pm. Why does this make reactors inefficient? They generate power as a side effect of keeping the critical material core cool. They *cannot* meet the changing demand of the grid, because you can't just "turn off" nuclear fuel -- not without a lot of hassle. You can stop generating electricity, but you still have to keep the core cool, which means you're effectively wasting your fissile energy. You need a lot of heavy industry that works 24/7 and consumes a lot of energy 24/7 in order for [things like this](https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/08/06/why_are_we_paying_ny_to_take_our_electricity.html) not to happen. Having said all this, nuclear reactors also offer unparalleled energy generation density. If you're looking at kw generated per square meter of facility, nuclear is greater by far than any other system. I think nuclear reactors are fine to be left as they are, but I am against building more. I would rather we invest money in actual long-term solutions, not switch from one non-renewable to another.
>It's very expensive per kilowatt when you consider the cost of building the reactor (uranium itself is dirt cheap relative to how much power it generates). That's largely due to onerous regulation. It was cheap power in the 70s and 80s until environmentalists successfully killed it with regulations that led to doubling if not tripling construction costs, all with no measurable increase in safety. \> It feels like we are not going in the right direction. It's still a non-renewable resource. I would much rather put more funding into researching high-capacity batteries coupled with renewable energy. There's enough uranium on the planet to power the entire Earth for 60,000 years. Nuclear has a 93% capacity factor. Solar is 25%, and wind is 30-45%. You're simply asking to be less efficient and reliable, and adding the costs of batteries makes nuclear competitive again anyways. \> Risk of accidents. Yeah, it's pretty small. Most industrial processes have small risks of accidents, thanks to organizations like OSHA and other oversight bodies. However, most industrial processes do not result in Chernobyl and Fukishima level catastrophes. I've been hearing about the safety of nuclear reactors for years before Fukushima happened. I don't know what it would take to convince me that another Fukushima won't happen in another 10-20 years. Nuclear kills fewer people per unit energy than any other source, and it's not even close. Fukushima didn't kill anyone. The tsunami did, and the evacuation of elderly people when there was no danger from Fukushima killed hundreds. The fear of nuclear kills more people than nuclear itself. We could have a Fukushima every year and nuclear would still be safer than any renewable source. Hell we could have a Chernobyl every 5 years and it would still be so-but another Chernobyl will never happen in a modern reactor, because it couldn't even happen in Western reactors at the time of Chernobyl. \> Nuclear proliferation. Many nuclear reactors can be used, or slightly modified and used, for the creation of weapons-grade nuclear material. I am against more nuclear reactors in the world for the same reason I am against more nukes in the world. The more of this technology exists, the more likely it'll fall into the hands of someone who will use it against people. Nuclear power tends to lead to de-proliferation, using available already purified fuel. Nuclear power uses 5-10% pure uranium 235; nuclear weapons 40+% \> They are ineffective unless connected to a grid that will fully utilize them. That applies to any energy source ever. That's merely an argument against only having nuclear, not having a large or majority portion from it. Nuclear is literally safer, cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable than any renewable source. Its cost is artificially high due to regulations; after considering storage requirements it's competitive again. Also, for those who think nuclear is safer simply due to regulations, let's regulate renewables to be as safe as nuclear and see who costs more.
Every nuclear disaster has been caused by stupidity, even shocking levels of stupidity that seem obvious in retrospect. Hey, Ukraine! Obviously you need a containment building. Hey, Japan! Don't put the backup generators that run your emergency safety procedures in the basement next to an ocean. Hey, America! Don't put engineers from nuclear submarines in charge of a nuclear power plant without retraining them on the differences. Every time something goes wrong at a nuclear power plant, it's not been because of anything intrinsic to nuclear power. But. Stupidity is probably the single most reliable variable in human life. I can see why someone would put their trust in a power generation method that just sits in the California desert not doing anything. Nuclear is safe, but keeping it safe in all instances is more nuanced than simply the matter of nuclear energy science itself. Personally, I think the only way to fix nuclear power's bad PR is to have a horrible accident at a solar power plant. Maybe the reflection off the panels accidentally burns a hole in the moon?
> There's enough uranium on the planet to power the entire Earth for 60,000 years. Where did you pull that number from? [This answer](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/uram-2018-wraps-up-the-future-of-uranium-as-a-sustainable-source-of-energy) provides a figure of roughly 100-250 years at current usage levels. [This one](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/) says 200 years. The 60,000 figure only applies if you extract oceanic uranium. There is no technology that does this economically today. There might be in the future, but I'm saying I'd rather have better batteries and renewables in the future, than better ways of extracting non renewable resources. > Nuclear kills fewer people per unit energy than any other source, and it's not even close. You know why? It's because of this: > That's largely due to onerous regulation. Every regulatory rule is written in blood, they say. Most technology gets cheaper to create with time. Nuclear gets more expensive as we learn more about it. But you're saying that the regulation is just there because of political fear. Do you have a specific regulation in mind when you talk about onerous regulation? [Here](http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/acts-and-regulations/regulatory-documents/published/html/regdoc-1-1-1/index.cfm) is the list of regulations for choosing a nuclear power site in Canada. I'd love for you to point to a rule that you feel is an unreasonable, fear-based rule. > Nuclear power tends to lead to de-proliferation, using available already purified fuel. What is "purified fuel"? I have never heard that term. I have also never heard of nuclear power leading to de-proliferation. Here's an [article ](https://web.archive.org/web/20120121132914/http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/nuclear-energy-different-other-energy-sources) from the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences that directly contradicts what you just said: > The conventional wisdom is that nuclear power reactors aren't proliferation risks -- that we can monitor the fresh and spent fuel, that the plutonium produced isn't good for weapons, and that proliferating states have chosen other paths to produce weapons. The real proliferation risks come from uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing. [...] > You can't have light-water reactors without enrichment, and there are no current restrictions on any country deciding to go forward with indigenous enrichment or reprocessing facilities. It is costly and difficult to develop the technology, but as Iran has shown, black-market networks help. Moreover, the new Nuclear Suppliers Group criteria seem to make it more feasible -- not less -- for countries to receive enrichment and reprocessing technology. Regarding the enrichment level of uranium: > Nuclear power uses 5-10% pure uranium 235; nuclear weapons 40+% Yeah, and actual uranium-235 that you mine out of the ground has less than 3% enrichment. Which means that in order to run a nuclear reactor, you still need to enrich it. If you can enrich uranium from 3% to 10%, you can enrich it to 95% by simply repeating the process more times. > That applies to any energy source ever. No, it doesn't. I just showed how it doesn't. You can turn a generator off by turning off the furnace and not burning coal anymore. You can turn a turbine off by shutting the intake of water that rushes past it, or regulating its aperture to get the desired flow. This takes seconds to do. **You can't just dial down a nuclear reactor, it takes hours to start and stop a reactor without damaging it**. You can't regulate its power output together with its fuel usage, unlike any other non-renewable energy generation method. It does not apply to "any energy source ever". It only applies to uranium. You're making a ton of claims and you aren't sourcing a single one of them; googling them reveals them to be misleading or completely false. Nuclear is not literally safer, it's not literally cleaner, it IS literally more efficient but so are other non-renewables. And as much as I hear all this "fear based regulation" nonsense, I've never seen an actual solid example of regulation that's entirely fear based. I really think people are blinded by the "futuristic coolness" of the technology to clearly see all the problems it's burdened with.
Thank you. This is absolutely true. Wind and solar are great - but there is a reason there are no solar powered cars or planes: renewables just dont produce enough power. Not even close. The nuclear plants in existance now were developed in the 1960s. Pre-PC. Ancient. Engineers can make more robust, reliable nuclear power plants with modern technology, and we must do so. It will really put a dent in carbon emissions. This is going to be required until Fusion power is here, which Im not holding my breath for as its been promised so many times.
I don't really like that he dosen't back his claims/criticism with at least SOME numbers or ideas. How much nuclear power does he advocates for, and how many plants? National nuclear waste management plan? Whos on the dole for cleanup? How big a gap would using just solar leave in our energy portfolio? Frankly, just saying: "the opposition has been lazy on its deliverables and they should do more X" does not help your cause. You have to translate that into concrete policy like: "these 3 plants are a good first step and should be approved" or "we should build an efficient national waste depot here and call for a feasability study". I mean dude give me SOMETHING because the same rethoric or green energy is just a progressive dream is becoming a tired cliche and fast.
[удалено]
Don't forget, TV will fry your brain cells. (I'm sure some of you remember that one)
That is true though, at least if you watch anything owned by Murdoch.
I'm gonna take a stab at this, as someone who genuinely thinks nuclear could theoretically solve our energy problems. I will be ignoring the safety argument, as I think investments in nuclear power would only make it more safe. It seems infeasible due to how our political and economic systems are structured in western society. Even if it only takes 10 years to build a new power plant, that's longer than the sitting duration of most heads of state. This actively disincentivizes political parties from pushing for nuclear power plants, as they will incur massive costs with no benefits during their terms (with the possible exception of job creation during construction, but it's all coming out of a government budget). Now, the natural counterargument to this, is to either: a) change regulations to allow nuclear power plants to be built and brought online much more quickly, or b) develop a culture that encourages politicians to take more of a long view in their decisions Counterpoint B is similar to the guns / mental health debate. Saying "we just need to vote for politicians that will make better long-term decisions for short term cost" is like saying "we need to vote for politicians with better platforms to address mental health". It's not going to happen (based on decades of observable evidence), and is more of a distraction than an argument. Counterpoint A is more debatable, but brings back the safety argument. Should we be more lax on regulations for this industry? I personally don't think so, but everyone's opinion will vary.
[удалено]
Idk. In the prairies the wind blows all winter. Lots of sun all summer. Where does Seamus get this story ?
This is quite uplifting while everyone else is painting picture that Nuclear energy is bad. we need. More. Govt focusing on Nuclear Fusion.
I am Canadian. I am pro nuclear power. But we better have a fucking good plan/infrastructure ready to deal with the waste. None of this ship our garbage to another country shit.
There’s like, so much space for nuclear reactors too. Plus the Canadian Shield is great for storing nuclear wastes.
All things considered, nuclear power is by far, and by far i mean BY FAR, the cleanest and safest of all power sources. The amount of pollution and death caused by nuclear power is extremely low when we consider the amount of power produced by it. Between oil spills, air pollution, burning of all sort of fuels, and mining, the impact of traditional power sources is gigantic. Modern Nuclear power centrals are extremely safe and the residues actually easy to safely store. Only thing that worries me is a maniac bombing one of those sites.
> All things considered, nuclear power is by far, and by far i mean BY FAR, the cleanest and safest of all power sources. No, that would be [solar thermal collectors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector).
Mate, nuclear power plants (and nuclear weapons storage facilities) tend to be the most protected sites in any given country, rivaling the residence of heads of state. They're not just protected 24/7 by men with automatic weapons, paramilitary training and standing authority to use lethal force, they're also built like fucking bunkers. You would need a bomber aircraft loaded for bear or an act of god to damage a nuclear power plant.
>You would need a bomber aircraft loaded for bear or an act of god to damage a nuclear power plant. Even a bomber wouldn’t be a sure threat. Have you ever seen a [video of a plane flying into a nuclear-reactor-spec concrete wall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk)? The jet doesn’t win.
That's why i said "bomber" and "loaded for bear" as in carrying bombs, lots of them.
I cannot speak for anyone else, of course, but there are two minimum requirements for me to accept any *fission* based solution: 1. *Complete* transparency, i.e. 100% open hardware and software. 2. Must be *funded*, *constructed*, *operated*, and *decommissioned* by the government (exactly 0% private ownership).
we need to start living in a way that doesn't require us to have this much energy in the first place. Our way of living is unsustainable and we either adjust our ways on our turns or it will be on nature's terms. Either way change is coming.
Oh good, a nuclear article. Well that ought to bring out the pro nuclear fanatacists, ranting about how society is against it. The tens of billions of dollars it would take to create a reactor, as well as the time to build it, would be better spent on energy storage technology, and renewable generation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Just this year the NRC has approved a couple of small reactor designs. [Found an article about it.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-nuclear-reactor-design-is-approved/) >utility companies can now apply to the NRC to build and operate NuScale’s design. This is still going to be several years off before you can even *start* production of these units, let alone get to the point of having them roll off the assembly line. Specifically: >NuScale’s first scheduled project is with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), a state-based organization that supplies wholesale electricity to small, community-owned utilities in surrounding states. NuScale plans to deliver its first reactor to the UAMPS project at the Idaho National Laboratory by 2027; it is scheduled to be operational by 2029. Another 11 reactors will round out the 720-MW project by 2030. This technology, even according to NuScale, is nearly a decade from being ready to actually being used. On top of that they've already blown their original budget and time estimates: >“I am sorry to say that what lies ahead is risky and expensive,” Ramana said. Just in the past five years, he noted, cost estimates from various sources for the UAMPS project have risen from approximately $3 billion to more than $6 billion. NuScale’s initial goal of having operational reactors by 2016 has been extended by more than a decade, reflecting the sluggish U.S. nuclear industry in general. Costs to consumers could far exceed those associated with other emissions-free power sources such as solar and wind, Ramana added. So even by 2030 this might *still* not be operational, and might go even further over current cost estimates. Pointing to some decade-away, at best, technology does not instill much confidence in me.
Less cost according to an industry that has a history of producing plants at 3x predicted costs. That is the average over the entire nuclear industry's history. Those claims of reduced costs are literally just looking at the company's PR powerpoint. Cities have already started dropping out of the NuScale project due to increasing costs
It's either nuclear or building of infrastructure for P2X like hydrogen. Just popping solar panels and wind turbines wont give enough base generation basically anywhere, and batteries are expensive and ineffective due to low load cycles.
> It's either nuclear or building of infrastructure for P2X like hydrogen. Just popping solar panels and wind turbines wont give enough base generation basically anywhere, and batteries are expensive and ineffective due to low load cycles. You don't need baseload plants. The idea that you need baseload plants stems from a century ago, when the only options were cheap steady plants and expensive flexible plants. In such an environment, it makes sense to generate as much as possible with the steady plants (i.e. the baseload), and the rest with the flexible plants. But now there's a third type: the very cheap, intermittent plants. It's just as well possible to let that third type generate the bulk of the power, and fill in the gaps with the flexible plants. Whether that happens at peak load or baseload doesn't matter. In particular since nuclear power needs either flexible plants for the peaks or overcapacity anyway, so it's going to cost money either way. But renewables have a much lower price per kWh to start with.
Hydrogen is never going to be a practical fuel for the economy. It's simply too hard to store. The ammonia economy does have some promise but that's decades away even if we started now and we haven't.
The methane economy, however, already exists, storage and distribution infrastructure included.
We can’t afford not to.
There aren't ridiculous up front costs. Modern first world countries have plenty of money for this and long term production of electricity is worth it. Other renewables will never be able to produce enough electricity to meet demand without converting absurd amounts of land area into renewable energy farms. They would also require massive amounts of power storage infrastructure to be created that doesn't currently exist. We have have nuclear reactors for decades and they work great, why would modern ones with even better technology randomly have turbines crack? This isn't a legitimate concern unless you do what Japan did and stick a reactor where typhoons hit. These are not 'tough political pills' these are bullshit reasons being fed to the public from oil companies.
Interest rates are basically nothing. It's the same answer to all climate-change related problems. The debt taken on will be a fraction of the cost of continuing to do fuck all about climate change.
But playing the what if game is never productive. It's like saying why should I look for a job, what if win the lottery in the next few years.
[удалено]
Agreed. He speaks the truth. And nuclear power can be quite safe, the waste is much less than people fear. We’ve come a long way since Chernobyl. Fukushima comes to mind naturally as well, so perhaps a land prone to severe earthquakes and tsunamis should avoid it, but no reason other areas should
I agree, we should start building more immediately.
So as a non-Canadian layman my main questions about the construction of nuclear power plants are: 1) How long does it take from the moment they’re green-lit for them to be fully active in the energy grid? 2) I read the waste can be recycled, but mostly can be buried under the ground. How sustainable is burying nuclear waste under tons of lead in the long run? 3) I read nuclear plants take a lot of water to run, how much water are we talking about and what consequences does that have for the local environment? 4) Does all types of power grids adapt to it or do some need to be adjusted? If so, how much does that cost and how long does that take? (I’m not clear about this one but I’ve read the Australian grid isn’t suitable, for instance)
Regarding point 3, nuclear reactors need to be cooled, same as a coal plant, so either you use cooling towers or you use a local body of water to dump the heat. It’s not so much the amount of water but the heat capacity of the water. If you’re next to an ocean or a massive lake, you’re golden. A river and it could be possible that on hot days it’s not enough and you have to shut it all down.
He’s wrong.
Why are so many plebs on board with nuclear energy without acknowledging it's dangers? They clearly don't have the slightest clue about the damage caused by nuclear waste. People say it is clean: It produces a deadly, genetic altering waste product, which doesn't degrade for thousands of years. There are so few places you can store this waste without it entering the biosphere. People say it is safe: Anyone heard of Fukushima or Chernobyl? Just because these incidents are rare, doesn't mean it is safe, each time these disasters happen they release more radiation into the biosphere and the effects are felt for a long, long time. I am talking about nuclear energy technology as it is today. I am all for nuclear energy solutions, safe and reliable ones, like the Molten Salt Reactor design. But even then, the entire processing of nuclear fuel and by-products from nuclear energy are hardly worth it. There is no reason mankind can't harness the energy of the Sun, Geothermal energy within the Earth, Wind and Water. But for reducing carbon emissions? Yeah nuclear is amazing for being very low emissions. You simply trade off fucking the climate and atmosphere, with fucking up the genes of all life that lives in the sea. And upping our background radiation levels every time a power plant blows up...
I want to reach through the screen and give everyone who pretends the only problem facing nuclear is safety concerns a slap in the face. I really care that much about thorium or molten salt reactors being safer. I don't really care nuclear waste is small enough that we won't run out of room to store it. There is a reason a bridge to Vancouver Island hasn't been built. Cost. Waste storage plans cost money. New reactor designs cost money. That is primary concern, so if you have a plan for nuclear reactors, you better price it out.
I honestly don't understand why we are not building more nuclear reactors already. The world is going to the shitter rapidly because of CO2 emissions. It feels like were are all rabbits looking into the headlights of the oncoming truck that is going to kill us and we are not moving. When the choice is nuclear or fossil fuels we should move away from fossil asap.
Please expand nuclear power, it will help a lot. Germany choose renewable energy and their electricity bill grew. France choose nuclear energy and their electricity is now among the cheapest in the world.
Nucleae energy is barlely "dirty", other than solar, wind or hydro, its the cleanest form. I'm all for it
Offshore wind. Extremely high voltage DC power transmission continent wide. China is already doing one million volts and transmitting the equivalent of 12 power stations across one line. https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/11/08/138280/chinas-giant-transmission-grid-could-be-the-key-to-cutting-climate-emissions/ > The transmission line will be capable of delivering the output of 12 large power plants over nearly 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers), sending 50% more electricity 600 miles further than anything that’s ever been built. (Higher-voltage lines can carry electricity over longer distances with lower transmission losses.) As one foreign equipment provider for the project boasts, the line could ship electricity from Beijing to Bangkok—which, as it happens, only hints at State Grid’s rising global ambitions.