Deep level irony that you used a Simpsons meme, which takes place in a city that suffers from a Nuclear Power Plant that doesn't dispose of nuclear waste properly.
Every form of energy generation is problematic in the hands of capital. Security measures can and are often considered unnecessary expense. And even assuming that they will respect all safety standards, we still have the problem of fuel: France, for example, was only able to supply its plants at a cheap cost because of colonialism in Africa. Therefore, nuclear energy potentially has the same geopolitical problems as oil, in addition to the particular ones: dual technology that can and is applied in the military, not necessarily but mainly atomic bombs.
__
Also, I thought memes were supposed to be funny...
It's not completely unfunny because of the unintentional irony. Tough it definitely belongs to that specific category of "meme" commonly seen on r/politicalmemes or any of its variants on the feedverse: usually a frame from The Office with text written on a whiteboard, with the ubiquity of the complete absence of a joke.
Yeah, I'd tend to agree on that.
Even beyond the security issues, nuclear has the potential to be a safe, but it also has the potential to be disastrous if mis-managed.
Now imagine a plant in Texas, where power companies response to winter outages has basically been "sucks to be you, winterizing is too costly".
Or maybe we'd like to go with a long-time trusted company, who totally wouldn't throw away safety and their reputation for a few extra bucks. Boeing comes to mind.
I like nuclear as a power source, but the absolutely needs to be immutable rules in place to ensure it is properly managed and that anyone attempting to cut corners to save costs gets slapped down immediately. Corporate culture in North America seems to indicate otherwise.
If you're interested in energy solutions and haven't read the RethinkX report on the feasibility of a 100% solar, wind and battery solution, it's definitely worth taking a look.
Whilst I agree that we need to decarbonise asap with whatever we can, any new nuclear that begins planning today is likely to be a stranded asset by the time it finishes construction. That money could be better spent leaning into a renewable solution in my view.
Exactly this. I am "in favor" of nuclear energy, but only in the sense that I'd like fossil power to be phased out first, then nuclear. Any money that could be spent on new nuclear power plants is better spent on solar and wind.
I'd like Nuclear power not to be thrown out with the bathwater because it is practically essential for space travel/colonization in the long term. Solar panels can only get us so far, and batteries are a stop-gap. We need nuclear power because it is the only energy source that can meet our needs while being small enough to carry with us.
it is practically essential for space travel/colonization in the long term.
Seems like it's pretty important we not burn through our finite reserves of it if we can help it. I'm not saying we should reach zero nuclear, but I don't think we should be relying on it too much either.
We are no where near close to running out of nuclear material. And for its energy density, we are unlikely to run out anytime in the next 10000 years. It can also be found in asteroids or other rocky bodies, so unlike wood or fossil fuels, Earth isn't the only place to get it.
Does it cover everyone on the planet using the same amount of electricity as a North American? 8 billion people now. And usage is increasing too, gotta power EVs and AI (but not limited to that).
Nah, they won't. It goes bling-bling, has a couple of good use cases, but because it generates Market Hype, Companies will cram it into everything. And i hate it.
I agree it's safe but idk it's the best we currently have, I think that probably depends on locale.
Solar and wind (and maybe tidal?), with pumped hydro energy storage is probably cheaper, safer, and cleaner... But it requires access to a fair bit more water than a nuclear plant requires, at least initially.
But nuclear is still far better than using fossil fuels for baseline demand.
Land usage is also a huge concern with hydro power. Pumped hydro storage means permanently flooding an area to create the reservoir, which carries many above and beyond just the destruction of whatever was there before. The flooded land has vegetation on it, enough is now decaying under water. This can release all sorts of unpleasantness, most notably mercury.
I agree it absolutely has problems and I hope we come up with a better solution in the near future.
But it's currently the lesser evil. Even though nuclear plants don't need a lot of fuel, getting that fuel is still typically more damaging than creating a water reservoir, or using an existing natural reservoir.
Land usage is what makes nuclear the most ecologically sound solution. Solar and wind play their part. But for every acre of land, nuclear tops the chart of power produced per year. And when you're trying to sate the demand of high density housing and businesses in cities, energy density becomes important. Low carbon footprint is great for solar and wind but if you're also displacing ecosytems that would otherwise be sucking up carbon, its not as environmentally friendly as we'd like.
Are you displacing whole ecosystems, though?
How much do wind farms affect grasslands and prairies, etc? They'll have an impact for sure, but it's not like the whole place gets paved over.
And solar can get placed on roofs of existing structures. Or distributed so it doesn't affect any one area too much.
I have to admit idk much about sourcing the materials involved in building solar panels and windmills. Idk if they require destructive mining operations.
I imagine that a nuclear reactor would require more concrete, metal, and rate earth magnets that a solar/wind farm, but idk. I likewise don't know the details about mining and refining the various fissile material and nuclear poisons.
The other advantage of renewables is that it's distributed so it's naturally redundant. If it needs to get shut down (repairs, or a problem with the grid) it wont have a big impact.
I like nuclear, and it's certainly the better choice for some locations, but many locations seems better suited for renewable
Right, like I've said it's not the best solution everywhere. But where it's an option (which is many places) it's a better one. Not solar in the case of grasslands, probably wind. But you get the idea.
I'm not against renewables but utilizing them as our main source of energy just is not practical for long term, there are serious ecological issues that have been sidelined because of global warming/climate change. Things like rooftop solar only become viable in low density housing, but low density housing is also not good use of land.
I agree it's not the ideal solution, but it's better than most solutions we have, depending on location.
Rooftop solar doesn't only need to be on residential buildings, it can also be on industrial and commercial buildings, which take a significant land area.
One last benefit of most renewable energy that is related to its distributed nature: it's easy to slowly roll out update and replacements. If a new tech emerges you can quickly change your rollout plan to use the new tech, and replace the old tech a little bit at a time, without any energy disruption.
With mega-projects like nuclear reactors, you can't really change direction mid-construction, and you can't just replace the reactors as new tech comes online, because each reactor is a huge part of the energy supply and each one costs a fortune.
Also, according to the doc you shared of land-use, in-store wind power is nearly the same as nuclear, since the ecology between the windmills isn't destroyed.
So while I agree that nuclear absolutely has a place, and that renewables have some undesirable ecological repercussions, they're still generally an excellent solution.
The elephant in the room, though, is that all the renewable solutions I mentioned will require energy storage, to handle demand variation and production variation. The most reliable and economically feasible energy storage is pumped hydro, which will have a similar land usage to hydro power. On the upside, although it has a significant impact, it does not make the land ecological unviable, it just changes what ecosystem will thrive there - so sites must be chosen with care.
No one talks about land usage for solar either. Which is a real shame, because with some relatively minor redesigns solar plants can be integrated into the ecosystem without causing massive damage, instead of what usually happens which is just clear-cutting a huge field and destroying any plant and animal life there.
Nuclear plants also have to built adjacent to reliable water supply. I'll bet the land is more expensive and a bigger environmental impact whereas the location for solar is more flexible
The USA specifically has so much useless land with minimal ecological value, that if an energy project could actually be done at a federal level we could probably not have to worry about it.
There is a whole bunch of land in central USA that is not especially unique or teaming with life, slap down a big renewable energy farm.
I hate to say it, but regardless of one's stance, on his back should be "Public perception of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and 3-mile Island."
I say regardless of one's stance, because even if the public's perceptions are off...when we remember those incidents but not how much time was in between them or the relative infrequency of disasters, they can have outsized effects on public attitude.
It's not a great idea from the risk. If future governments let the windmills fall into disrepair, all that happens is windmills are useless. They can never accidently summon centuries of nuclear winter.
They can never accidently summon centuries of nuclear winter.
Neither can nuclear power plants, lol. Nuclear power plants are not built in a way that can trigger a nuclear bomb explosion, which is inherent to the theory of nuclear winter of nuclear explosions leaving material in the atmosphere to blot out the sun.
Maintaining a fission reaction is an incredibly complicated process that requires human intervention to sustain. If nuclear plants fell into "disrepair" the would just turn off and be useless, like windmills.
Dude, you realize a nuclear meltdown releases far more nuclear poison than a nuclear bomb. It's not about the immediate destructive potential.
A nuclear winter would last at most a decade or two due to the dust thrown into the atmosphere by the explosions. A disaster like Chernobyl, while not even close in terms of destructive power, had the potential to release enough radiation to leave half of Europe uninhabitable for centuries, maybe even millenia. Chernobyl is still dangerous to this day while cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving.
And to think you could just abandon a nuclear power plant safely...
You realize used nuclear fuel is extremely hot and still radiating heat and has to be cooled for a long time. You abandoned one without safety measures and the pools cooling the used fuel would just boil and evaporate. The water gone would no longer shield the radiation and you'd have a ton of radioactive material shitting poison into the atmosphere and meltdown.
Some people don't know shit about nuclear power and like to act condescending "it's not like a nuclear bomb". No, it's far more dangerous. And all it takes is a couple of really bad accidents to ruin the planet. And Murphy's law tells us those improbable accidents will happen eventually. That means with nuclear power, quick or slowly we are walking towards the abyss. When we reach it we fall and there's no way out.
It's not clear what your trying to stay, but if you're saying that coal is very bad and nuclear power is better, that's not untrue, but it's important to remember that the economic pressure right now is against coal and for renewable energy, even in coal country businesses won't build in a state that won't explicitly commit to only building renewable energy exclusively for all new ot replacement energy sources. The situation isn't perfect, there should be more aggressive removal of dirty energy, granted, but nuclear power isn't the only clean option, and it comes with a lot of risks.
There are two main problems in my opinion, and they are both related to the "fuel". First, uranium is rare and you often need to buy it from other countries. For instance, Russia. Not great. Second, it is not renewable energy. We can't rely on nuclear fission in the long run.
Then there's also the issue of waste, which despite not being as critical as some argue, is still a problem to consider
A big problem IMO is the generational responsibility of the waste as well. There needs to be decades of planning, monitoring and maintaince to ensure waste sites are safe and secure, this can be done but modern political climates can make it difficult.
Agreed, dealing with the waste is a thing. But for me a solvable problem and something that doesn't need to be solved right away. We currently store a lot of nuclear waste in holding locations till we figure out a way to either make it less radioactive or store it for long enough.
The alternative however is having coal plants all over the world spew all their dust (including radioactive dust) and CO2 straight into the atmosphere. This to me is a far bigger issue to solve. It isn't contained in one location, but instead ends up all over the world. It ends up in people's homes and bodies, with a huge impact to their health. It ends up in the atmosphere, with climate change causing huge (and expensive) issues.
The amount of money we need to handle nuclear waste would be orders of magnitude lower than what we are going to have to pay to handle climate change. And that isn't even fixing the issue, just dealing with the consequences. I don't know how we are ever going to get all that carbon back out of the atmosphere, but it won't be cheap.
It'd be nice to prioritise it at least rather than tucking it away under the oil and gas rug. There is no real competition in energy output to a nuclear power plant. And despite its egregious up front cost, operating it is relatively low cost.
In regards to fuel, uranium is used often but there is options such as thorium that have been used with some success. I do agree it is unfortunate to have to purchase from other countries but I think it beats buying natural gas from wherever it may be sold.
you often need to buy it from other countries. For instance, Russia. Not great.
Yeeeeah, I wouldn't worry about that. Sure we (Australia) are conservative with our fears of mining and exporting uranium, especially with the Cold War and reactor whoopsies around the world. But historically it doesn't take much for us to go down on an ally.
Is that supposed to convince me that there's plenty of uranium left? Because based on the numbers shown with reserve vs. historical usage it kinda seems like it would last for a few decades at best.
The mining is also usually a really polluting affair for the region, much more than the what power generation might suggest. And overall, in many countries there is a lot of subsidies going on for hidden costs, especially relating to the waste and initial construction. So it is not as cheap as a first look might suggest.
I'm not against it per se, it is better than fossil fuels, which simply is the more urgent matter, but it's never been the wonder technology it has been touted as ever since it first appeared.
One thing to remember about the mining issue is that coal mining is just as bad, and coal is often radioactive as well. More people have died from radiation poisoning due to coal power/mining than have died from radiation poisoning due to nuclear power, even when you include disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Of course, we've also been mining and using coal a lot longer, but the radioactive coal dust and possibly radioactive particles in the smoke from coal plants is something that many people are unaware of.
But, like you said, the big thing is to move away from fossil fuels entirely, and nuclear power has its own issues. It doesn't so much matter what we go with so long as we do actually go with something, and renewables are getting better and better all the time.
Coal has caused more deaths this year than the entire history of nuclear anything has in total. This includes nuclear energy, nuclear research, nuclear medicine, nuclear irradiation (food storage), and too many orphan sources.
Except that you don't need uranium for nuclear reactors. The reason it's used traditionally because it's also used for nuclear weapons. Thorium is a much better fuel that's more abundant. China has already started operating these types of reactors. The other advantage of this design is that they use molten salt instead of water for cooling. Molten salt reactors don't need to be built next to large bodies of water, and they are safer because salt becomes solid when it cools limiting the size of contamination in case of an accident.
I don't think it will. The large cost of a reactor will probably be shared, but fission plants don't deal with plasma, magnets, hydrogen/helium storage, lasers, or capacitors. And we don't even know the method by which a practical fusion plant will operate!
I am talking in the sense that the same companies are participating in fusion research, and pretty sure the methods you mentioned are utilized somewhat in nuclear plants. Like handling and filtering radioactive materials.
Radioactive waste maybe. Fusion plants are likely to create irradiated parts that degrade quickly, similar to fission plants. Fusion fuel on the other hand, is gaseous, and likes to escape. Hydrogen is explosive, while helium-3 is just expensive.
It's interesting watching the discussion in this thread evolving and polarizing. Yesterday the discussion started as 'nuclear is one solution in a portfolio of solutions to combat climate change. vs. nuclear is always bad.' and developed into 'nuclear is good and you're dumb. vs. nuclear is bad and you're evil'.
Seems like that's how every large scale "discussion" on the internet goes, all nuance goes out the window. I guess the platforms don't allow for nuanced takes? Other than maybe longform podcasts, but those aren't exactly large scale discussions like reddit or twitter. Maybe some clever sociologist can figure out why we are like this (or likely already has).
It's also really weird because discussing a topic like this heavily impacted by where you come from. For exemple the discussion about nuclear energy cannot be the same in France, China, USA or Russia and I see almost everyone here talking the thing like the choice between Nuclear Energy or not (because it's should never be about Nuclear Energy or Renewable Energy) was the same everywhere on the planet.
So here we are, a lot of people talking to themselves instead of talking with each other, hammering their idea on the topic without even once considering that others living in others places and living in others conditions will approach the subject differently (and than it should be normal and comprehensible)
Yes yes. Let's continute to use energy sources which are limited in terms of available but necessary resources and cause highly problematic by-products. It has been going on so well so far. Hasn't it?
lol nuclear is really uneconommical, way too expensive and therefore really inefficient. You need 10-20 years to build a plant for energy 3 times more expensive than wind. For plants that still require mining. That produce waste we cannot store and still cannot reuse (except for one small test plant).
For plants that no insurance company want to insure and energy companies dont like to build without huge government subsidies.
I know lemmy and reddit have a hard on for nuclear energy because people who dont know anything about it think its cool. But this post is ridiculous even for lemmy standards.
Hi, I work in waste handling, and I would like to tell you about dangerous materials and what we do with them.
There are whole hosts of chemicals that are extremely dangerous, but let's stick with just cyanide, which comes from coal coking, steel making, gold mining and a dozen chemical synthesis processes.
Just like nuclear waste, there is no solution for this. We can't make it go away, and unlike nuclear waste, it doesn't get less dangerous with time. So, why isn't anyone constantly bringing up cyanide waste when talking about gold or steel or Radiopharmaceuticals? Well, that's because we already have a solution, just not "forever".
Cyanide waste, and massive amounts of other hazardous materials, are simply stored in monitored facilities. Imagine a landfill wrapped in plastic and drainage, or a building or cellar with similar measures and someone just watches it. Forever. You can even do stuff like build a golfcourse on it, or malls, or whatever.
There are tens of thousands of these facilities worldwide, and nobody gives a solitary fuck about them. It's a system that works fine, but the second someone suggests we do the same with nuclear waste, which is actually less dangerous than a great many types of chemical waste, people freak out about it not lasting forever.
That's uhh, not what that says. One of the two mentions of half life are your body converting cyanide into thiocyanate, which will kill you and depending on your last bowel movement, make your corpse into hazardous waste itself.
The other mention is hydrogen cyanide in air, which is lighter than air and will decompose back into cyanide eventually, scattering it over a large area. Which will technically make it go away from your site, but spreading toxic waste over the countryside is illegal for a reason.
Oh yeah, you could totally just leave it in a giant pool and ignore it. It'll react, evaporate and eventually break down into cyanide again, rain down, subtly poison the area, react again, evaporate again, etc.
And that's great for the owner of the big pool of cyanide, and very bad for everyone else. Stuff that evaporates doesn't disappear, the cyanide doesn't magically change into cookiedough. You're just spreading it around more.
Hydrogen cyanide will turn into "cookie dough" in 1-5 years. Which is way shorter than "forever".
The way you said it in your first comment made it seem longer lasting than radioactive waste. Which it isn't according to the linked PDF. That is the only point I was trying to make.
... Hydrogen cyanide is literally what has been used to execute people in gas chambers and genocide during the Holocaust. The LC(Lo), the lowest recorded lethal concentration is 107ppm, resulting in death in 10 minutes. That's, objectively, far more dangerous than the respective material that firefighters were exposed to at Chernobyl. You don't want that in any appreciable quantity in the air around people that you want to continue living.
I mean, spent fuel is actually quite lethal when not packaged, but you get something like 300-400MWh out of a kilo of fuel. And that's significantly more than I'll use in my lifetime.
I'd gladly keep a kilo of dry-casked spent fuel in my house. It'd make an excellent coffee table or something, if a bit hard to move. I would absolutely not put a lifetime supply of benzene anywhere near my house.
Edit: it would make a shitty coffee table. 1 kilo of uranium oxide is just under 100ml
Cyanide is used extensively in precious metal recycling too. So even reclaiming resources has a harsh chemical cost. Meeting workers from there I was surprised to say the least about how 'casually' they work with Cyanide. Clearly they have safty protocall but nothing like what I imagined something like Cyanide would call for.
In addition to hazardous materials regulations, I also do workplace safety, and this doesn't surprise me at aaaaall. People get really casual around stuff that kills you slowly.
