Yet nuclear is labelled dangerous and unhealthy.
I have seen it alleged (I have yet to confirm) that the coal funded scare campaign about nuclear power in the 1960s was where tobacco learned its science-denying tactics used in the 1970s-1990s, which were later adopted by the climate change denial astroturfers.
My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy.
Completely and utterly insignificant, to the point where it is downright insulting when they are brought into a discussion about how 10000 people die of coal-related air quality problems every year in Europe.
> My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy.
Sure we have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Do you have any sources for that? And no sensible person is advocating that we should continue burning coal as we have. So it is not nuclear vs coal, but nuclear vs renewables.
The Onkalo repository is still not active. It is projected to begin storing this year, I can't find any more exact status. And that is one site for the whole world. You have to agree that that is a rather meager result considering that they have been trying to find a solution for at least half a century.
And yes, commenters in this post are saying that the casks will leak and the uranium will float up to the surface: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23477854
Re: "underground isn't dry" (HN is rate limiting this thread)
Yes, it is. These story facilities are built in bedrock. You seem to be under the impression that these digs are in some random back yard. They're not. They're built in places with no groundwater and no geological activity. The only way this waste is getting out into the environment is through human intervention. I have indeed read through the waste storage plans. I suggest you do the same.
Yucca Mountain's cancellation is entirely due to political posturing, not feasibility.
[0] http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/research_and_developm...
And for the second time, Yucca mountain is a cave dug out of bedrock. In a desert. It's abandonment was done by politicians, not by scientists raising concern over safety. We're not using it because there's so little nuclear waste to store.
The concern over waste storage is laughable in comparison to environmental damage done by fossil fuels, solar power, and hydroelectricity. We're concerned about uranium buried deep underground, miles away from any population center. Despite the fact that uranium is a naturally occurring resource that we dug from out of the ground in the first place.
Think of it this way: right now there are veins of uranium unknown to us. We're taking this uranium and putting it in a known location. In between we use it as a carbon free power source.
It doesn't matter why Yucca was abandonned. It isn't active. If it is technical or political reason behind it. It doesn't matter because you still don't have anywhere to store the waste. If it is political or technical problem doesn't matter, because it is still not solved.
And about that desert, maybe you have heard about this thing climate change that sometimes they mention in the news? That might actually mean that in even a hundred years there isn't any desert there any more.
Arsenic occurs naturally in many places. Would you mind me burrying a few gallons of it in your backyard? You'll know where it is, so you don't have to worry about it.
In concrete casks, buried 500 meters deep in bedrock, sure.
And I don’t know what US proposed disposal site you have in mind, but you do know that Yucca Mountain was abandoned?
Basically we just bury it and hope for the best, it will be someone else's problem anyway.
> The Onkalo repository is expected to be large enough to accept canisters [...] until around 2120.[13] At this point, the final encapsulation and burial will take place, and the access tunnel will be backfilled and sealed.
We go from "dig it out" to "dig it in". Very sustainable. /s
It's rather more involved than that. The short version is that we find a place where the rock has remained undisturbed for more than a billion years, and bury them deep enough that they should remain undisturbed for the next billion years.
Then it's no-one's problem.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Internationa...
They don't seem to define "specific conditions" in this article.
Also, tried to get a non-amp link and failed...
I recall reading somewhere that it’s a very manageable amount.
The first is that they are more expensive than burner reactors. With uranium ore being cheap and plentiful, and with the energy cost of enrichment so low now (gas centrifuges using 50x less energy than gaseous diffusion), there's no economic case for reprocessing, let along breeding.
The other problem is that fast breeders are inherently dangerous, with the possibility of fast supercriticality lurking in a serious accident. Edward Teller famously pointed this out publicly in 1967:
"For the fast breeder to work in its steady-state breeding condition you probably need something like half a ton of plutonium. In order that it should work economically in a sufficiently big power-producing unit, it probably needs quite a bit more than one ton of plutonium. I do not like the hazard involved. I suggested that nuclear reactors are a blessing because they are clean. They are clean as long as they function as planned, but if they malfunction in a massive manner, which can happen in principle, they can release enough fission products to kill a tremendous number of people. […] ...But, if you put together two tons of plutonium in a breeder, one tenth of one percent of this material could become critical. […] I have listened to hundreds of analyses of what course a nuclear accident can take. Although I believe it is possible to analyze the immediate consequences of an accident, I do not believe it is possible to analyze and foresee the secondary consequences. In an accident involving a plutonium reactor, a couple of tons of plutonium can melt. I don't think anybody can foresee where one or two or five percent of this plutonium will find itself and how it will get mixed with some other material. A small fraction of the original charge can become a great hazard."
http://www.mit.edu/~jparsons/Presentations/090501%20CEEPR%20...
See slide 18 for the key result:
"Closed cycle costs are higher by 42%"
This slide deck also gives references to more detailed reports.
Fans of traveling wave reactors, molten salt reactors, and other not-actually-operating reactors will quote rosily low cost projections despite the lack of any empirical evidence. They're not worth arguing with. If/when commercial TWRs or MSRs actually exist, then we can compare costs. Right now the advanced reactor cost claims are on par with Battery Breakthrough of the Week stories about how a laboratory experiment could revolutionize energy in 10 years, if it's followed up with a lot of funding and absolutely no problems crop up along the way.
There was an argument made last year [1] that the problem with nuclear power generation is that everything we have in production is 50+ yo technology. Modern reactors are far cleaner, far safer, but the political hurdles for regulatory approval and NIMBY hurdles are enormous barriers.
Incidentally, if we're considering mining and transport of base resources to be part of indirect deaths, let's not forget that our renewable infrastructure relies on very dirty mining and transportation processes for quartz, rare earth minerals... and coal!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor#Fuel
The main barriers for building new nuclear plants are that they aren't cost effective, so no one wants to invest in them. I'm certain they could be built cheaper without regulations about safety and funds for long term storage of waste. But I don't think we want to go there.
(Your second link directs me to a documentary about Bill Gates. How is that relevant?)
This is cheap, good for at least some centuries, and forecloses no future options for its disposition. Why do anything else now?
Finally, even if all of the above was overcome, it’s just a way to push the problem to future generations. I’d be quite upset if our generation would have to deal with a hundred thousand tons of radioactive waste in old corroding containers without getting anything for it.
Where did this uranium come from before it was used as fuel?
That's a red herring. The "waste" has a lot of energy remaining (otherwise, it would not be radioactive [1]). There are reactor designs that can use "waste" from current reactors as fuel.
Only, we're not building them. Because coal is better or whatever.
[1]: that's bit of a shortcut, but elements that undergo radioactive decay on timescales that make them dangerous are unstable enough, you can put them in a reactor and poke them to undergo that decay faster and get you electricity.
No, we're not building them because they are more expensive than ordinary LWRs, uranium is cheap, and separated plutonium from spent fuel has negative value.
Don't these reactors produce nuclear weapons products? Seems like that may be a reason we don't want a lot of them around.
If they makeup the second part of the statement, I assume that the first is also embellished and that the "but estimated 10.000 deaths" part is also false.
Why they still try such silly strategy first with Chernobyl and now with Fukushima, is a mystery to me. It does not work.
I guess Wikipedia doesn't have any credibility left then. Most of the casualties were from the tsunami : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
> "but estimated 10.000 deaths" part is also false.
Actually you are right on this one, my mistake. It's 23.300 premature deaths each year across Europe, not 10.000 : https://endcoal.org/health/
And here's the source for German plants : https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-lignite-plants-e...
Many by the evacuation, other because the hospitals in the area closed, other by stress of losing its home... and all of this happened because there was a damaged nuclear plant in the area. Not more, not less. Most of them had a slow death instead being instantly fried, but there is nothing here to rejoice. In the end is the same result.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fukushima-evacuation-has-...
To claim that only one people died by Fukushima and compare indirect deaths by coal with direct deaths by nuclear is an insult to the intelligence, specially when the consequences are still deploying and the process is far from being over. Nuclear kills thousands of people indirectly, for decades. The nuclear plant killed more people yet than the Tsunami did in the same area.
"stress of losing its home" = direct deaths by nuclear ? That may be the actual insult to intelligence :)
Both are indirect deaths of course. The only difference is perception : this is similar to the discrepancy between the much better air travel safety record compared to driving, and people being irrationally scared of flying.
Even assuming your indirect deaths figure is true, we'd still be talking about 2000 deaths in a single incident triggered by a natural catastrophe (most nuclear plants aren't in highly seismic zones), of which there have been two in ~50 years of nuclear power.
That's in contrast to 23.000 yearly deaths in Europe alone, from air pollution from coal alone.
We could stop the math there, but what about the death toll from displacement and migrations caused by climate change ? Or actually, the existential threat it poses to the human race ?
What's the rationale for comparing indirect deaths from coal to direct deaths from radiation?