Nuclear power is the safest known form of energy, statistically speaking.
Even the worst nuclear energy disasters in history killed like 50 people, whereas millions die from fossil fuel air pollution every year.
This is not to say that I am absolutely opposed to nuclear power, but I don’t think the debate is easily settled one way or the other.
But it makes a big difference to energy production through this winter, in the middle of a big energy crisis.
So IMHO, Germany is again putting ideological and domestic political concerns before realism and a pragmatic approach.
No plausible amount of Chernobyls would have collapsed ocean phytoplankton levels, or destroyed the entire Great Barrier Reef.
The question is where do we get the energy to power this electrification? Through a potentially hazardous, expensive technology like nuclear or through cheap, safe and environmentally friendly, sustainable sources like sun, wind, wave and deep geothermal? The answer will become evident in the next decades, but I know what I'm rooting for at least.
And oh, you might like to hear that the entire Great Barrier Reef is not really destroyed, yet. But we need to act soon, in the right direction.
I say so without diminishing the fact that people have heroically sacrificed their health and lives in order to prevent even greater disasters at primarily Chernobyl and Fukushima [0]. Or that we are no longer able to eat wild mushrooms in large swathes of Sweden where I live because of the fallout in 1986, and much of the hunted game, especially wild boar, is not fit for human consumption. [1]
It honestly doesn't impress me much when people simply spout the industry talking points seemingly without even considering that there is a risk involved: 'here, look at this website it says "safe"'. The wikipedia entry on the debate is more like what one could expect from otherwise thinking people: there are some pros and grave cons [2]. The pros are in my opinion negligible, now that we have safer and cheaper sources, and nuclear can be scrapped in an orderly fashion, for example by demanding that each plant starts paying their own insurance cost. Which would make the whole thing economically unsustainable because the insurance companies would charge an insane premium. [3] Which says it all really.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-...
NB: Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are at the top level 7 of the International Nuclear Event Scale, which is a good reminder that those things that the nuclear industry say can never happen, actually do happen. Anyway, it's just Murphys law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2019/06/08/chernobyl...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
If certain species of wild mushrooms now being inedible in the Scandinavian wilderness is the worst you can come up with, considering how much life nuclear power has given by keeping us warm and fed, well I consider it a pretty decent trade off.
FWIW I work in the energy sector(with wind power no less) and how people can still have such strong anti-nuclear opinions boggles my mind. We need every non-fossil energy source up and running ASAP, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, all of it.
??
OK, tror inte vi kommer längre här Gud. Ha en god kväll.
https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/AIMS_LTM...
"In 2022 the GBR continues to recover, registering the highest levels of coral cover yet recorded in the Northern and Central regions over the past 36 years of monitoring. While recovery continued on many Southern GBR reefs, regional coral cover declined slightly due to ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorn starfish."
The idea that the reef is being destroyed by global warming has been proven false. When examined closely it turns out to be have been based on extremely low quality research. Data about the reef was only collected for short periods of time before scientists became willing to make very long term projections.
Another big reason why people incorrectly believe CO2 has destroyed coral health was fraud by scientists:
https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologis...
Among the papers is a study about coral reef recovery that Dixson published in Science in 2014, and for which the journal issued an Editorial Expression of Concern in February. Science—whose News and Editorial teams operate independently of each other—retracted that paper today.
The investigative panel’s draft report, which Science’s News team has seen in heavily redacted form, paints a damning picture of Dixson’s scientific work, which included many studies that appeared to show Earth’s rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels can have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. “The Committee was repeatedly struck by a serial pattern of sloppiness, poor record keeping, copying and pasting within spreadsheets, errors within many papers under investigation, and deviation from established animal ethics protocols,” wrote the panel, made up of three UD researchers.
Oil can be bought by the barrel and moved around the globe quite easily, while the carbon footprint can be blamed on any of the producer or you the customer. Wind energy and solar can be injected without much care and little regulation. Both can make a ton of money and need little care. A nuclear driven hydrogen and methanol economy on the other hand, that disposes of the waste with complicated processes, is expensive, complicated, thankless and nearly impossible. Especially with an ever changing political framework.
Deep geothermal is what will probably totally obliterate any lingering doubts about the blessings of nuclear, so I'm fairly optimistic about where this is heading.
Nuclear has gotten safer over time, as the failure modes have become better understood, and it's always been considerably safer than fossil fuels. There simply isn't any justification for your wild fear mongering.
It's nuclear or we need thousands of 24/7 on-call maintenance jobs for all the renewables, and the landfills they will produce.
Source: recent events. Putin is out of control and has made numerous threats of global-scale retaliation. Zaporizhzhia NPP has made no threats, and is under control and ready to take offline.
Not really true. Yes you can still measure heightened Cesium levels in wild game, as well a fish and mushrooms. However Those levels are consistently below the levels set as safe for human consumption in basically all game. The only exception are the levels in wild mushrooms and animals that eat a lot of wild mushrooms (like wild boar in certain areas)
This was even true 10 years ago [0]
[0] https://svenskjakt.se/uncategorized/sparen-efter-tjernobyl-f...
Edit: It seems the case is similar in Sweden. Wild boar in the regions hit hardest by the fallout is not safe to eat.
https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/press/nyheter/2021/...
I'm not sure what the situation is with burrowing animals like rabbits but I'd wager the problem with boar is also that they are more likely to actually ingest contaminated soil in addition to simply being covered in it.
Most importantly, an NPP does not depend on constant and timely supply chains. You don't care if Asia embargos the west or any scenario like that.
You wouldn't?
Russia and Russian allies control close to 70% of the world's uranium exports (2018) [0]
"Only a handful of facilities in the world convert milled uranium into uranium hexafluoride; Russia produced approximately one-third of the 2020 supply, much of it made with uranium from Kazakhstan. Russia also has 43% of the global enrichment capacity" [1]
"The Biden administration reportedly is considering nuclear sanctions on Russia. U.S. utilities oppose this step for fear that it would make uranium fuel scarcer and more expensive. Many U.S. nuclear plants are already struggling economically." [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
[1] https://theconversation.com/russias-energy-clout-doesnt-just...
Conditions like coordinated terrorist attacks, natural disasters, technical mishaps. And like war.
Now war in continental Europe has of course been unthinkable for a long time. Well think again. In spite of the obviously untenable situation in Zaporizhzhia playing out in real time right before our eyes we still have people calling for more nuclear. It's outrageous.
So in my mind, Germany is doing the right thing. In spite of Russia doing their best to prove that Europe needs this vulnerability they are leading the way towards the new economy that spells self reliance and resilience. The type of centralized energy production that nuclear represents is a defense liability, in addition to a health and environmental hazard for thousands of years to come as far as we know now.