Nuclear was the best solution in the 70s. If we had built all the plants then, we wouldn’t be in our current mess.
Today, the economics don’t make any sense. Energy from a fission plant is much more expensive than from renewables+storage, and nuclear plants that are operating often have to be curtailed in summer (when energy need is high) due to a lack of cooling water. The timeline to build a new plant is decades - far too late to make a difference if we started now.
There would also have to be global trust for literally every country to be operating multiple nuclear reactors, which does not exist today and likely never will. The odds that the US simply allows most of Sub-Saharan Africa - currently ruled by a set of characters ranging from (in the State Department’s view) dictators to Jihadists - operational control over advanced nuclear technology do not look very strong.
It still requires mining. It requires a plan to dispose of waste (which only ONE country actually has). There are over 600 mines that are in need of remediation around the world that haven’t been accomplished, with at least a hundred waste sites that are still not remediated.
Which leads to the single best reason to avoid nuclear: Nobody is responsible enough yet. In most countries that can afford to do it, it will go to the lowest bidder to operate and run and we can see that governments and wars come and go. Humans are shit at being responsible, particularly when money or power is dangled in front of them.
Solar is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy with the most recyclable materials.
I’m typically pro-nuclear, but there are legitimate problems with it:
Waste disposal - We STILL haven’t made a good solution for storing nuclear waste in most places.
Cost overruns - Nuclear projects almost always run over their budgets by 10-30% or more.
That said, I’m of the opinion that it should be a part of our energy mix, given it’s reliability in producing consistent power. I think we should prioritize wind and solar, but for our overnight and non-windy days, nuclear is a great way to fill the gap.
Waste disposal - We STILL haven’t made a good solution for storing nuclear waste in most places.
Waste disposal can be pretty much ignored for new projects. We already have waste to store for thousands of years and the actual volume of said waste is so small that doubling it wouldn’t matter much for long term storage. Our politicians just need to get their shit together and actually build something to store waste.
I think we should prioritize wind and solar, but for our overnight and non-windy days, nuclear is a great way to fill the gap.
Nuclear is really bad for that. Nuclear power plants need to run as close to 100% uptime as possible to be even remotely economically viable and would still be the most expensive energy source by far.
So you either have them running 24/7, always delivering the same lets say 50% of our required power and you switch off wind turbines / solar panels during the day.
Or you only turn their output up when its needed, which then increases the price per kWh upwards of 1€.
I meant run nuclear at 100% all of the time and have it be a mix-in for power, rather than making up for solar and wind dropping off. My wording was poor. With energy storage and natural gas power as an absolute last resort, we could eliminate almost all of our non-renewable power unless there is unexpected demand.
I’m not sure what you mean by storage being solved, but then saying we need to pass laws to solve it. Not sure what you mean there. Most nuclear plants store waste on site at the same location as the plant because there isn’t another option.
I saw a skit from wkuk saying that if some emergency made it impossible for the reactors to be tended to (in the skit is was societal collapse) they would melt down.
Idk how true this is but if true it be a risky vulnerability
To my knowledge, modern nuclear plants are designed to fail safely if faults are detected, but prolonged periods without staff monitoring the facility could be more risky. This one automatically regulates itself, and shuts down if any parameters are out of range, waiting for operator intervention to bring it back up. Every nuclear plant designer since Chernobyl has been very keen on safety.
Battery storage is inexpensive and getting less expensive every year now that non-American companies are doing R&D. America is stuck in fossil fuels and nuclear because corporate propaganda has indoctrinated too many people.
I’ve never understood the anti-nuclear movement. Let’s give up one of the cleanest and most efficient ways to generate energy because reasons?
I don’t support fission because I don’t like paying comically high amounts of electricity. I support power options because they’re the most practical, not because I get some weird retro-futuristic “our friend the atom” sexual kick out of it.
I’ve never understood the anti-nuclear movement. Let’s give up one of the cleanest and most efficient ways to generate energy because reasons?
Nuclear costs too much. Much much more than anything else.
It isn’t clean. Since when is radioactive disposal considered a clean activity?
That’s two reasons. The first one is the real reason.
Nuclear was the best solution in the 70s. If we had built all the plants then, we wouldn’t be in our current mess.
Today, the economics don’t make any sense. Energy from a fission plant is much more expensive than from renewables+storage, and nuclear plants that are operating often have to be curtailed in summer (when energy need is high) due to a lack of cooling water. The timeline to build a new plant is decades - far too late to make a difference if we started now.
There would also have to be global trust for literally every country to be operating multiple nuclear reactors, which does not exist today and likely never will. The odds that the US simply allows most of Sub-Saharan Africa - currently ruled by a set of characters ranging from (in the State Department’s view) dictators to Jihadists - operational control over advanced nuclear technology do not look very strong.
Really? I think its pretty simple.
It still requires mining. It requires a plan to dispose of waste (which only ONE country actually has). There are over 600 mines that are in need of remediation around the world that haven’t been accomplished, with at least a hundred waste sites that are still not remediated.
Which leads to the single best reason to avoid nuclear: Nobody is responsible enough yet. In most countries that can afford to do it, it will go to the lowest bidder to operate and run and we can see that governments and wars come and go. Humans are shit at being responsible, particularly when money or power is dangled in front of them.
Solar is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy with the most recyclable materials.
I’m typically pro-nuclear, but there are legitimate problems with it:
That said, I’m of the opinion that it should be a part of our energy mix, given it’s reliability in producing consistent power. I think we should prioritize wind and solar, but for our overnight and non-windy days, nuclear is a great way to fill the gap.
Waste disposal can be pretty much ignored for new projects. We already have waste to store for thousands of years and the actual volume of said waste is so small that doubling it wouldn’t matter much for long term storage. Our politicians just need to get their shit together and actually build something to store waste.
Nuclear is really bad for that. Nuclear power plants need to run as close to 100% uptime as possible to be even remotely economically viable and would still be the most expensive energy source by far.
So you either have them running 24/7, always delivering the same lets say 50% of our required power and you switch off wind turbines / solar panels during the day. Or you only turn their output up when its needed, which then increases the price per kWh upwards of 1€.
I meant run nuclear at 100% all of the time and have it be a mix-in for power, rather than making up for solar and wind dropping off. My wording was poor. With energy storage and natural gas power as an absolute last resort, we could eliminate almost all of our non-renewable power unless there is unexpected demand.
I’m not sure what you mean by storage being solved, but then saying we need to pass laws to solve it. Not sure what you mean there. Most nuclear plants store waste on site at the same location as the plant because there isn’t another option.
I saw a skit from wkuk saying that if some emergency made it impossible for the reactors to be tended to (in the skit is was societal collapse) they would melt down.
Idk how true this is but if true it be a risky vulnerability
To my knowledge, modern nuclear plants are designed to fail safely if faults are detected, but prolonged periods without staff monitoring the facility could be more risky. This one automatically regulates itself, and shuts down if any parameters are out of range, waiting for operator intervention to bring it back up. Every nuclear plant designer since Chernobyl has been very keen on safety.
Battery storage is inexpensive and getting less expensive every year now that non-American companies are doing R&D. America is stuck in fossil fuels and nuclear because corporate propaganda has indoctrinated too many people.
I don’t support fission because I don’t like paying comically high amounts of electricity. I support power options because they’re the most practical, not because I get some weird retro-futuristic “our friend the atom” sexual kick out of it.
I think nuclear is fine but no interference of government. No promised price. No insurance no plant. Those 2 points destroy nuclear completely.
And by the way if you give out solar panels for free by the government solar would be even cheaper!
it was an astrotuf campaign made by fossil companies and environmentalists fell for it