we tried to, then the state we were gonna stick it all in said "eh maybe we don't want to the country's home for spent fuel, considering how it will stay hot for tens of thousands of years.
so our solution was to just... ignore it. store it in cooling pools at every plant spread all over the country. because hundreds of different waste holding ponds are SURE to be better than the thing we were planning lol.
They made the hard choice of where to put the waste and stuck with it long enough to build the facility. They call it “Onkalo”. It’s a creepy marvel of engineering.
Just because it's safe doesn't mean it's the best we have right now.
It's massively expensive to set up
It's massively expensive to decommission at end of life
Almost half of the fuel you need to run them comes from a country dangerously close to Russia. (This one is slightly less of a thing now that Russia has bogged itself down in Ukraine)
It takes a long time to set up.
It has an image problem.
A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We've got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.
The problem with these arguments and the focus of debates is that they are based on nuclear energy from uranium, not thorium. Thorium is ubiquitous in nature, power centers are much easier to set up and can be small and the waste, while initially (a bit) more radioactive than uranium waste, loses it's radiation level much faster
The abundance of uranium and thorium is of the same magnitude.
The thing is economics. Uranium is cheap, and as long it is, we use the sources we have. As the peice of uranium rises other sources get economical including sea water extraction which is effectively renewable.
Uranium is a much scarer source compared to thorium. Uranium can also be used to create nuclear weapons, that's why other countries have difficulties using the tech because foreign powers are afraid of these consequences
Already India and chine have had working ones for many years. It's not speculative and I recommend you to research the tech. It's unfortunately not very present in western nuclear energy debates. Could be a political reason but that's just a dirty guess
I thought all thorium based reactor were still at the research stage. I made a quick search to see if there was any in actual use but couldn't find a source. If you have one please send it I'm really interested.
If they are still at the research stage then I'll wait until one is built at scale to decide whether they are a better alternative.
I would like to add, that though we have the means to store the radioactive waste safely, it's not done properly in many places. So it's also an organizational challenge.
Storage is not easy when you don't have massive amounts of free land. This is an ongoing debate in Europe, and in one particular country a leaky storage was discovered just a month or two ago. Again.
And there is no guarantee that what we build today is not going to be a massive liability in 50 or 200 or hell, 500 years. But the companies and people who are responsible will not even exist at this point.
I'm sure nuclear can be super safe and efficient. The science is legit.
The problem is, at some point something critical to the operation of that plant is going to break. Could be 10 years, could be 10 days. It's inevitable.
When that happens, the owner of that plant has to make a decision to either:
Shut down to make the necessary repairs and lose billions of dollars a minute.
Pretend like it's not that big of a deal. Stall. Get a second opinion. Fire/harass anyone who brings it up. Consider selling to make it someone else's problem. And finally, surprise pikachu face when something bad happens.
In our current society, I don't have to guess which option the owner is going to choose.
Additionally, we live in a golden age of deregulation and weaponized incompetence. If a disaster did happen, the response isn't going to be like Chernobyl where they evacuate us and quarantine the site for hundreds of years until its safe to return. It'll be like the response to the pandemic we all just lived through. Or the response to the water crisis in Flint Michigan. Or the train derailment in East Palestine.
Considering the fallout of previous disasters, I think it's fair to say that until we solve both of those problems, we should stay far away from nuclear power. We're just not ready for it.
Hi i was a nuclear mechanic, and that's not how it works. I'm on the toilet so I'm not gonna explain it now. Arm chair expert, uninformed opinions like this are part of the reason we're stuck on fossil fuels to begin with.
Everyone brings up Chernobyl like almost 4 entire decades of scientific advancement just didn't happen.
I was a nuclear plant owner and that's not how it doesn't work. I too have a toilet related reason why I won't contribute meaningfully to this discussion.
The reason we're stuck on fossil fuels isn't just because of the people's opinions. The main reason is the same as for most other major problems: money.
The problem is not science, the problem is not tech, the problem is people, making decisions, like making Fukushima's sea barriers 3 or 4 meters shorter than worse case scenario because money. Nuclear can be safe. People and money make it unsafe.
It may be too late for nuclear. Too much upfront cost, too long to build.
Reneweables are cheaper in the long run, and with storage technologies getting better the problem with base load electricity gets smaller.
@spicytuna62 It's not the best we got. The best we got is to stop the wasteful overproduction and stop letting society being about building building building.
We should rather reframe society into being about growing and localizing the economy. Focusing on living with nature, not at it's expense.
I don't disagree with you, but this is unrealistic. Starting the whole principles of society from scratch is never gonna happen. We should focus on making sure that, while we still "build and build", it is in a sustainable way, using renewable energy sources, as well as nuclear.
Edit: this is not saying we don't need societal change, there are definitely lots of things that need fixing, but it's never gonna be done all at once, completely different. What needs to happen is we focus on the core of the problems, fix that now, and then it will end up looking completeley different than what we have today.
I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.
But...we don't have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?
This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying "well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let's switch to diet coke and pretend that's enough"
Yes, except we shouldn't "pitch" it as a total change if we want it to happen. Unfortunately the general public has been brainwashed into believing we are basically either terrorists or we belong in an asylum. It's insane but it's the world we live in....
The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it's weakest link in terms of safety.
Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn't seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.
The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it's weakest link in terms of safety.
Unless you are in Britain, where they manage to have a costly regulatory environment and poor safety outcomes because THE PEOPLE TASKED WITH KEEPING US SAFE JUST STRAIGHT UP FALSIFY RECORDS.
While I agree that getting rid of coal first would have been the better strategy, I don't get this nuclear power fetish and constant bashing of Germany on this while most countries are doing worse than Germany. Nuclear power is extremely expensive, we have as of now no storage solution for nuclear waste in Germany and Germany has no source of nuclear material itself. There are quite a few drawbacks
Nothing generates more than nuclear (like it's not even comparable), it has basically zero emissions and there are countries like Finland who'll happily let you burry it there, tho you ofc don't need to go that far away. You don't need to dispose it nearly as often as coal ash, so it being in another country ain't really that big of a deal.
Ofc solar is also a great option, because of the versatility, sadly German seems to really fucking love wind.
I didn't say nuclear was ever big in Germany. The whole point is about Germany being against it. If you mean the part where I said it was half their energy production, I meant coal+lignite.
In Australia the coal and gas industries appear to be pushing nuclear quite hard, mainly because they distract from the renewable options preferred by the market. They know that while we’re arguing over literally every other power source, they can just keep burning holes in the ground.
im fact they're closing one of the last scaled down power plant simulator, where scientists and students could have a hands down experience in learning about It
im not german, but its so sad, the thing was even made of glass so you could literally see the process
Oh thank god... Apparently they aren't destroying it YET. There is hope. Personally, I'd feel a lot safer if it went into more nuclear loving hands, like the French or Czech, actually, most of Germany's neighbors would do.
Yes but the grid doesn't carry power efficiently over extremely long distances. You're putting undue load on the grid if you expect wind blowing 500 miles away to cover all the power needs of the area it's supposed to supply as well as every neighboring area where there's not enough power.
This isn't just an efficiency issue you can solve by throwing more windmills at the issue. If there's too much power flowing through the lines we have currently, things break. Usually with fires and exploding transformers. Our power grid is designed for distributed production, but with on-demand generation as a backup for when intermittent generation is underperforming. Batteries are one option to achieve this, but they're expensive to build in the scale we need them. Hydrogen fuel production is an interesting candidate to fill this niche and for all-renewable power, but the efficiency is quite low so you're basically tripling the cost per unit energy produced.
But one way or another, you need additional infrastructure to power the grid with zero fossil fuels. Nuclear, batteries, hydrogen fuel, or a total revamp of transmission infrastructure all require expensive construction projects. Nuclear is the only one that's been done at scale, that's why I want to see it given a fair chance again. But I also think plenty of other options are promising BECAUSE they are novel, and I'd love to see a future where a combination is used to make a carbon-free, brownout-free power grid
Denmark looking decidedly not green this morning. Check the map regularly to understand why unreliable energy is actually just a way of increasing gas usage...
Okay, where is the comparison to nuclear? For that you have to build massive infrastructure, that costs billions, that no one want to insure, thats why it has to be backed by state money. After that the waste has to be managed by the state too, because no company wants to deal with the liability of radioactive waste for thousands of years at least, so that, too, comes out of the taxpayers pockets.
I don't like fossil fuels, but this is just plain stupid
(and also as a cherry on top, tschernobyl, fokushima)
You said Denmark had converted to green energy. I pointed out that they haven't done anything like that. You are now moving the goal posts and saying "where is the comparative essay defending nuclear power"...
If you must, France turned completely green in the 70s. So they've provided 50 years of clean energy. Its a classic story and not as simple as I'm going to make out, but still. Look at the map link in the last post - any area that stays green is either using hydro or nuclear. Hydro is great, but you need mountains and water.
But you still claiming nuclear is green is just crazy. There is still no place on earth that can hold nuclear waste. Especially not for the thousands of years that it would need. There is nothing clean about energy, that produces waste, that we can't even handle.
In Spain we are starting to get negative prices every weekend for electricity thanks to renewables. France is not even close to those prices with their bet for nuclear.
Don't get me wrong, I love nuclear power. And I'm not a big fan ok what thousands of windmills made to our landscapes. But efficiency wise renewable is unbeatable nowadays.
Look. Bitcoins might be useless at a societal level. But if we're going to use excess renewable energy to drive out of business the crypto-miners who get their power from coal...
They don't need to be exclusive. Power generation should be diverse. Otherwise prices will go through the roof on times without wind (happens in Germany). This can lead to higher energy prices in combination with high energy exports.
Nuclear power does not solve the issue here. Nuclear reactors take hours or even days to ramp up or down. They are not quick enough to react to such occasions.
True, it wouldn't be enough, This is why Germany still has a lot of coal-fired power station and natural gas power stations, despite huge investments into renewables, and is also investing a lot into wood-fired power stations (imo a really terrible idea). The nuclear plants could still ease the situation by giving a stable basic load that has some planable variability (wind models are getting also better every year and aren't that bad as it is). For now renewables cannot really provide a very stable basic load (at least not here, might be different for other areas).
There are great concepts to improve all of this with stuff like pumped-storage hydroelectricity, but those cannot be build everywhere and take up a lot of space. It is going forward and I think nuclear power will come to an end eventually. For now, I think they still have their place (and imo Germany acted irrationally by shutting them all down).
I mean, we've been lucky that France completly fucked their energy sector up (hints towards that nuclear plants probably also won't be the ultimate solution), otherwise we'd have lost a loooot of money and would have had energy prices even worse.
Negative energy prices are a bad thing! That means that someone is dumping energy into the grid (you should be paying the grid if you have solar panels!!) In the UK all renewable energy had to be called 'experimental' so that the pricing was fixed and the government picks up the tab - that's not good. Check this map - right now the wind isn't blowing and solar hasn't got out of bed - so most of the countries using renewables are looking shit - later today solar will kick in, but tonight it will be bad again. That isn't a solution.
Energy is expensive in France because we are legally forced by european regulation to sell at those prices. Our energy is the least expensive to produce
edit: the tech is cool as hell. go nuts on research reactors. nuclear medicine has saved my sisters life twice.... but i'm sorry, its just not a sane solution to the climate crisis.
Nuclear power relies on stable, safe, and advanced nations not like, I dunno, starting a land war in Europe that threatens to flood the continent with fallout.
A concern of mine is the increasing prevalence of natural disastors as global warming worsens. Our plant and storage location may be safe now but natural disasters will be way worse and in unexpected locations as we're already seeing.
The US better be careful of all those land invasions from Canada. All those NATO countries that live in the largest defensive alliance ever, that are threatened by Russia who couldn't invade one of Europe's poorest countries. China could be invaded at any moment by the Mongols.
That bunch of idiots are the ones who control the tanks, artillery, planes, and funding for infrastructure that is required to keep nuclear plants from melting down
I don’t dislike nuclear, I dislike bad arguments and bad decision making. The president wields enormous power over the stability and infrastructure required for nuclear to be safe and sustainable. You cannot have watched the debate last night, or the events of Jan 6, and feel confidence that anyone involved can be trusted with a goldfish, much less consistently providing a stable nation capable of securing nuclear plants.
If your argument is “don’t worry a sitting president may have staged an insurrection, but it was incompetent so it’s totally ok to leave him in charge of nuclear plants” then yeah, I think that’s a bad argument. And embarrassing
Bad arguments like portraying a bunch of idiots as an actual military force and a war? And you're still (kinda) at it. Now a strawman. Yup, you're everything you project about bad arguments. Ciao.
Nothing about nuclear energy production is good, sensible and safe! You are dependent on a finite resource, you have to put in an incredible amount of effort to keep it running. Not to mention the damage caused by a malfunction (see Fukushima and Chernobyl).
What are you even talking about?!?! There is so much uranium in the world. Even if we completely switched over to nuclear power and without improvements in Nuclear tech, our sun would have fizzled out and we still would have uranium left.
Uranium is more abundant than silver and we don't need much to power a nuclear reactor.
I like how people take Fukushima and Chernobyl as examples for disasters. Please go look up how many people have died from those disasters. Please go check. I'll wait.
Chernobyl: 2
Fukushima: 0
Keep in mind that Chernobyl was built in the 50s with 50s tech it never maintained during the USSR era.
Fukushima did not anticipate a tsunami. Because of the Fukushima disaster we know have new protocols to improve future nuclear builds. If anything Fukushima is a prime example how safe a nuclear reactor can be even when the worst scenario happens.
I like how people take Fukushima and Chernobyl as examples for disasters. Please go look up how many people have died from those disasters. Please go check. I'll wait.
Chernobyl: 2
Fukushima: 0
Are you really that dillusional that you think that the only casualties are the people who died in the incident? Hundreds of peoples suffered from cancer and other long term effects alone in chernobyl. The area is still hazardous to people (as some 'clever' Russian invaders just proofed two years ago)
What are you even talking about?!?! There is so much uranium in the world. Even if we completely switched over to nuclear power and without improvements in Nuclear tech, our sun would have fizzled out and we still would have uranium left.
Uranium is more abundant than silver and we don't need much to power a nuclear reactor.
And yet we would still be dependent on an industry, just as we are today on coal, gas and oil.
I like how people take Fukushima and Chernobyl as examples for disasters. Please go look up how many people have died from those disasters. Please go check. I'll wait.
As others have already answered: far more people died than you claim here! How much land was made uninhabitable for centuries? How many animals would have to die? How much food would have to be destroyed because it was contaminated?
What happens if a tsunami hits an offshore wind farm? They collapse... And then? Do they have to be rebuilt?But you can do that because the land has not been contaminated
Furthermore, any energy production that has the potential to injure, harm or kill thousands of people cannot be considered safe. Just because nothing has happened so far.
There is so much uranium in the world. Even if we completely switched over to nuclear power and without improvements in Nuclear tech, our sun would have fizzled out and we still would have uranium left.
TL;DR: If we switched over to nuclear, we’d burn through the world’s reserves of accessible uranium ore in less than twenty years. Hopefully the sun will last a bit longer than that.
According to 2022 Red Book, there are around 8 million tonnes of Uranium which we could extract for $260 or less, per kg. The current price for uranium is around half that, FYI, so nuclear fuel prices would have at least doubled by the point we’re extracting that last million tonne.
Nuclear power plants use around 20 tonnes of uranium per TWh, according to the world nuclear association, and world energy consumption is around 25,000 TWh per year, according to the IEA. That would be half a million tonnes of uranium consumed per year. Meaning we would burn through the world’s reserve of reasonably accessible uranium in just sixteen years.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem, it is contained to a tiny physical object, all we gotta do is dig a hole, put the object into the hole, and cover it up.
We pretend that it is way harder than it is.
I live in a suburb north of Stockholm in Sweden, and I'd support the government building a large underground permanent storage of nuclear waste from all over the world (for a fee) in my suburb, we have the best ground for permanent storage in Scandinavia, we would earn money, create jobs and make the world safer.
Also it's only a problem if we let it be, there's literally centuries for us to figure out a way to make those waste useful for us. Not working towards that would be the only way for the problem to come back to us in the future.
An idea I have thought about, nuclear boosted geothermal power.
Geothermal power normally just use a simple borehole with a hose going down and then up again, coolant goes in the hole, gets heated up a few degrees and the can then be processed to heat a house.
What if we could run tubes near the nuclear waste that will keep producing heat for thousands of years?
maybe solved where you live, and only for as long as your containment facility stays in one piece.
earthquakes, meteors, tidal waves - these things do happen, sure, not often on a lifetime scale, but compared to the long half-lives of this stuff? plenty of time for the worst case scenario.
I think you pretend the problem is simpler than it actually is, when considered the time frames involved. It's not your lifetime we're talking, it's the hundreds of generations where this shit remains hot.
AND I'd add your country is at least trying, in the US we've given up and store it in pools local to the reactors, it's ignorant as fuck
Scandinavia is geographically stable and has been politically stable for a long time, I can think of no better place for a global nuclear waste storage facility.
Meteors is just s dumb risk to consider in this case, any meteor capable of breaching an underground nuclear waste will cause far worse problems than the nuclear material will.
The baltic isn't that tidal either, so tidal waves can be disregarded.
Earthquakes have happened here, but they are few and far between.
I recommend that you watch the BBC Horizon Documentary "Nuclear Nightmares" that talks about our fear of radiation.
why bother investing enormous amounts of money into a tech that's already problematic? when there are better solutions at hand?
I'm not anti-nuclear, I just think further investment into it is misguided when there are so many other options that don't create tens of thousands of years of radioisotopes that have to go somewhere.
good on Scandinavia, the rest of the world isn't in such privileged positions. As seen in Fukushima. As seen in the hundreds of cooling ponds all over the US.
nothing, not a single thing you've argued, will in any way reduce the radioactive leftovers nuclear reactors produce and most of the world is putting off for the next generation to fix.
Like climate change.
How many crises do you think those poor kids are going to be able to manage at once?
Which crisis is the most important to manage in the short term.
Climate change, nuclear power gives us a huge tool to deal with it by shutting down fossil furl plants.
If we fail the climate change, the nuclear waste will be a tiny problem to deal with.
With nuclear power we at least give people a problem they can deal with, climate change is far, far worse.
The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.
Boom problem solved.
CO2 from fossil plats will keep up climate change for centuries.
The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.
Boom problem solved.
I wish it were that simple. Meanwhile, in reality:
I am very confused now, you link to articles talking about storage pool issues, but I never mentioned storage pools.
I am talking about what they are doing in Finland.
They have drilled a very deep hole in the bedrock, built vaults where they will put cey casks of nuclear waste, then they will backfill the hole and tunnels with clay.
This is how you do it.
No one considers a storage pool as permanent storage.
There are functioning Thorium based Molten Salt Breeder reactors, which for ~50MW can be built in a shipping container size - they are small, so can be deployed at local sites, thus reducing transmission losses, much harder to use for weapons (thats why the world tilted towards the use of uranium reactors in the first place), dont need prior enrichment, and can use much higher percentage of the fuel - so much less waste product. Also since the whole stuff is a molten salt, you just drain it from the reactor core and the reaction simply comes to halt.
The technology works, as it was tested when they were deciding if the industry goes with uranium or thorium, but the war lobby win out unfortunately, as they wanted a source for their nuclear weapons, at which the Thorium reactors are not great.
And yes, nuclear is super clean even if we compare it with solar+wind batteries not even counted in to the equation. BTW you can use "spent" fuel rods from conventional nuclear plants in a breeder reactor, to further diminish waste and use them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
yep, they're awesome, and may sidestep some of the HUGE investments in gigantic infrastructure - one day. What you conveniently leave out is no one is doing this yet at scale; china's got one test reactor going last time I looked.
I personally love the idea, but the nuclear industry here in the US is obsessed with large steam turbine setups in the multiple megawatt scale; even small modular reactors are getting side eyes.
So yeah, it exists, but it's not going to displace the current tech (which is really 60's tech with better electronics).
