But that's inconsistent with the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using elsewhere in this discussion. If every fission plant is a potential Chernobyl, how can you possibly justify waiting to decommission any of them?
Of course, if you don't actually believe the "Chernobyl" rhetoric you have been using, then it makes sense that you would be reasonable about existing fission plants. But then you should also be reasonable about building new ones.
> There is a difference between spending 20% more on a new storage technology over a new fission power plant
What magic "storage technology" is this that will make it unnecessary to build more fission plants as base load power? Please enlighten me.
I think you need to improve your understanding of the basic physical facts that underlie the limitations on any "storage technology" other than fuel.
I’m pro nuclear. But I think they’re choosing the lesser of two evils. (I agree with you that replacing derelict plants with modern ones drastically improves everyone’s safety, but I don’t think they’re arguing in bad faith.)
It seems illogical to me too for "taking a long time to decommission old plants" to be a lesser evil compared to other power generation at the same time that new nuclear plants are a very large evil compared to other power generation. Those two things should be pretty close to each other. Either both should be wildly unacceptable, or both should be lesser evils, or one should be a somewhat lesser evil and the other a somewhat greater but not enormous evil.
Of course, as you point out, treating all plants equivalently like this isn’t substantiated by the data. But within that toy model, the conclusion holds.
The choice isn't between old nuclear and new nuclear. If those are the "two evils" then that's missing some important options.
Replacing is like 5 times more expensive than building alternatives in the first place. The extra money can save people/environment in other ways.
The question was: If we take it as given that we shouldn't build new reactors because they're extremely dangerous, shouldn't we just as zealous about shutting down existing reactors?
If solar is cheaper than new nuclear plants that's cool and all but doesn't change the danger levels.
Situation: We need more baseload power.
Option 1) Build a nuclear fission plant. Costs $10 billion.
Option 2) Build a combination of pumped water storage, solid oxide fuel cells, or battery storage to store excess wind and solar. Costs $12 billion.
Option 3) Tear down existing nuclear plants ($5 billion PER demolition), continue paying on their existing loans, and then build $12 billion of energy storage plus billions more additional wind and solar installation. Cost: $20 billion
For expected x lives/farmland saved, it may be reasonable to spend $2 billion more but not spend $10 billion more for the same effect. That’s not internally inconsistent, your view just doesn’t encapsulate the ability to spend the other $8 billion or so on medical advancements or environmental rehabilitation efforts or fusion development. Or it fails to acknowledge to difference in cost between decommissioning vs not building in the first place.
But you were making an argument about how unholy dangerous nuclear plants are as a reason not to build them, barely even mentioning cost. If that danger is real it should be more important than those billions. There's also a fourth option of tearing down nuclear plants and replacing them with a mixture of wind solar and coal, to mitigate that enormous danger at a reduced cost.
If the danger isn't actually enough to motivate plan 3, then you were massively overselling it. Even more so if it's not enough to motivate the cheaper plan 4.
My thesis was "I don't consider nuclear to be sustainable. Here's why I think it's not sustainable." I wasn't saying "It's worse than coal.", I wasn't even saying "There are NO circumstances under which anyone should ever build more fission plants." - - I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether coal or nuclear are worse but offhand I suspect the answer is coal -- it's definitely in the same broad category of causing non-remediateable pollution. So I probably wouldn't suggest spending a shitload of money to replace nuclear plants with something that's at least qualitatively similarly bad like coal.
I would suggest spending 20% more to get an actually sustainable solution to baseload power. But I would understand someone who says:
- 20% is way too low, actual cost would be much more
- 20% more isn't worth the benefits vs. what else we could spend the money on
- Even if fission isn't environmentally sustainable, we should still use it instead of coal
But arguments like these will not hold any water with me:
- Fission can't possibly poison land even though it has before
- Something that will eventually poison large amounts of land if neglected for 2,000 years is "environmentally sustainable"
- Fission is better than coal so you're not allowed to claim that fission isn't "sustainable" because that makes you an opponent to progress and we have tell ourselves lies about that to make progress happen.
Not just creating energy shortages by removing fission with no backup plan for base power.
There is a difference between spending 20% more on a new storage technology over a new fission power plant, vs. 120% costs to remove something that's working and replace it with something new. That money can do a lot of good elsewhere.