Random Thread

[Travis B.]

Nuclear power is dangerous. It creates millenia-old nuclear waste. It's not renewable and so not durable either: it depends on mining uranium, associated with many health hazards: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201047/ And the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was saved from causing further damage by courageous firefighters, and is still dangerous, especially currently the control of Putin.

For energy, we ought to reduce usage to what is actually useful, as well as switching to renewables.

It is true that both nuclear power and fossil fuels are not renewable, yes. About waste, though, the waste generated by nuclear power, while lasting millenia, is very small and self-contained in the bigger scheme of things, while the waste generated by fossil fuels is spread throughout out entire atmosphere and even our water. And yes, there are hazards associated with uranium mining, but I suspect these could be mitigated by either supplying the miners with closed breathing apparatuses or by phasing out miners altogether and doing the mining robotically.

[WeepingElf]

Nuclear power is dangerous. It creates millenia-old nuclear waste. It's not renewable and so not durable either: it depends on mining uranium, associated with many health hazards: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201047/ And the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was saved from causing further damage by courageous firefighters, and is still dangerous, especially currently the control of Putin.

For energy, we ought to reduce usage to what is actually useful, as well as switching to renewables.

Also, nuclear power plants slow down the transition to renewable energy because they clog the grid with power, such that wind and solar power plants have to go offline even though the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. Under such conditions, nobody invests in them. And no, nuclear power plants can't fill the gap when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining because they take days to power up.

[hwhatting]

That is correct. Luckily, Germany's nuclear capacity was low enough that it was able to replace the loss with the new solar and wind power they were building at the time. But coal, oil, and gas usage has remained stable, and I have to assume it would be easier to use less of that if you were building solar and wind and still had the nuclear power that was already built.

Either way, nuclear power is good. I'm not sorry. Hail Satan.

Ok, I thought that's what you meant, just wanted to be sure.
Germany isn't exactly tansitioning away from green energy - it's transitioning towards certain forms of green which don't include nuclear, namely renewables. This transition is being done in a overly complicated and expensive manner that is typical for a lot of things in Germany, and that the transition through gas has been upended by geoplolitics could have been predicted (many people warned successive German governments against putting so many eggs into Putin's basket), but describing it as a transition away from green energy is not a correct descriprion. The fact that nuclear energy doesn't contribute to global warning doesn't make it green.
In any case, the current government has looked at keeping the existing nuclear stations running longer, but their operators have already told them that this isn't really viable beyond 1-2 years; they have been run down already too far. Building new ones would take decades, so it makes more sense to keep adding solar and wind capacity during that period and buy French nuclear power (which we have been doing anyway, nuclear hypocrites that we are).

[Travis B.]

The fact that nuclear energy doesn't contribute to global warning doesn't make it green.

It's still damn better than coal and natural gas.

[hwhatting]

The fact that nuclear energy doesn't contribute to global warning doesn't make it green.

It's still damn better than coal and natural gas.

As I said above, the status of the nuclear power infrastructure in Germany seems to be such that it cannot be easily brought back or extended long-term. So better to invest in renewables and battery storage than in re-building a nuclear infrastructure that leaves you with even more waste while we still haven't found a permanent solution for the existing one.

[Travis B.]

The fact that nuclear energy doesn't contribute to global warning doesn't make it green.

It's still damn better than coal and natural gas.

As I said above, the status of the nuclear power infrastructure in Germany seems to be such that it cannot be easily brought back or extended long-term. So better to invest in renewables and battery storage than in re-building a nuclear infrastructure that leaves you with even more waste while we still haven't found a permanent solution for the existing one.

From that perspective it makes sense to not continue nuclear power in Germany per se, yes.

[Moose-tache]

[redacted]

[Travis B.]

nuclear power is dangerous

Tell me you failed science class without telling me you failed science class.

Nuclear power is really only dangerous if you either A) majorly fuck up your reactor design (e.g. making the tips of the control rods out of graphite which... dun dun dun... happens to be a moderator) and don't bother to build a containment building and happen to carry out risky experiments because you can, all at the same time, or B) you build your plant right by the coast in a very tsunami-prone zone and don't bother to take into account, well, the possibility of a tsunami. Coal power plants put far more radioactivity into the environment each year than do nuclear power plants (yes, coal does contain radioactive material), something that anti-nuclear types are wont to forget.

[Moose-tache]

OK, let me be less flippant.

Every "issue" related to nuclear power has had nothing to do with nuclear power, and been solely caused by bureaucratic ineptitude. Give that ineptitude another technology, like coal or natural gas, and the result is much, much worse. Complaining about nuclear power is like complaining that the mask that stops you from getting Covid is itchy.

A mix of nuclear, wind, and solar is cheaper to build and perfectly safe. All opposition to it is based on false dichotomies, misplaced hippie cynicism about technology and modernism, and good old fashioned scientific illiteracy.

EDIT: Here is a list of common responses, and why I think they are wrong-headed.

"But solar is better." OK. Cool. Who cares? The comparison is nuclear vs fossil fuels. Nobody is arguing that we should shut down solar power plants and replace them with nuclear plants. The question is whether or not to include nuclear alongside solar and wind. The three together are cheaper than just the latter two.

"No way! Solar is so much cheaper!" No. Solar is cheaper to operate, but nuclear is cheaper to build, even before you factor in the cost of batteries. Construction costs are the limiting factor here, not the price paid by consumers. If, after we've halted CO2 emissions we decide to replace nuclear plants with solar panels to reduce operating costs, we have literally all the time in the world to do so.

"But muh nucular wayst!" This one is actually nonsense. Unstable isotopes are either high danger short half-life (like Neptunium 239) or low danger long half-life (most other waste products). The bulk of the waste that comes from a reactor complex is things like irradiated plastic gloves and other things that are pretty harmless as long as you're not rubbing your face directly on it. There is a "sweet spot" where an isotope can be dangerous while having a respectable halflife. The main example is cesium 137. But cesium 137 is a fuel, not a waste product. It's only going to get you if the nuclear power plant itself cracks open because some moron built it at sea level on a fault line. Why, then, does the government work so hard to bury it? The same reason the government doesn't let you sell old milk cows for beef or pour blood into a dumpster: just in case. Well-run governments should be working to prevent harm; that doesn't mean everything they try to protect you from is inherently going to melt your face off.

[Travis B.]

Global warming is going to affect the whole world in a very major way very soon (and in many ways has started to already), and we are busy complaining about how nuclear power isn't "green" despite it being the most suitable replacement for it for baseline power generation which does not contribute to carbon emissions? Solar power only generates power during the day and is only really suitable in sunny places, and conversely wind power only generates power when it is windy and is only really suitable in the proper weather - and don't forget that hydropower devastates ecosystems and in many places has displaced large numbers of people who had no choice in the matter and has its own dangers (as dam failures can cause disastrous flash floods downstream).

[Travis B.]

And about why Germany has to shut down their nuclear power plants because they have gotten too decrepit, I somehow suspect that has something to do with "green" policies that have been pushed in Germany over the last two decades or so, as if lignite were somehow more "green" than nuclear.

[hwhatting]

And about why Germany has to shut down their nuclear power plants because they have gotten too decrepit, I somehow suspect that has something to do with "green" policies that have been pushed in Germany over the last two decades or so, as if lignite were somehow more "green" than nuclear.

That's what you get if you want to please everybody, which is a perennial problem of German politics. The problem is that red-green initiated policies end of the 90s which had a certain logic, even if they were also driven by the Green party's commitment against nuclear power, and then the incoming Merkel government reversed part of them, without putting a consistent vison in their place. So we ended up with an expensive mix of policies that were meant to contain something for everyone - renewables because they're green and the future, coal because of miners, gas because it's cleaner than coal, nuclear because of the CDU/CSU commitment to it. And then came Fukushima, the public turned against nuclear in a big way, Merkel made one of her famous u-turns, and one component fell out of the mix. Re nuclear, we now had Red-Green committing to end it (and paying the power companies handsomely as recompense), Merkel reinstating it (and paying the power companies to get that done), and then Merkel to phase it out again (and again paying the power companies as compensation for the second exit). If instead of that rigmarole we had stuck to the original nuclear exit and the full program, we now would have much higher renewable capacities (although we'd probably still be too dependent on Rusian gas).
In any case, after all this, the resistance against nuclear power in Germany is too high to make it economically viable. And the waste issue - well, the main issue is that nobody wants a nuclear waste dump in their neighbourhood. The CSU (the Bavarian version of the conservative CDU), while officially committed to nuclear power, has fought tooth and nail against even exploring the potential of putting the (up to now not existing) terminal nuclear waste storage site in Bavaria. When even the fans of nuclear power don't want nuclear waste in their neighbourhood, how will you convince people that it's all harmless and no big deal?

[Ares Land]

Okay, here comes a long rambling rant about nuclear power.

Nuclear power is really only dangerous if you either A) majorly fuck up your reactor design (e.g. making the tips of the control rods out of graphite which... dun dun dun... happens to be a moderator) and don't bother to build a containment building and happen to carry out risky experiments because you can, all at the same time, or B) you build your plant right by the coast in a very tsunami-prone zone and don't bother to take into account,

The problem with that explanation is that people start asking questions. Such as, are our engineers really smarter?
You can sort of gloss over that question with Chernobyl, the Soviet Union being what it was; it's harder to answer with Fukushima.
Sure, earthquake and tsunami aren't going to happen in Europe; but what obvious failure modes have our engineers and bureaucrats neglected?
IOW nuclear power is really only dangerous when engineers are stupid... but if Japanese engineers can be stupid, so can European ones.

Nuclear operations and regulation authority have not been terribly transparent, or very forthcoming in answering that question. So of course people get wary.

A mix of nuclear, wind, and solar is cheaper to build and perfectly safe. All opposition to it is based on false dichotomies, misplaced hippie cynicism about technology and modernism, and good old fashioned scientific illiteracy.

I think you underestimate the stupidity on the pro-nuclear side.
French politicians have been quoted as wanting to shut down wind and solar power entirely.
One pro-nuclear advocate has said that Chernobyl wasn't that bad, because, hey, it created a free natural reserve and besides it didn't kill that much people; also that hey, Fukushima wasn't that bad: it didn't kill anyone. (Technically true, but that's not how you win heart and minds.)

Yet another point: politically, parties that are somewhat willing to do something about global warming oppose nuclear power. Parties that are in favor of nuclear are, when in power, firmly of the opinion that global warming -- or any other kind of environmental issue -- will magically go away if you make a good speech or two at the Climate Change Conference.
So if you're at all concerned with the environment, when it comes to voting you'll end up on the anti-nuclear side by default, regardless of how you actually feel.

More points coming:
Chernobyl has been pretty traumatic in Western Europe. For some reason, people tend to react pretty strongly to getting radioactive particles in their backyard. In France, the problem has been actively made worse by the government lying about the matter. I don't know if the German government lied as well, in any case the Germans got hit worse then we did.

Solar power only generates power during the day and is only really suitable in sunny places, and conversely wind power only generates power when it is windy and is only really suitable in the proper weather - and don't forget that hydropower devastates ecosystems and in many places has displaced large numbers of people who had no choice in the matter and has its own dangers (as dam failures can cause disastrous flash floods downstream).

There are methods of energy storage; they don't necessarily involve enormous dams (though of course these are the current method of choice.)
More generally, the renewables sector has made huge progress: meanwhile the nuclear power is sort of stagnant.

Nuclear most certainly could have been made safer and cheaper, but that didn't happen. Most nuclear power plants in France are older than I am (and they're pretty much cutting-edge technology); the EPR design has spend decades in development hell.

For energy, we ought to reduce usage to what is actually useful.

We should of course keep an eye on energy usage, a lot more so than we currently do. Nonetheless, I doubt we can do any better than keep our power consumption roughly stable.


All in all, my own opinion is that
a) nuclear power is good.
b) nevertheless people who oppose it have solid reasons that can't just be dismissed as 'scientific illiteracy'.
c) can we have commercial fusion power already?

[Linguoboy]

"No way! Solar is so much cheaper!" No. Solar is cheaper to operate, but nuclear is cheaper to build, even before you factor in the cost of batteries. Construction costs are the limiting factor here, not the price paid by consumers. If, after we've halted CO2 emissions we decide to replace nuclear plants with solar panels to reduce operating costs, we have literally all the time in the world to do so.

Is this still the case when one factors in long-term storage of nuclear waste? In every country I can think of with nuclear power--even those with nuclear plants run by private companies--ultimate responsibility for this belongs to the government (which can't just declare bankruptcy and dissolve, like ordinary corporations do) which subsidises some or all of the cost. What about the cost of other externalities, such as disasters? (The cost of cleaning up the Fukushima disaster, for instance, has been estimated at $660 billion. What do the operating costs of Japan's nuclear programme look like once that is factored in?)

[Jonlang]

"No way! Solar is so much cheaper!" No. Solar is cheaper to operate, but nuclear is cheaper to build, even before you factor in the cost of batteries. Construction costs are the limiting factor here, not the price paid by consumers. If, after we've halted CO2 emissions we decide to replace nuclear plants with solar panels to reduce operating costs, we have literally all the time in the world to do so.

Is this still the case when one factors in long-term storage of nuclear waste? In every country I can think of with nuclear power--even those with nuclear plants run by private companies--ultimate responsibility for this belongs to the government (which can't just declare bankruptcy and dissolve, like ordinary corporations do) which subsidises some or all of the cost. What about the cost of other externalities, such as disasters? (The cost of cleaning up the Fukushima disaster, for instance, has been estimated at $660 billion. What do the operating costs of Japan's nuclear programme look like once that is factored in?)

It seems to me like Western civilisation prefers to kick long-term goals down the road in favour of short-term achievements so someone can be the first to be carbon-neutral, even if it means setting themselves up for another crisis in a few decades. Nuclear may be cheaper to build, but why bother kicking solar down the road when we have the technology now? Nuclear is an unnecessary intermediary step as far as I can see. Here in the UK the Government seem to be in favour of building nuclear plants rather than support solar, wind, and tidal projects. We're a fucking island for fuck's sake! Tidal energy can be harvested all over the country, off-shore wind farms are already a thing here - build more! The South Wales valleys are devoid of any real work nowadays, use the mountains for wind energy! The Welsh Government rejected a tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay which would have collected tidal energy as well as creating much needed jobs in the proposed retail and sports facilities. Solar panels on homes is far from being a new thing, I have them and my electricity bill is minuscule - but why aren't they on all homes? Gas boilers are soon to be outlawed in the UK, and new electric boilers will need to be installed in everyone's homes (eventually) if we are to cut out gas dependency – this would be an easier pill to swallow for those who will have to foot the bill if they had solar panels which would run the boiler at a fraction of the cost.

On a separate topic – I drove past a fuel station today where diesel was almost £2 per litre. This makes me sick to my stomach when coupled with my £900pa energy bill increase for the coming year. Fuck Boris Johnson. Fuck Theresa May. Fuck David Cameron. Fuck austerity, and fuck the Tories.

[Travis B.]

"No way! Solar is so much cheaper!" No. Solar is cheaper to operate, but nuclear is cheaper to build, even before you factor in the cost of batteries. Construction costs are the limiting factor here, not the price paid by consumers. If, after we've halted CO2 emissions we decide to replace nuclear plants with solar panels to reduce operating costs, we have literally all the time in the world to do so.

Is this still the case when one factors in long-term storage of nuclear waste? In every country I can think of with nuclear power--even those with nuclear plants run by private companies--ultimate responsibility for this belongs to the government (which can't just declare bankruptcy and dissolve, like ordinary corporations do) which subsidises some or all of the cost. What about the cost of other externalities, such as disasters? (The cost of cleaning up the Fukushima disaster, for instance, has been estimated at $660 billion. What do the operating costs of Japan's nuclear programme look like once that is factored in?)

It seems to me like Western civilisation prefers to kick long-term goals down the road in favour of short-term achievements so someone can be the first to be carbon-neutral, even if it means setting themselves up for another crisis in a few decades. Nuclear may be cheaper to build, but why bother kicking solar down the road when we have the technology now? Nuclear is an unnecessary intermediary step as far as I can see. Here in the UK the Government seem to be in favour of building nuclear plants rather than support solar, wind, and tidal projects. We're a fucking island for fuck's sake! Tidal energy can be harvested all over the country, off-shore wind farms are already a thing here - build more! The South Wales valleys are devoid of any real work nowadays, use the mountains for wind energy! The Welsh Government rejected a tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay which would have collected tidal energy as well as creating much needed jobs in the proposed retail and sports facilities. Solar panels on homes is far from being a new thing, I have them and my electricity bill is minuscule - but why aren't they on all homes? Gas boilers are soon to be outlawed in the UK, and new electric boilers will need to be installed in everyone's homes (eventually) if we are to cut out gas dependency – this would be an easier pill to swallow for those who will have to foot the bill if they had solar panels which would run the boiler at a fraction of the cost.

Umm... why not do all of these things? Nuclear has the advantage of that it can generate constant energy all the time, while other sources do not provide as consistent of an energy source (and to make them more consistent, significant quantities of batteries are needed), but at the same time nuclear doesn't rule out solar, wind, or tidal energy either.

[Jonlang]

Is this still the case when one factors in long-term storage of nuclear waste? In every country I can think of with nuclear power--even those with nuclear plants run by private companies--ultimate responsibility for this belongs to the government (which can't just declare bankruptcy and dissolve, like ordinary corporations do) which subsidises some or all of the cost. What about the cost of other externalities, such as disasters? (The cost of cleaning up the Fukushima disaster, for instance, has been estimated at $660 billion. What do the operating costs of Japan's nuclear programme look like once that is factored in?)

It seems to me like Western civilisation prefers to kick long-term goals down the road in favour of short-term achievements so someone can be the first to be carbon-neutral, even if it means setting themselves up for another crisis in a few decades. Nuclear may be cheaper to build, but why bother kicking solar down the road when we have the technology now? Nuclear is an unnecessary intermediary step as far as I can see. Here in the UK the Government seem to be in favour of building nuclear plants rather than support solar, wind, and tidal projects. We're a fucking island for fuck's sake! Tidal energy can be harvested all over the country, off-shore wind farms are already a thing here - build more! The South Wales valleys are devoid of any real work nowadays, use the mountains for wind energy! The Welsh Government rejected a tidal lagoon in Swansea Bay which would have collected tidal energy as well as creating much needed jobs in the proposed retail and sports facilities. Solar panels on homes is far from being a new thing, I have them and my electricity bill is minuscule - but why aren't they on all homes? Gas boilers are soon to be outlawed in the UK, and new electric boilers will need to be installed in everyone's homes (eventually) if we are to cut out gas dependency – this would be an easier pill to swallow for those who will have to foot the bill if they had solar panels which would run the boiler at a fraction of the cost.

Umm... why not do all of these things? Nuclear has the advantage of that it can generate constant energy all the time, while other sources do not provide as consistent of an energy source (and to make them more consistent, significant quantities of batteries are needed), but at the same time nuclear doesn't rule out solar, wind, or tidal energy either.

And what happens to all the waste? How long before the world faces another environmental crisis?

[Travis B.]

And what happens to all the waste? How long before the world faces another environmental crisis?

You stick the waste in a containment facility and don't touch it. Reactor waste is not the kind of waste that really is going to go anywhere on its own - and it is small and rather self-contained in the bigger scheme of things. Contrast it with coal, which generates massive amounts of waste which gets spewed everywhere, putting large quantities of both radioactivity and heavy metals into our atmosphere.

[linguistcat]

And what happens to all the waste? How long before the world faces another environmental crisis?

You stick the waste in a containment facility and don't touch it. Reactor waste is not the kind of waste that really is going to go anywhere on its own - and it is small and rather self-contained in the bigger scheme of things. Contrast it with coal, which generates massive amounts of waste which gets spewed everywhere, putting large quantities of both radioactivity and heavy metals into our atmosphere.

Also also, in some cases, we've found ways to use what was originally waste as another source of power. So in at least some cases, you put it through the next process that will give us energy or even save it for a while for when we'll need a new source.

[Richard W]

Part of the solution may be to use thorium instead of uranium. Apparently it produces much less malignant waste.