Actual policy experts will tell you that the reason nuclear energy died off in the US in particular and in the world at large is not because of anti-nuclear environmentalist lobbies.
It's a financial question. What environmentalist opposition exists is neither sufficient nor necessary to explain the lack of nuclear development.
These projects get killed because they are almost hilariously expensive by any standard, including the cost per joule produced. They show NO signs of learning curves. Thorium is vaporware. SMRs have proven to be neither small nor modular. These projects get shitcanned not because oh no newcleer so skaweee. They get shitcanned because no one wants to pay for them when you can just do cheap natural gas and wind or even cheaper solar.
The hunt the nuclear fanboys go on to attack environmentalists is invented. It's basically false consciousness. The fossil fuel industry benefits from this strife.
For what a nuclear facility costs to build, buying equivalent solar would probably get you an order of magnitude more energy production, even factoring the additional transmission capacity you'd need to buy alongside it. You could almost certainly get at least the same value out of a combination of wind, solar, transmission, and medium-term energy storage. And end up with a far more resilient grid in the process. And also not be blighting a couple square miles of riverside real estate.
Just so we’re clear, it is cheap fossil fuels that made nuclear uneconomical. Solar and wind provide a very different type of power in comparison, and do not really compete against each other. There’s a reason why countries that abandoned nuclear are suddenly thinking about restarting nuclear again (see Germany). Meanwhile, countries that fully adopted nuclear (see France) are seeing no pressure to abandon it.
It's cheap fossil fuels that first pushed nuclear uneconomical, particularly natural gas.
But today, solar is already making those same fossil fuels increasingly uneconomical. If we transferred the >$20bil/yr that current gets sent to the already-massively-profitably fossil fuel companies instead to grid upgrades, storage, and renewable investment, that'd be pretty fucking neat. We're already seeing rapid changes to the energy economy because of the reality of these costs. The trillion+ dollars being almost entirely directed to grid enhancements, under-served communities, and renewable energy that is the IRA is causing massive, sweeping changes to the world of energy too. Even if people on forums like these have decided they want to throw out that bill's swimming pool of babies just because one West Virginian took a dry dump in the corner in exchange for getting it passed.
The whole "very different type of power" thing I don't really buy. It is not a profound, cutting observation that the sun isn't always shining. The duck curve barely even exists when you have a good mix of wind and solar for most of the world since these sources are basically fully-complementary, and we already have lots of short and medium-term energy storage technologies that can be run for profit because of how cheap solar is. The market is already creating these incentives and businesses are moving in to fill the need; the technology exists or else isn't that hard to figure out. Overbuilding solar to the point of negative energy prices at peak production (& thus curtailment) will create huge incentives for storage. We're already seeing this; a handful of very serious industrial heat battery firms, for example, are offering products that take advantage of these energy price fluctuations that can be build and run profitably both for them and the firms that buy them. Markets are not a solution for all problems, but they are super goddamn good at wiping out arbitrage.
I've seen no evidence of Germany seriously considering spinning back up their reactors. If you have a source from within the last few months implying different, I'd love to read it, but as of last fall their energy ministry was completely dismissing these ideas as baseless rumors. I'd personally prefer it if they did, though; with the things already built, a lot of the cost is already sunk, and beyond that it seems worthwhile to get coal decommissioned.
France is a more complicated story, but it's impossible to deny they have a lot of successful nuclear capacity. But guess what they're pursing as their key generation platform for the future? It's solar. Because it's way fucking cheaper. Easier for them than most thanks to their massive nuclear base, no doubt.
A lot of this dives deep into wishful thinking territory. We will need to spend trillions of dollars to make a pure renewable energy solution viable. People will find out that nuclear is not magically guaranteed to be more expensive. If it wasn't the case, why are new nuclear reactors still being built and more are being planned?
Germany is definitely rethinking it's anti-nuclear position. Ignore the viewpoints of the current political group in charge. They are deeply unpopular. Politicians outside of that group are advocating for a return to nuclear.
France is keeping and building more reactors. This is not a "more complicated story." It is simple proof that nuclear is viable.
Why is my view of the state of industry with concrete, affordable renewable energy technologies that are already available for purchase and rapidly scaling up just by market forces wishful? Why isn't your belief that nuclear will suddenly buck it's 50+ year trend of always being extremely expensive at least as wishful?
Not all production needs to be economic, mind you. It's fine for the state to pursue an expensive technology because it has some other benefit, and there are concrete benefits of nuclear -- specifically how firm it is, to the point where it's basically irresponsible to ever curtail it or adjust production based on grid demand. But capital isn't infinite and these tradeoffs need to be considered very seriously. On the flip side, spend five minutes searching for what the Georgia PSC has to say about the two new AP1000s at Vogtle. They are not happy at all about the cost overruns and failures. Would the next reactor cost less? Probably... so long as it starts construction soon before those couple thousand of newly-trained workers all find new jobs and progress is lost, as usually happens. But it won't, because no one wants to feel like the next sucker.
I'm totally pragmatic about this. It nuclear stops being ludicrously expensive, we definitely ought to pursue it. And if a new technology shows actual evidence and promise of making it more affordable, it's worth the R&D. But at least so far, it shows no signs of doing so. It's definitely not going to keep following the nearly Moore's Law-like learning curve solar has been on. The french are uniquely good at building reactors because of their long history and even still they are clearly signaling in e.g., their NECP plan that renewables are the primary technology of their future. They're pretty much the best in the world at it and they're still plainly chasing solar because of its affordability.
Nuclear is really just metal in a big water tank. The cost comes from trying to maximize safety. It can be cheap if we mass produce it. People are pretty much engaging in special pleading every time they declare nuclear to be uneconomical.
If you really believe that, then you'd support nuclear power. It is extremely safe these days and is a much better option than to deal with more climate change. You want more options, not less options, in this fight.
Plus, Nuclear is the one option that cam be put in the widest amount of places while handling baseload - Solar is limited by the sun, Hydro by where water is, Wind by the wind, etc.
what good things for the environment happened around chernobyl when the nuclear reactor there overheated? An area of 20 miles in any direction of the power station will be uninhabitable for at least 300 years, and potentially much longer.
This is not a good argument against nuclear power. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is actually doing incredibly well on biodiversity metrics specifically because humans don't go there at all. The real issues with nuclear power are how long it takes to set up, sourcing the fuel, and the fact that while containing the waste is not really that big a problem it is one that faces enormous political hurdles in many places
Burning coal creates more radioactive waste but with nuclear power it’s contained instead of combusted into the air we breathe.
Still not a fan of nuclear, mainly because I think it takes quite long to build compared to the timeframe we have for fixing climate change, although I’ve seen some articles that it’s supposed to be faster now than the past 10 years.
Or, when you run the numbers yourself, you realize that it’s about as dangerous as offshore wind turbines are to birds and fish. Which is to say, not very, but a lot of extremely dumb people still parrot it.
I never said you supported fossil fuels. Please point to the part where I said or implied such a thing.
I’m affirming that the notion that “nuclear waste is incredibly toxic” is false and it’s a propaganda piece that was inserted into popular culture by the oil industry who paid to make the idea mainstream. Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun. But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in pop culture.
Nuclear waste is not inherently any more toxic than standing outside under the sun.
Nuclear waste contains Plutonium and that is only one of several highly toxic substances it contains. Are you seriously trying to tell me Plutonium is not extremely toxic?
But you repeated that because you were brainwashed by the propaganda, that the oil industry paid for to disseminate in pop culture.
Both, the nuclear and the fossil lobby have spread disinformation systematically, you are a good example for the pro nuclear propaganda. I on the other hand reject both, fossil and nuclear because both are harmful.
There’s a qualitative difference between the fact “Plutonium is toxic“ and the propaganda piece “nuclear waste is toxic”. The first is an statement of truth about a chemical element, the second is an attempt to halt rational thinking. Nuclear waste is depleted fuel encased in concrete. You can stand next to it without any ill consequence to your health and it is not toxic. Unless you actively try to break into it, you won’t be harmed anymore than standing under the sun.
But seeing the way you reacted to some other person showing evidence, with the construction of an ugly ad-hominem attack and the equivalent of a child sticking fingers in their ears and singing. I would not be wasting any more electricity on you. You say pro-nuclear propaganda, as if both positive and negative propaganda aren’t nuances to take into account. That truth can lie at the core of propaganda, and that the best propaganda is the one that doesn’t have to lie to make its point. While still regurgitating and supporting negative propaganda based on scientific falsehoods that goes against your own self-proclaimed principles and goals.
It’s not as toxic as coal. It is only that you are used to those effects. It’s also a safer industry to work in. Technically safer even than wind and solar last I looked. I wouldn’t treat it as a permanent solution. But it could keep the lights on while we pivot to renewables.
I know some people in nuclear power and get in arguments with them all the time about this. (they’re not big fans of renewables. shocker.) But they’re right that renewables just aren’t ready to take over yet. Where I’d say we need to fund renewable research and development—they are deadset it’s a waste of money. But fossil fuels have got to go. I think it’d be for the best if no one was ever comfortable with nuclear but I just don’t see another alternative that works with how quickly we are killing the planet. 🤷♂️
i’m sorry i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask. a % global nuclear energy production value is purely symbolic and not a goal.
the real percentage i want is 100% clean and safe energy, because the world is already basically ending. we must run headlong at eliminating fossil fuels as soon as possible, and we already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up.
the reality is, market conditions and the state of energy research will determine the actual global distribution of energy. there are probably experts out there who can estimate where those numbers are headed, but i’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
i just don’t think this is a valuable question to ask
But well, it kind of is! When looking at energy systems, each type of plant you put into the system has (often counterintuitive) consequences on the rest of the system. And this is especially true for nuclear power. That is why it IS important to get an idea of how much nuclear energy you want to have in your energy mix, because only then you can determine if your energy system is even sustainable.
Therefore, my question stands unchanged. Or maybe we can make it a little broader: How do you think that the energy system would need to look like?
I’m content to stick by my layman position that anything that gets us away from pouring greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is better in the short term.
And I fully agree with you on that. I just want to discuss with you if nuclear is really the solution you think it is. (Because it probably isn’t.)
We already have the knowledge and infrastructure to do so way faster by using nuclear as a leg up
Are you aware of how little nuclear power there is currently in the energy-mix, what time it takes to build new ones and how much (usable) uranium exists on the planet? (I can tell you if you don’t want to look it up - just ask.) Because you might have wrong expectations of the technical potential of this energy source.
you are asking me to be an expert on topics i have already admitted to being not studied in. that’s not fair because i came into this conversation to defend my position that being anti-nuclear is not well suited to the environmentalist agenda. and nothing else.
i know that france has successfully achieved like 70% nuclear power production, while renewables are slowly ticking up. and i am not against that. that is good. because they aren’t using fossil fuel to get that electricity. if they had waited around for renewables research to catch up they’d still be reliant on coal and oil like the rest of us. if they were forced to shut down all nuclear plants, fossil fuels would spike to take up the slack.
that’s my position. that’s all i’m expressing. you are trying to drag the discussion somewhere else, and that’s not a winning move.
This is accurate, however we can’t sacrifice good enough for the perfect we don’t have yet. I get there is no solution that lasts longer than a temporary one, but environmentally, nuclear absolutely should be implemented.
Your second question is way, way out of my league. All I can toss out there as a guess is enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand vs ebb and flow of natural systems like sun and wind, maybe plus a little for contingency.
Hats off to you for being so honest and admitting this.
enough nuclear power to cover the gaps in demand
OK, please correct me if I haven’t understood you correctly, but you mean: “We should basically utilize natural systems energy (sun, wind, water, …) completely and turn off and on nuclear plants “on demand” to cover the peaks/gaps in demand.” Did I get that right?
Pretty much, yeah; but again, out of my league. I don’t think nuclear can be just “turned off”, but in the context of this discussion whatever the minimum output is to keep them operating, and then power up to cover whatever output is needed to cover low wind, overcast, night, etc.
I’ll offer this also - and again I have no real scientific knowledge to back it up, but possibly this could be sorted out with some digging - that I think batteries should also be used to help buffer power output swings, but I also think that the environmental impact of batteries and their manufacturing need to be balanced against the same for nuclear power. It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid vs a relative few nuclear plants.
What you are describing is called “load following”. Different power plants have different capabilities of doing this. E.g. coal plants (or other thermal plants) are pretty bad at this while e.g. gas turbines can be turned on/off very quickly to buffer out short peaks of fluctuations. Power plants get categorized into different groups: e.g. Base Load plants or Peak Load plants. Base load is basically the load that is “always need to be supplied” and everything else is modulated on top of that.
To do effective load following, you would NOT want base load plants.
To categorize power plants we need to look at 2 different things: the technical capability to do “load following” with a plant - and the economical viability of throttling the power output of a plant.
Nuclear power plants have extremely high investment costs and a greater proportion of fixed costs (e.g. for personnel) while having very low variable costs, as nuclear plants are not really “using up more/less fuel” during their operation. That means: The cost of nuclear power plants is pretty much constant over time - no matter if they are producing more or less power, but you only get an return on invest if you output power.
That is why nuclear power plants are normally used as base load power plants, as their economic viability goes pretty bad when you do (extensive) load following with them. However, they have at least some technical capabilities of being operated in a (slower) load following mode.
When we add in the fact, that there was probably not a single nuclear power plant, yet, that was economically viable without huge subsidies and the mere costs of keeping the radioactive waste products safe FOREVER are enormous, investors/plant owners don’t really like the idea of “throttling” their plants as they will be loosing money.
That is why - if you have a great amount of base load power plants in your grid - you tend to turn off the generators that are easy to regulate but hard to calculate: Wind & Solar. That’s why a high percentage of nuclear power in your energy mix will PREVENT the utilization of true renewable energy sources, making them a less viable investment.
This is one of the reasons why I asked about the percentage of “needed nuclear power” in the beginning. Different percentages of these plants will have different effects on the entire energy production system and it’s trajectory.
So I am coming back to my original question. And there is not right or wrong answer, just a gut feeling: How much nuclear do we need to make this work? Our current energy mix (primary energy consumption) consists globally roughly of 75% fossil energy and 4% nuclear. So do you think we will need to replace the 75% fossils with nuclear by 1:1? Or maybe 1:2 and fill the rest with Wind/Solar? Or do we keep the current 4%? Really, it’s about your gut feeling about what you think will be necessary. From that point on, we can then further explore the general viability and consequences of nuclear power in the grid.
It’s going to take a lot of batteries to buffer an entire power grid
The beauty of it is: You wouldn’t really need to do this - but I’m getting ahead of myself. This a different rabbit hole that I don’t think is needed to be explored right now.
But just a short pointers:
By controlling and deferring energy consumption in a “smart” way, you can match up the demand with the volatile supply (e.g. of Wind/Solar) pretty well.
In energy systems, we have other types of energy storing systems that are bigger, cheaper and more reliable than the ones we know from “consumer electronics” - e.g. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
Well I think I just got jumped. You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them, particularly the environmental issues inherent in battery production and recycling, and sorta handwaved in the general direction of alternative sources like pumped-up hydro. I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that Science Will Save Us via some future solution or construction. The proverbial can keeps getting kicked down the road to do something about the issues immediately with the excuse that technology will jump in and save the day before it’s too late. People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built to meet the professed goal. Ideas are great, but if we don’t have it now it’s technically already too late.
And that segues into nuclear. It is not a perfect solution. However it is a known tech, and an effective one. Nuclear waste is at the top of the issues I though of when I mentioned it, however that issue can be somewhat ameliorated if the US gets around to reprocessing the waste which is currently hindered by a non-proliferation treaty. We can argue costs and all that about nuclear operations, but at what point do we say that the enemy of good enough is constantly looking for perfection while sitting on our hands?
Summed up: Yes, there are alternatives. Many are conceptual and have never been implemented, or at least not on a large scale. They need to be implemented yesterday and not just viewed through hopeful rose-tinted glasses. Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand that phrase. Does that mean you feel kind of attacked?! I hope not - this was not my goal. I think we can just learn by engaging in discussions with one another. And so far, I am very much enjoying our encounter. :)
You had a well prepared answer, however I’ll offer my unprepared thoughts in return.
Well, I mean it took me over an hour to compile that answer, because I didn’t want to spread false information. I am (re)learning a lot the stuff as well, and I kind of like to study the matter again. So I will gladly take your thoughts.
You kinda skipped past battery and other storage tech and the negatives associated with them
Well, yes, I did. As I said, it took me already over an hour to compile the existing answer and the needs of storage capacity in the energy system is reeeaaaally complex and counter intuitive at some points - especially if you need to understand the dependencies of the individual units in an energy-system as well at the same time. So it would have taken me at least another hour to give that topic my due diligence.
We can talk about that if you want / are interested. But I think we need to skip the nuclear power topic then, because otherwise it will get too complex and time consuming.
I’m a big believer in working with what we have now, there are far, far too many issues exacerbated by the premise that “Science Will Save Us”
Oh god. I hate people that are blindly trusting in “Science inventing a magic pill - we don’t have to change anything!!1!”.
People love the ideas behind some solutions, but can never seem to get them sufficiently well built
I know. And I was not talking about some “magical future solution” - I am thinking more about solutions that are already existing and have existed and proven viable for over a couple of decades. And they don’t need to include nuclear!
However it is a known tech, and an effective one
I mean, it kind of is NOT effective - at least not cost effective (as I hopefully have pointed out clear enough). We can build “known tech that is effective” which will not be a graveyard for billions of dollars and without the potentially catastrophic consequences nuclear power has. I am not advocating for “sitting on our hands”. We need to act quick and change our energy systems for the better - but nuclear energy is just not a viable solution for that. Luckily, there is existing technology that can do the job.
Nuclear may not be the best solution, but it is known, available, and can do the job.
I am afraid, that it is not as simple as you think it might be. The “availability” is kind of a deal breaker when it comes to nuclear.
You still haven’t provided a number for “how much nuclear” we need to “do the job”, so I am ending with a couple questions instead:
Are you aware how long it takes to build a new nuclear power plant?
Do you know how much (usable) radioactive material there is on the planet?
(I can tell you if you don’t want to do the research - just tell me.)
I don’t know enough about the technology to have strong opinions on this. I was opposed to nuclear because I thought, what would we do with all the nuclear waste?
And then somebody pointed out to me that apparently all the nuclear waste product in the world could fit into the area the size of one football field. Okay, I thought, that doesn’t seem too hard to keep contained.
But then I got to thinking about it and that can’t possibly make any sense. It’s not just the spent nuclear material, it’s miles of radioactive plumbing, tons of hardware, sheet metal, asbestos (still?), etc., all irradiated, all toxic to life. So now I’m on the fence again.
All of the irradiated equipment can’t leach into groundwater though, and it’s never as radioactive as the fuel itself. It’s not safe to dump in a normal landfill obviously, but simply burying it usually fine.
So have a few hens out back eating all the ticks in the yard and supplying me with eggs is hurting the environment in a way that is terrible? I’d have to look more into that, but really they surely can’t be as gaseous as cows.
It’s not that this is an unpopular opinion, but rather that it’s a dumb opinion. You’re defining things one way and someone else can define them a different way. You can both define what an environmentalist is differently and that will affect the result of your question. If you’re insisting that you own the definition of an “environmentalist” then you’re being dumb.
In fact, I agree with the unstated premise of your statement. I think the risks of nuclear waste and a nuclear meltdown are much less than the risks of global warming and therefore nuclear power is good for the environment. However it is also a perfectly valid opinion that we should just reduce our energy usage and reduce global warming in that manner. I think it’s unrealistic, but it’s possible if we had the desire to do that as a collective. It is a valid opinion to be on that side of the fence. I think it’s the less pragmatic approach, but I’ve known many people who are hippy environmentalists and it’s still a valid position.
The US gets 1/5 of its power from nuclear energy, and produces 2,000 metric tons of nuclear waste per year – only enough to fill about half of the volume of an olympic-sized swimming pool (and about the same weight as 10 wind turbines).
Only 3% of all of that waste is actually long-lived and highly radioactive, potentially requiring isolation from the environment. In France, this number goes down to 0.2% due to fuel being reprocessed.
Taking that into consideration, that means it would take about 2/3 of a century for the US to produce enough dangerous nuclear waste to fill this pool completely. And it can still be way more efficient.
Nuclear produces negligible amounts of actual waste for the amount of energy it gives us. The problems with nuclear aren’t at all the waste, rather it’s the current highly used methods that are used to harvest the fuel (slave labour and unsafe, dirty, destructive drilling). Very similar problems faced with, say, lithium and cobalt.
Logical fallacy: “you can’t claim to support $GENERAL_AREA and be anti-$MY_SPECIFIC_THING at the same time “? I’m sure there’s a name for that type of fallacy
No True Scotsman: defending an ingroup by excluding members that don’t agree with a particular stance. A subset of the Appeal to Purity fallacy, which argues that someone doesn’t do enough or have enough of some attribute to be included in a group. Other examples (deliberately inflammatory to cause a knee-jerk reaction to show how easy it is to fall into these things) would be “You can’t be a good person and support Donald Trump for Persident” or “You can’t support Palestine and still vote for Biden.”
I don’t agree with OPs statement, but I do agree with their sentiment. Nuclear energy is one of the best options available from an environmental standpoint to meet our baseline energy needs and supplement grids using non-persistant renewable loke wind and solar.
Thanks. I like to think I’m an advocate for the environment but disagree with both the statement and the intent.
Nuclear fission has some nice properties we could use, but as an ideal. However the industry has also demonstrated it to be expensive and too long to build. It’s not practical
Renewables have some weaknesses we don’t entirely know how to fill yet. Storage is in infancy: great for stabilization but still trying to grow. However we’re not at the point where those weaknesses matter yet. The fastest and cheapest approach is to build out renewables and storage as much as possible, while continuing to develop more scalable storage or Fusion, or figure out how to make fission practical again, or simply how to minimize use of gas peaker plants
How high a percentage of renewables can we get, with current storage technology and still have a reliable grid? Let’s find out, plus that’s the amount of time where we need to decide on a more complete answer. We’re (US) not even close to that point, and easily have more than a decade at current rates before we do.
Edit: another answer is we no longer have time for nuclear. Given the history of how long it takes to build nuclear power plants, and our current emissions/climate change, we can’t afford to wait the decades it would take to build those out. Renewables can make an impact immediately
Maybe, and we should certainly continue to look for that breakthrough. However, renewables can be built out now, are lowest cost, most immediate impact: we need to be building these out as fast as possible
At some point we’ll have diminishing returns with stability and might change our approach, but let’s get to that point as fast as we cab
I mostly agree but it’s also important to look at updating the grid so power can be moved around using high voltage DC transmission.
We’ve got reliable solar in the Southern US, and massive potential for wind offshore and in the prairie states. If we can route power to where it’s needed that decreases the need to store it.
We’re running into that up in the northeast too. Massachusetts had big plans to buy Canadian hydro, but can’t get the transmission lines built to get it here
Environmental and Health Consequences of Uranium Mining
Tailing deposits can cause landslides, air contamination, and wildlife exposure. Uranium tailings contain small particles that are picked up and transported by the wind. The radioactive particulates in the air can be concentrated enough to cause health issues including lung cancer and kidney disease. [6] These particles also contaminate soil and water. Furthermore, growing piles of mining debris become unstable and can result in fatal landslides, such as the 1966 landslide of Aberfan, which resulted in the death of 144 people. [7] Tailing ponds pose serious hazards to the environment as well through leaks, in which underground water becomes contaminated with heavy metals. [5] This can lead to the pollution of lakes and rivers. Local ecosystems, too, are harmed and destroyed by waste piles and ponds. Rain can interact with tailings and introduce sulfuric acid in aquatic ecosystems, similar to in-situ leaching. Wildlife exposure can also occur directly through interaction with tailing ponds. In particular, waterfowl often land and use tailing ponds, resulting in dire consequences. In 2008, 1600 ducks flew into a tailing pond and died in Alberta, Canada. [8] Evidently, the repercussions of uranium mining are far-reaching. Certain groups of people, however, are at greater risk of exposure to associated hazards.
The United States has a history of environmental inequity in which people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately subjected to environmental risks and consequent health hazards. Uranium mining is no different. Navajo Nation land, for example, is littered with tailing piles, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency has mapped 521 abandoned uranium mines on the reservation. [5,9] In this regard, uranium mining serves as an avenue for continued environmental racism, and the issue demands close examination and public awareness.
thank you for this, but keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer. nuclear power has FAR more energy per mass unit, which means FAR less mining than coal to get equivalent output.
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
keep in mind if you cite half of the data and you get half of an answer
What half is missing in your opinion?
nuclear is not perfect but is a wayy better option than most in the transition to renewables.
I oppose both though, fossil and nuclear, because both are harmful. The world has enough energy as it is now, so why invest huge sums in transition technologies like nuclear instead of going fully renewable plus storage right away?
The part that I wrote immediately after that. You don’t need as much mining to get an equivalent amount of nuclear energy, by several orders of magnitude.
I oppose both though.
Yeah I just wasn’t aware of your position since your top comment was just a big quote. I’m with you, sorry for coming in harder than was necessary.
I’d just say, when I say I “oppose both” I oppose nuclear in a very minor sense in comparison to my vehement opposition to fossil fuel. In a situation where a region or country finds it more cost effective to build nuclear plants in order to replace coal in the short term? I’d never describe myself as “anti-nuclear” in that case.
I think a lot of comments here are equivocating being “anti-nuclear” (NIMBY style, which is what OP actually wrote) with being concious of nuclear’s downsides. The reality is is that current gen renewables cannot keep up with certain demands, such as peak loads, in the same way nuclear can. Which means that for now, in some cases and areas, going full nuclear energy is a very healthy option in comparison to waiting it out on coal fumes until one day renewables hopefully get better.
tldr, Do both at once. Ditch fossils always. Renewable > nuclear, except when experts find that it is more cost effective in the short term.
Also, nuclear power has a huge environmental impact, it just offsets that impact by generating a fuckton of electricity.
In an idea world, we would look to make existing devices more efficient, and use them more responsibly rather than just generate more power to offset those losses.
Add comment