Burning coal, gas or oil present immediate, virtually permanent (at least on a human time scale) damages to the biosphere; hydro electric power already killed at least two more orders of magnitude people than even the most delirious casualty estimations of nuclear power accidents; and air pollution is estimated killing millions of people per year.
At some point, people should start learning to count.
(not saying that hydro is a bad choice; it looks to be the best when possible thanks to load following and ability to double as storage)
For example, how much methane compared to one cow?
All relevant points. I didn't mean to suggest that nuclear power is less safe than alternatives, just that the risk profile is different. The risks of nuclear power are in a long tail of infrequent but potentially large accidents so we can only understand its risks properly by looking at a long timeframe.
If you're accusing people of not learning to count, maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive, and that's despite nearly a century of heavy government subsidization.
It is, in fact, getting more expensive, while wind and solar get less expensive.
That's not a false choice, there is also hydro (unfortunately my country is more or less saturated there), solar (OK if you're a really sunny country and only need electricity during the day, not so great otherwise) and wind (30% average load factor, risible cost efficiency, huge surface required, needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years).
> maybe you should look at the cost of solar, wind, and energy storage systems - and realize that nuclear is being phased out because it's too expensive,
Tell me then, is that why Germany, after sinking dozens of billions over dozens of billions of euros in renewable, is still producing electricity with carbonation level closer to Bulgaria & Poland than France or Belgium, AND has to buy them electricity whenever there is no wind, and sell it at low price when there is too much wind?
But yes, please, show me these numbers.
Offshore is way better, up to .6
> risible cost efficiency
This is not true, see the LCOE:
> huge surface required
Offshore solves this and also offers quasi-sanctuaries to our over-exploited seas.
> needs to be rebuilt every ~10 years
https://www.tvindkraft.dk/en/history/the-first-40-years
Moreover the are more and more efficiently recycled.
Germany nowadays reduces its emissions faster than France, while losing its industry at a way slower pace. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...
With an average at 560 gCO2/kWh vs. 47 gCO2/kWh, the opposite would be surprising.
CO2 emissions per capita: France 5.82t Germany 10.14t
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?...
Comparing derivative doesn't make much sense if the starting point is wildly different.
When do you think Germany's emissions per capita will be lower than France?
Indeed, however this is commonly done and I only state that upon this criteria things aren't exactly what they seem.
Moreover this is heavy industry: there is quite an inertia, therefore Germany (starting later with an immature approach (renewables) while dumping existing equipment (nuclear)) is facing an ordeal.
> When do you think Germany's emissions per capita will be lower than France?
This is difficult to predict because it is tied to future decisions and their results, however if France bets 100% on new reactors (either deliberately or because building new reactors continue to sucks too much money while not delivering) and doesn't tackle its current industrial crash it may be done by 2040.
As it stands, I would leave the markets, since apparently they're sooo effective, choose what power source would fill in the gaps.
The "Cultural Revolution" began in 1966.
In such a context an otherwise avoidable catastrophe may happen.
This Revolution followed the "Great Leap Forward" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward ), with famines. "In the subsequent famines of the early 1960s popularly attributed to the Great Leap Forward, Henan was one of the hardest hit and millions of lives were lost." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan#Modern_Era .
Moreover all this came after a civil war and a violent Japanese invasion, during which dams were bombed, causing "massive flooding in Henan" (same source).
Then a typhoon hit and many dams collapsed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure#The_c... )
During decades predicting and adverting this catastrophe was possible, even when it unfolded people had days to react... but given such a context nobody was able to do so. One may wonder what an active nuclear reactor will become in such a context.
Estimations of nuclear power disasters are highly disputed, and some claims are very high ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the... )
Also: you compare nuclear to fossil fuels, neglecting renewables.
The longer the half-life, the less radioactive something is. By definition.
Something with a half-life of "tens or hundreds of millenia" is not very radioactive.
Something with a half-life of infinity is not radioactive at all.
The really dangerous stuff tends to be isotopes like iodine-131 (half-life 8 days, accumulates in the thyroid gland), strontium-90 (half-life of about 29 years, accumulates in the bones).
Any such concern, if legitimate, should at least be fleshed out with some basic assumptions and numbers. What is the (rough, estimate) probability distribution of the number of deaths that this will cause? Then we can compare it with the danger of fossil fuels. Otherwise we're left with hand-wavy expressions like "accidents" and "frequent enough". What are we to do with such statements?
I'm not anti-nuclear, but using decades to measure substances with half lifes on the order of tens or hundreds of millenia isn't very helpful.
The (legitimate) concern is that even low frequency accidents are frequent enough on the timescale of human civlization that they could present semi-permanent damage to the biosphere.