I'm not that strongly against it but I'd rather see renewables do the job. But I'm not living in fantasyland so when we do our climate transition thing I'm not going to protest against a few reactors being build.
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
49 points (93.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
806 readers
49 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's based.
Safe and a medium term solution for energy.
The people leading the charge against nuclear aren't unknowingly helping the fossil fuel industry, they are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Have been since the late sixties / early seventies when oil and gas companies realized that they could very easily commandeer the anti-nuclear-weapon and environmentalist bandwagon. Since then they've leveraged fear, of nuclear weapons, radiation and unreliable Soviet reactors, to keep fossil fuels pumping in money.
Currently I think fission energy is the best we have. It's relatively low pollution, relatively low whole cycle footprint, energy dense, efficient, reliable, and so on. Renewables complement and enhance but cannot replace some form of always on baseload power.
You can also look at the history of civilization based on how energy dense their primary fuel was. Coal and oil unlocked industrial potential for having many times more energy than wood. The nuclear age brought on intriguing thoughts like electricity "too cheap to meter." Throwing away that very well earned technical expertise in favour of filthy coal and inefficient renewables is completely silly. Until we find/unlock the next fuel source with a higher energy density, it's the best we've got. We should be leveraging it to improve people's quality of life as we have with every energy related breakthrough in human history.
We don’t need high energy density. It’s anomalous and the cause for climate change that we are using the vast stores of fossil energy now. They are the product of millennia and not sustainable. We will run out of nuclear the same way eventually. To live in harmony with our biosphere we need a reduction in overall energy consumption even with renewables. Please read Half Earth Socialism because they can articulate the argument better than me.
We will not "run out of nuclear eventually". In the 80 years that we have nuclear fuel, we have used only enough to fill the pitch of a regular football pitch with 62 gallon barrels. The vast majority of that is from nuclear weapons as well. Further, nuclear fuel is in its infancy, and we have already begun finding ways to recycle the fuel we have been using. That's on top of uranium mining bieng essentially a rounding error compared to all fossil fuels, and already providing a sizeable portion of the world power creation.
We also absolutely need to use higher energy dense materials, because then we can use less of them. Humanity is not going to magically lower its energy usage, and the human population will keep increasing and becoming more developed. So if you do not like the impacts of uranium (however small they may be) why would you be against Fission? You would use even less materials to acquire more energy.
We would run out if we were to transition the world to mainly or solely nuclear as some of those who don’t like renewables advocate. I’ll have to post the section from HES for you to read (and critique if there is need) later. For now, I’m curious what you think about this: https://m.soundcloud.com/empire-files/atomicdays
There have been many studies about how long nuclear would last, and the end answer is, no one knows. There have been results that say 80 years, 200 years, 500 years, and even 200,000 years.
Further, this does not take into account nuclear advancements in recycling or even fission itself.
Also who says you can’t mix nuclear and renewables? It’s just that renewables by themselves is itself extremely unsustainable. How long will the materials that make solar panels last? We need mixes.
I agree, we don’t know how technology will advance and it can help us shift from fossil fuels. It’s true that some people think it’s a silver bullet though, and it’s important to rebuke them.
some people think it’s a silver bullet though, and it’s important to rebuke them
Why? I mean of course those who are educated on the issue recognize nuclear as a medium term transition solution. But why would we need to dissuade the average layperson from thinking that nuclear is the solution here and now? Surely the more people think that nuclear is the answer the sooner we can get away from fossil fuels. Once we have made that step then we can worry about the next step and explaining that nuclear fission is not an ideal forever solution either. But it is bad propaganda practice to complicate our messaging with unnecessary nuance and caveats. That just causes confusion and uncertainty among the general public which is then exploited by the fossil fuel lobby to halt any transition away from fossil fuel.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I appreciate your response and reading recommendation. Half Earth Socialism is now on my reading list.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nuclear energy is an absolutely necessary and there is no dichotomy between nuclear and renewables. These are complementary technologies that each have their respective strengths. The only way we can realistically phase out fossil fuels is by using nuclear as the backbone of the energy infrastructure. There is a a good reason why China is currently investing in building 150 nuclear reactors while also being world leader in renewables.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Haven't seen this mentioned yet, so I will chime in.
I used to be very pro nuclear, and still see it as a positive addition to a healthily diverse energy system that is able to provide baseline levels of power when wind and solar are low producing like at night. It's unrealistic to think the vast quantities of batteries required for strictly renewables will be easily accessible or not lead to significant waste. This doesn't discount the harvesting and processing of uranium and other fissile materials, but a diversity of resource inputs makes a system more resilient.
My shift has been witnessing the decade it took to construct the Vogel reactor in Georgia when considered with the amount of pollution, waste, and possible risks of nuclear. If reprocessing became more commonplace and environmental regulations were not toothless, I'd still point out the arguments made by Christian Parenti a decade ago. As the Vogel reactor was just approved, he claimed it would take twice as long as the 5 stated years and be double its budget. He was exactly right.
Nuclear would be great in an already socialist society because all the downsides are more easily addressed, but the vast costs and amount of time to build reactors is in direct conflict with the urgency of the climate catastrophe. Every dollar spent focusing on nuclear projects is a dollar that won't be spent on solar or wind which have much faster ROI periods in terms of carbon offsets.
Once we stabilize with other renewables, more focus on nuclear certainly makes sense, but given the urgency of the situation, we need to do what will have the most impact as soon as possible so we have the opportunity to develop nuclear further.
Necessary, specially in our context of global warming, sadly is has been demonized due to Chernobyl accident.
Before someone point out that there were worse nuclear disasters, i make my point that because it happened on soviet union, the nuclear fear took a ride on the red scare.
Were there worse disasters than Chernobyl? Fukushima was in the same category but I don't think it was as catastrophic.
Chernobyl was the worst nuclear energy disaster, yet in comparison to even moderate fossil fuel disasters or the everyday of premature deaths due to burning of fossil fuels it wasn't much of anything.
Fukushima wasn't as catastrophic in terms of people affected, but now with the dumping of wastewater into the ocean and how it's been used as an excuse not to do fission elsewhere its been quite catastrophic as well. Ironically enough, other Japanese nuclear plants on the Pacific coast were used as evacuation facilities during that same earthquake and tsunami, as they were the safest places for people to be.
how it’s been used as an excuse not to do fission elsewhere its been quite catastrophic as well.
It’s been devastating for us here in Japan too. With one exception, our nuclear reactors have been decommissioned due to well-meaning but short-sighted public outcry. Exacerbated by our sanctions of Russia, who provided most of the rest of our energy. We are restarting and rebuilding coal en masse.
Energy bills have gone up by 50-60% while the yen has tanked by as much.
The outcry should really be directed at TEPCO and their handling of the situation before, during, and after.
Personally I think it’s a very strong midterm solution, especially for countries that don’t have the space for things like widespread solar solutions.
It's the same for Germany. Angela Merkel, herself a doctor in quantum chemistry (so she very likely knows the basics of how nuclear power works), had supported maintaining Germany's remaining nuclear power plants until their planned decommissioning dates. That is, until Fukushima when her government agreed to pull the plug early. "It could happen here," everyone thought in panic. Such a panic that the reactor operators had to get paid out for legally promised and lost revenue, but Germans didn't care one bit. Now the country cheers the end of nuclear power, while French reactors help keep the German grid stable.
The excess premature deaths due to increased air pollution are in the tens of thousands here, probably similar in Japan.
As you say, it's all to blame on companies and their lackeys in liberal governments.
it's all to blame on companies and their lackeys in liberal governments
This point cannot be stressed enough. A lot of people have the tendency to look down on the general public for falling into this state of panic and fear about nuclear power and excuse the decisions of the government as them responding to public pressure. But it's the other way around. A government that works for the people would instead seek to educate people about nuclear power, to allay their fears and to explain to them why nuclear is still a much better and safer solution for them than fossil fuel. Public opinion can be shaped very easily if only there was the political will to wage a concerted media campaign to promote nuclear power. Instead liberal governments use the excuse of public opinion to hide behind when they make decisions which harm the people but enrich the politicians' corporate masters.
The was the Three Mile Island incident.
Another good post on this, with some good back and forth articles linked.
Related since its also nuclear: China's fusion power program is advancing rapidly, and we'll likely see the first fusion power plant by the 2050s.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm a nukehead. I want nuclear cargo ships, I want coal factories to be retrofitted with SMRs, I want nuclear airplanes, I want nuclear rocket engines and nuclear bomb propelled rockets, I want nuclear synfuel and nuclear hydrogen and nuclear desalination. The only thing I'm not sold on yet is doing excavation with nuclear explosions.
But to be realistic, I'm mostly just against the environmentalist demonization of nuclear energy. We need more nuclear energy than we have right now, but it's ahistorical to advocate for a fully nuclear economy in the era of renewable energy. Something like China's clean energy mix seems pretty reasonable.
Extremely useful, although we should invest in researching potentially better variants like thorium reactors and fusion.
Yes, the problem is nuclear energy under capitalism will always take shortcuts for the sake of a profit margin. Proper research and preparation has to be done in order to avoid Chernobyl or worse
We're lucky on Earth because we have a fairly large amount of Uranium that should last us at least 100 years. It's not nearly as destructive as most ways of generating power, and 100 years gives us lots of time to find more uranium (harvesting it from sea water comes to mind), or to finally get fusion reactors into production.
Very pro-nuclear. It defends against the following:
- imperialism;
- climate change;
- energy shortage ;
Good shit. Builds jobs. Low polluting. Way too much corruption and expense involved. Can’t be scaled down.
It's good especially compared to fossil fuels. People are very afraid of nuclear waste so we will keep track of it and know where it is. Fossil fuel waste is also very dangerous but it's emitted as a part of everyday life straight into the atmosphere and isn't directly and immediately harmful to people. So no one gives a crap about it. To me this is a big advantage to nuclear.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It’s better than fossil fuels in moderation, but we don’t have enough uranium to last too long on it. Some people use nuclear to deflect away from renewables, but the reality is we need to be mostly renewable to be sustainable. I think fast breeders and fusion are worth continuing to look into, but since it doesn’t exist now we shouldn’t act like we already have them. It’s important to consider the waste and the fact that many countries just keep nuclear around to make nukes. highly recommend everyone read Half Earth Socialism which has a good chapter debunking claims nuclear energy will save us from climate change.
Solar is WAY cheaper, quick to build and still decreasing in costs. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build and not appropriate for all terrains. Earthquake prone areas are bad as we can see from Fukushima nuclear plant. Nuclear also needs a source of water for cooling. It's good in niche cases but getting less and less economically justifiable compared to renewables.
my friend excitedly tells me about new energy source
I tell him this better be something new
”haha oh man, yeah it’s new - it’s nuclear power!”
mfw it’s steam turning a turbine for the millionth time
Overrated by some Reddit/lib types.
They advocate it because they feel they'll shock environmentalists.
There's a reason hardly any nuclear plants have been built the past 40 years. Because there are more profitable ways of making energy.
It wasn't hippies shut it down, it was profit-calculation.
And we're running low on fossil fuels. "Oh we'll use uranium instead!" Well that's a non-renewable mineral too, we'll run out of that soon enough.
Of course there are some drawbacks, but there are more positive sides. And it's stupid to close nuclear plants in the middle of a climate crisis, like Germany is doing.
It’s fine to reduce nuclear for renewables, but they’re just stupid replacing it with coal.
Yeah, that is my biggest gripe with the atomist movement, that the atomists I have a displeasure of talking to are covertly against renewables.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm "against" it in current reality in the sense that I see it as the techie way to greenwash energy production. It relies on a lot of mining, typically in third world countries, to supply the energy consumption of the imperial core.
That wrecks the local environment and the society getting wrecked is never gonna benefit from that energy. I'm pretty sure Europe which relies a lot on nuclear barely has any mines themselves. Building the infrastructure is also very expensive (specially since a shoddy job would be so dangerous to first worlders), to the point where it makes other large scale projects like dams sound plausible.
They just aren't made instead beause they'd be changing and possibly harming the core environment rather than the peripheral one.
Nuclear proponents always have this (possibly very real) strawman in their heads about how "nuclear is unsafe" or "nuclear weapons" with good counterarguments for both, but I've yet to see one explicitly countering the position that nuclear power is just externalising the damage to overexploited countries. The current Niger situation comes to mind.
And nuclear waste disposal as it exists is also very unsustainable.
Now, if the same countries that extract the uranium/plutonium had the right to decide if that's acceptable to them democratically, and got help from "green" countries to set up their own end-to-end nuclear infrastructure with no strings attached for the good of the human race, then I'd be very interested.
But hydro, wind and solar are all right there with way less drawbacks.
Ok? But all those renewables you list require the exact same mining, environmental destruction, and exploitation, but a hell of a lot more of it.
I would argue that hydro is even more horrific to local ecosystems.
I understand your points. I'm just not convinced that renewables avoid the issues with externalized damage due to mining, production, and waste. Simply based on the amounts of materials needed, renewables are pretty resource intensive, and a lot of these resources come from over-exploited nations just as raw uranium often does.
China and Russia are, as far as I am aware anyway, sharing technology that does allow formerly colonized countries to build their own nuclear power and potentially use their own uranium resources to fuel it.
I see waste disposal as a social and political problem rather than a technical problem. We could manage it sustainably, but we choose not to because of all the cultural fear and anxiety we have surrounding anything nuclear.
They don't 100% avoid it, but the point is that after the thing is built, both the damages and benefits are felt mostly by the same nation. Nuclear on the other hand requires a stable stream of material, and it's a privilege usually reserved to technologically advanced nations. Third world nations on the other hand can afford to build their own dams, like Brazil or Ethiopia.
Like others pointed out, hydro (dams) are a mess for the environment too, but you can't build a dam in Africa and export the energy to Europe. Uranium can be exported though, and that's how it's implemented currently.
I'm not against it as an ideal, just that the discourse around it often ignores the current material conditions of it. The countries that can afford to move their grid to nuclear are either huge and advanced like China or Russia/USSR, or rely on blood uranium from their colonies.
But I'm happy those two are helping out and it might eventually be universally feasible, even if from my naive position I'd prefer a >90% green grid.
load more comments
(1 replies)
this is objectively correct. like everything, it is not ethical under a imperialist world order
I don’t know if hydro should be lumped in with other renewables. It’s very disruptive for the ecosystems involved with the river.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's probably useful but all I can think about is how easy it would be to become complacent and watch another meltdown happen or a major terrorist attack. All those benefits seem secondary to the possiblity of hundreds of thousands of people dying overnight from radiation poisoning.
If you want to minimise deaths/TWh, nuclear actually comes in at second place, behind solar. Including all the victims of Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear still is 1.3x safer than wind, 40x safer than hydropower, 80x safer than methane, 150x safer than biomass, 600x safer than oil, and over 800x safer than coal. Nuclear energy production looks spooky and disasters are dramatic and get lots of media coverage, but they are surprisingly uncommon compared to accidents in mines or from pollution.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm pro nuclear power thanks to some videos made by Kyle Hill which I will link
you need to insert watch?v= before the video ID on yewtu.be (possibly all Invidious instances)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›