The nuclear argument gets weaker by the year considering rapid advancements in renewables and the decades+ period of time it takes to build a new nuclear reactor. We have the safest nuclear reactor available. The sun.
The RBMK reactors at Chernobyl were based on a design from the the early 1950s and were crude even by the standards of the time. The reactor design is inherently unsafe for several reasons, which was compounded by inadequate monitoring and containment systems. Safe operation of the reactor was hindered by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the flawed nature of the reactor design; the emergency response was similarly hindered by a deliberate and systematic cover-up of the scale of the disaster.
Comparing a modern nuclear power plant to Chernobyl is like comparing a 2019 Honda Civic with a 1961 Chevy Corvair. We've learned so many lessons and changed our safety culture so profoundly in in the intervening period. If we are allowed to keep developing and building nuclear reactors, we'll keep building safer and more efficient reactors.
That's a pretty interesting metaphor, because while the newer car is indeed much safer, there are many types of accidents where the driver will be killed no matter what car they're driving. Perhaps they'll still have all the body parts attached in the Honda though ;)
One of my favorite books is "Normal accidents" by Perrow, where atomic plants are the perfect example of high-risk systems which invite system accidents.
Their dedicated chapter is comically horrific. e.g.:
"In 1978 a worker changing a light bulb in a control panel at the Rancho Secco 1 reactor in Clay Station, California, dropped the bulb. It created a short circuit in some sensors and controls. Fortunately, the reactor scram controls were not among those affected, and the reactor automatically scrammed. But the loss of some sensors meant the operators could not determine the condition of the plant, and there was a rapid cooling of the core. [...] did not in this case damage the core. But this is probably only because the plant had been operating at full power for less than three years. A spokesman for the NRC said: “If it had been 10 to 15 full power years, instead of two to three, which it was, that vessel might have cracked.” A cracked vessel would result in a loss of coolant and a meltdown; no emergency system would be available to cool the core."
Perrow's thesis was that systems needed three characteristics to generate normal accidents: to be very complex (beyond any single human's detailed comprehension), to be tightly coupled (meaning that the system can change its behaviour quickly) and to have catastrophic potential.
Pressurised water designs are inherently complex and coupled because the necessity to circulate fluid at all times without failure, making them complex (lots of moving parts and failure modes) and coupled (failures can rapidly propagate their effects). They also produce plentiful radioactive byproducts.
A counterargument is that non-PWR designs in Gen-III+ and Gen-IV actually address some or all of these characteristics. Many of them are much simpler, reducing complexity. Many of them are design to operate passively, reducing complexity and coupling. And some of them reduce radioactive byproducts.
Compare it to a "sure thing" on wallstreet. Let's say you hold stock and sell an option contract at a price point you believe will never get hit. Yet if that price point gets hit your entire life savings gets wiped out. This "will never happen" mindset forgets that we as humans don't know what we don't know. We are simple. Nuclear is complex.
IMO nuclear could become safer with more investment into it. But why invest in a technology that is less safe than alternatives like solar.
The fear that people have of nuclear is a variable to calculate. The first commenter pointed out his girlfriend is afraid of nuclear power. Fear, stress and anxiety is an emotion that causes physical consequences. If the public is afraid of it and says Not in My Back Yard - it doesn't matter how safe your paper calculations are. Yes - Chernobyl spoiled it for everyone. The rude party guest that got the cops called and forced the party to break up early. It stinks. Thanks Chernobyl for ending the nuclear revolution in its infancy. But it is a reality.
Someone will counter-argue that fossil fuels destroyed the ozone layer and increased cancer. This is half-true. Byproducts of fossil fuels. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) damaged the Ozone layer, which increased cancer in subtropic geographies. Companies manufactured CFCs for refrigeration. Not for power plants or core energy. Thus, this line of analysis is a distraction from the core debate.
People (especially software engineers) who have low Vitamin D get sick more often. Leading to increased risk of death. A growing belief is that this occurs due to lack of sun exposure. Blue LED light does not count. The sun is there for a reason. Hormesis and evolution required the sun. The last 30 years of consensus that wearing sunscreen all the time is a good thing. Is a viewpoint I wager will change in the next 10 years. With consensus swinging back to a pro sun exposure mindset.
It isn't. [1,2] In terms of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is much lower than solar and wind.
> People (especially software engineers) who have low Vitamin D get sick more often. Leading to increased risk of death. A growing belief is that this occurs due to lack of sun exposure.
I agree, people should spend more time in the sun.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
[2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
They are f'd, their DNA is also f'd so...
> "Some birds make use of melanin for coloration, but they also make use of the precursor to melanin as an antioxidant, which may provide some measure of defence against the ionizing radiation," said Mousseau.
> In a study, he found that those birds that seemed to show less genetic damage ended up being a bit lighter coloured.
> "It looks like there's a tradeoff in the use of this antioxidant between colouration and defence against oxidative stress or ionizing radiation."
Or, alternatively, to paraphrase, while the animals there haven't yet evolved a complete defense to the ionizing radiation, some species are expressing traits correlated to their ability to withstand it. This gives them a survival advantage, so over time, it stands to reason they will compensate.
> "But it's clear that there's more going on than just the acute exposure effects."
I must have missed the part where the author threw up their hands and yelled "looks like the animals are f'd."
I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that changes to the environment are very much in nature's wheelhouse. Humans, especially individual humans, are the fragile ones. Life has shown itself incredibly resilient, and some increases in background radiation aren't about to stop it. After all, tardigrades are able to survive constant irradiation hundreds of times the lethal dose for humans while frozen solid in space.
If it's still in operation then you can't make that deduction yet.
https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com/
Also, money and greed does not always win out. See: the Onagawa nuclear reactor which is closer to the epicenter than Fukishima, and which was properly managed and is still running.