Obligatory Kyle Hill videos because keyword “nuclear energy”:
https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
https://youtu.be/J3znG6_vla0
Some things to note:
Going back to 1965, air pollution from fossil fuels has cost us around 81 million lives. 4,000 people in China die every day due to fossil fuel pollution. 1 in 5 premature deaths can be attributed to fossil fuels.
Radiation in pop culture is portrayed as difficult to contain, but that isn’t the case. We know how to do it well, and we already do it.
Pop culture depictions fail to illustrate the radiation that is released into the air, unable to be properly managed, as a result of fossil fuel production and consumption.
Containing the radiation isn't the same as resolving the nuclear waste problem.
That's why we've already seen breakthroughs in reactors that use nuclear waste for fuel.
Which if they were practically feasible, still wouldn't be running for another ten years. Whereas the time and money and resources looking for breakthroughs in that ten years, could easily go to renewables and hey, they don't need a breakthrough solution for nuclear waste. They already work and already are cheaper. Literally the solution. Right there.
It's still better than the totally uncontained pollution and carbon dioxide of fossil fuels.
No. It's kicking the can down the road. And when there is a real, viable, cleaner, cheaper option already up and running, nuclear is simply not the answer.
It's better than what we are doing to limit the emissions from petroleum.
That's kinda the problem. Money that should be going to renewables is going to nuclear, which won't be effective for many years. Renewables don't have the high cost and requirements and ramp up time nuclear requires.
Containing the radiation isn't the same as resolving the nuclear waste problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong but even though Nuclear sounds cool. In the vast majority of places isn't it less costly, to go with renewables, instead? And for a greater power output? And also renewables can be created in a fraction of the time without any r&d. That's not even mentioning the potential hazards and waste management issues with nuclear.
nuclear is on demand though which is it's great advantage over renewables
I don't know about initial costs, but the main problem with wind/solar is they cannot be scaled up/down on-demand. The depend on the weather and that does not align with energy demands throught the day.
As long as we cannot store energy at-scale, we will have to rely in another source of energy we can ramp up/down depending of the energy demands (being fossil fuels or, preferibly, nuclear)
Wind and solar are (mostly) good from a risk/benefit analysis, and I think further investment in battery tech would make them even better. But the problem with nuclear, other than waste, is the fact that noone has tried building like a bunch of reactors that are basically the same. So the training becomes industrialized, repairs and manufacturing, over time it gets cheaper. In France, correct me if I'm wrong, they did this and it was really successful. In general the main problem with both technologies is lack of public investment, i think due to political consequences from oil companies, general bourgeois resistance to public works and investment, etc.,
In Australia our conservatives run on the promise of nuclear power, but they've been in power for 20 of the last 26 years and haven't ever attempted to implement it, they just use the promise to stymie the development of renewables.
Imo the time to try to use nuclear to suppress oil and gas was 50 years ago.
The nuclear power is in the water because Japan dumped it in there to save a buck.
Japan is currently dumping contaminated water from the Fukushima reactor into the Pacific and will continue to do so for 30 years.
There's a bit more nuance here. Fron this article, the plan is to treat the water to decontaminate it, then dilute it as much as possible because the treatment cannot remove some isotopes which could cause problems. The 30 year plan is actually a good thing since this would dilute the isotopes further making the risk minimal according to IAEA and the US. There are some independent labs that voice concerns for more data though.
The main issue is that the tanks that are supposed to hold the contaminated cooling seawater are filling up quick, so they need to add some space. Unless there's a better plan, it's either that or the tanks overflow.
The counter nuance to that nuance is that:
- You can't undo years of release if theres problems down the line
- Current science says that this release is probably fine, but as you said independent labs and neighboring countries have posed objections based on insufficiency of evidence
- "Current science" is really key here because it wasn't so long ago that science was convinced that heroin could be given to babies, smoking was harmless, and leaded gasoline is safe. Our state of the art has a habit of becoming the next generation's "how could they be so stupid?"
- There have been alternative treatment and disposal options proposed and the Japanese government just happened to chose the cheapest one? That doesn't pass the sniff test.
- Even if the release turns out to be completely safe in retrospect, all of the factors above will cause a significant amount of people to turn their opinions against nuclear power because it sets a precedent for perceived reckless handling of nuclear waste.
These are valid criticisms and they should be addressed. I think the main issue is that this is urgent and we can't wait to do the amount of surveying or studying enough to guarantee a safe dumping. I'm just assuming here since no one said anything about that. But I think it's a valid assumption since the disaster is 12 years old. If they are rushing this after let's say 8 years of studying it, then whatever time they have left to fill up the tanks is probably not gonna be enough.
Every single decision we make is based on "current science" since we didn't invent a time machine just yet to look at the future. Just because science has messed up in the past, doesn't mean we should paralyze ourselves now.
What are these alternative treatments that the government rejected? How much more effective are they vs how much more do they cost? If treatment "A" gives us a 5% chance of a better outcome and costs 80% more, then it makes sense. If it was an 80% better outcome for 80% more cost then yeah they did mess up.
"Current science" is really key here because it wasn't so long ago that science was convinced that heroin could be given to babies, smoking was harmless, and leaded gasoline is safe.
Science as a whole never was, there was just a shitton of money going to anybody publishing studies saying so. There's not a cannon of grant money fired at any scientist who says "radiation is good actually".
The lead gas thing is as you described but heroin and tobacco especially were in wide use for many years without anyone really knowing the full extent of damage they caused. Sometimes it does actually just take science a while to gather the data and catch up.
it is worth pointing out that the Fukishima plant had it's seawall bellow regulation height and had it's meltdown after seawater flooded the backup generator. This was an easily preventable disaster if they had just followed the law about nuclear safety
it wasn't even a big saving they were cutting cost on a wall
You ever hear of the bikeshed effect? It's the idea that if you get a committee of laymen to make a decision on something extremely complex, like a nuclear power plant, they'll hyperfixate in on the one thing that they think they understand - the bike shed. So instead of oversight and planning of the important bits of the plant like the reactor or the safety system, each decision maker will take their turn altering the color and the dimensions and the positioning of the bike shed.
I'm gonna guess that the wall was their bike shed.
I don't get it, didn't Europe produce like 100% wind power at one point this past week?
Not a good solution for most of the world, but great for where it can be done, same as geothermal.
Tidal, hydroelectric dams, and geothermal should all together be able to cover a pretty significant part of the Earth, shouldn't they?
Yeah a dam will wreck a valley. But a nuclear station can irradiate a whole region and coal ruins the planet.
A dam wrecking a valley is a best case scenario. Worst case is thousands dead.
The worst case scenario for a nuclear station is a few dozen dead.
coal ruins the planet.
Also runs the air and water, coal residue is dumped in rivers.
I really don't want to play top trumps over which tragic disaster is worse by measuring bodycounts, as this is all way too grim and I think we can agree that the worst case scenarios for all of these things are awful in their own distinct ways. But that number you put for nuclear is difficult to believe. Where did you find it?
IIRC Chernobyl amounted to about 46 people dead from the disaster itself, (the Fukushima incident did not kill anyone at the time it occurred IIRC, three mile island didn't kill anyone) and while it did release a lot of radioactive material that did result it more cancers/excess mortality, coal burning releases about ten times more radioactive material than a nuclear reactor (coal has trace amounts of radioactive material in it). So even if we're just comparing the hazards of radiation nuclear is probably the better/cleaner option if there's a robust and quick response after incidents.
Yes coal is indeed very bad and needs go away immediately. But I'm not so sure if coal being bad makes radiation cancers from Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield, etc etc etc not worth caring about.
Some nuclear disasters are a bit overstated honestly. Like Three Mile Island was a tiny amount of radiation. Coal ash releases more radiation regularly. It’s just part of our normal “accepted” energy production and doesn’t get the media focus.
They're definitely worth caring about (and for) but I'd say it's really important to put the dangers of nuclear power in the context of what we're already doing, and it's magnitudes safer. While I feel like we should be pushing for more renewables regardless, at the same time nuclear's still really viable because it doesn't have the availability (renewables are weather dependent) and storage (you can just keep running it on demand) issues.
deaths per watt hydroelectric is the worst and nuclear is one of the best
I have no idea if that's bullshit or not, but this is definitely turning into a tragic bodycount measuring contest. I'm outta here. 
when talking about safety how many people something has killed is useful information
Nuclear had its time. Solar and wind is cheaper, can be distributed and has a fraction of the waste and supply chain issues.
Very true.
I would support reactors which aren’t designed to produce enriched uranium, don’t blowup when neglected, and don’t produce as much waste.
There has been some work on molten salt reactors recently, which look promising.
