How I went from hating to loving nuclear power.

[eclipsenow]

Many climate activists just assume that renewable energy will do the job, without reading very much about it. I love the *idea* of renewable energy, but question the reality of moving from power that is mostly on (coal) to mostly 'off' — wind and solar that have 33% capacity factors.

Many climate activists don't know that the world's most famous climatologist — Dr James Hansen — says believing in renewables is like believing in the tooth fairy! Hansen warns not to drink sustainable energy Kool-Aid He recommends nuclear. I used to think nuclear was a terrible idea because I was scared of poor nuclear safety, nuclear waste, and uranium running out. But I was wrong on all counts.

1. SAFETY: Most people think nuclear, and think about Chernobyl and Fukushima. But the west NEVER built a Chernobyl model reactor — it didn't even have a proper containment dome! Banning nukes because of Chernobyl is like banning modern airlines because of the Hindenburg. What about Fukushima? It was a fine old Generation 2 design hit by a terrible natural disaster. Given we are talking about tsunami prone Japan, the government shouldn't have allowed it to be built that in the first place. No one has died as a direct result of Fukushima's nuclear power meltdowns, but the government enforced evacuation has killed hundreds through despair and suicide. But that Generation 2 design required power to cool. Modern reactors require power to GO! They shut themselves down if the power goes off, and that's without human intervention. The laws of physics take over if humans fail to act. Imagine a little candle burning under a large water-filled balloon. If the candle burns just a little too hot, the balloon bursts and extinguishes that little candle. That's passive safety. No one has to be there to make it happen. Generation 3 reactors are like that. AP1000 reactors shut themselves down if there's a power failure. But even if they DID melt down (in some freakish once every 10,000 years kind of time-frame) it would all be trapped in the Containment Dome just like Three Mile Island was.

Now let's get REALLY crazy, and address our worst fears. What if it somehow melts down and GETS OUT! Guess what? The radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima just isn't that bad. If they fenced off the reactors and a few small hot-spots, I'd live in 98% of the Chernobyl or Fukushima zones. We live on a radioactive planet. Do you know how radioactive your computer is? Your workplace? Your city? Fukushima is only twice as hot as Sydney — well below the dangerous levels. Chernobyl, Fukushima, radiation — Oh my! Indeed, the Japanese are letting many citizens return to the former exclusion zones. Basically if you're worried about nuclear safety you should be SCREAMING about fossil fuels as coal oil and gas particulates kill 3 million people a year. This is about 650 Chernobyl disasters a year, and that's under the controversial old Linear No Threshold model — a bunch of old numbers that basically assumes 4000 people will one day die from Chernobyl which itself might be hogwash. More on the Linear No Threshold model

2. NUCLEAR WASTE: Modern Breeder reactors eat it! They convert a 100,000 year storage problem into today's reliable baseload energy solution. The UK's nuclear 'waste' could run her for 500 years and America has so much it could run her for a millennia. Here's a photo of JFK touring my favourite breeder reactor, the Molten Salt Reactor. We've known the physics for decades, and could have built out an MSR powered world by now but Nixon made a political decision and cut funding to the MSR's and went down the IFR route — still a great breeder reactor — but not an MSR!

Molten Salt Reactors

Here's a link to a 5 minute summary about Molten Salt Reactors.

3. RUNNING OUT OF URANIUM: Because breeder reactors 'eat' nuclear waste, they get 60 times the energy out of it compared to today's once-through reactors. This means that uranium-from-seawater could run the world for billions of years. Erosion washes uranium particles into the ocean all the time, making nuclear renewable! Refuel on Nuclear Power – the Silver Bullet!!!

In conclusion, we might one day invent fusion, or in generations have a space-based solar power system that is reliable and baseload, or even something else that works. But for now the answer is simple. Nuclear power delivers vast quantities of cheap reliable power even in the heart of the quietest freezing Siberian winter night. The government should just nationalise energy like France did in the 1970's, and put Gen3 nukes on the production line. It would solve climate change and clean up the very air we breathe.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not disagreeing, but to be fair, the safety record is not spotless.

Erosion of the 6-inch-thick (150 mm) carbon steelreactor head, caused by a persistent leak of borated water, at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.

Three Mile Island accident

President Jimmy Carter leaving Three Mile Island
for Middletown, Pennsylvania, April 1, 1979


On March 28, 1979, equipment failures and operator error contributed to loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown of Unit 2's pressurized water reactor at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania.[13]The scope and complexity of this reactor accident became clear over the course of five days, as a number of agencies at the local, state and federal levels tried to solve the problem and decide whether the ongoing accident required an emergency evacuation, and to what extent.

Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion.[14] In his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, Benjamin K. Sovacool, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.[15] The health effects of the Three Mile Island accident are widely, but not universally, agreed to be very low level.[16][17]

Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents

 

[Mountainmanbob]

450 nuclear power reactors

Number of Operable Reactors Worldwide
Around 11% of the world's electricity is generated by about 450 nuclear power reactors. About 60 morereactors are under construction, equivalent to about 15% of existing capacity. In 2017 nuclear plantssupplied 2487 TWh of electricity, up from 2477 TWh in 20161.

World Nuclear Association › nuclea...
Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear


Sounds good and pretty safe to me.
A good way to go semi green.
MB

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are significant issues of waste and safety, but I too am pro-nuclear energy.

 

[SammyClifnote]

I am not a fan of nuclear but it is about our only scalable green energy. There's also some cool newer "inherently safe" systems that I'd like to see moved forward as well as some of the "scalable" systems.

We still need to deal with the waste, however.

In the end we probably also need to go on an "energy diet" where we don't consume as much energy as we currently do, then we can let safer less scalable systems like wind, solar and hydro do some of the lifting.

I put solar on my home and drive an all electric car which means I'm essentially driving for free and I haven't paid an electric bill in years (other than standard connection fees to the grid).

 

[eclipsenow]

NUCLEAR WASTE = FUEL!
The only reason it stays so radioactive for 100,000 years is it is full of longer-lived actinides (stuff heavier than uranium, or so the scientists tell a layperson like myself.) Once the actinides have been separated out from the real waste, the broken atoms called fission products, they're good to burn. Think of used fuel rods that have burned for about 18 months as a great big campfire that suddenly got rained on. There will be a mix of burnable wood, but it needs to be dug out of all the bits of stone and ash and junk and cleaned up and dried. Actinides are a bit like that. Once they separate out the actinides from the fission products, they leave them in a 'blanket' or ring around the nuclear reactor to soak up spare neutrons, kind of like leaving freshly washed off firewood around a fire to be dried.

This process creates more fuel than it uses, and so is called 'breeding', and the reactors that can do it are breeder reactors.

Fission products are so radioactive they burn themselves out in just 300 years.

We can store them safely if we melt them down into ceramic blocks that are waterproof. Bury them in a concrete bunker under the reactor park. Uranium goes into the reactor park, and never comes out again! All the waste is contained on site, and there is no reason to transfer it to anything like an expensive Yucca Mountain. The only reason we don't vitrify waste today is because it is expensive and dry cask storage is cheaper. But once breeder reactors take over and extract another 90 times the energy *and money* out of the uranium we've *already mined*, the cost of vitrifying the waste into ceramic blocks is trivial. Here’s a 4 minute video that explains vitrifying nuclear waste.

c

 

[Sanoy]

Thank you for doing this. My main hangup has always been the storage issue, but the fact that it's only dangerous for 300 years is really nice.

There is 1 statement I have a few questions about. "This process creates more fuel than it uses, and so is called 'breeding', and the reactors that can do it are breeder reactors."

It almost sounds like it's increasing the barrels of dangerous waste but decreasing the time we have to store each barrel, or cinder block, of waste. Is that correct? Also what can be done with the depleted bricks/barrels once they expire and can be unearthed?

 

[eclipsenow]

There's no increase in actual waste, it's an increase in fuel. In other words, we're gradually moving through the available molecules and converting them from one thing into another. The fertile actinides are put around the reactor core to 'dry out' and accept more neutrons, but they're not increasing the overall mass. And when they are later on split, and the fat fissile atom turns into 2 smaller ones, a tiny fraction of the material is converted into energy.

E = MC2. POWER!

We don't have to do anything with the waste after 300 years. It's only 1 golf ball per human lifetime, cradle to grave, for ALL the energy you could ever need, including all the energy to manufacture airline fuels out of seawater. That's 1 golf ball instead of "800" elephants of coal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

More radiation is put into the atmosphere through the burning of coal than there is when a nuclear reactor is operating.

When I was younger, I was scared by nuclear energy, since it was seen as the 'boogey man' of energy (mainly because of The Simpsons), and also Chernobyl, but the more I learnt about how much safer nuclear energy actually is, when done right, the more I agreed that nuclear energy is the better way to go.

 

[grasping the after wind]

As nuclear power has become more and more safe and less and less waste filled can you explain why it has not already become the power source of choice for the world?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

As nuclear power has become more and more safe and less and less waste filled can you explain why it has not already become the power source of choice for the world?

Fear mongering is the main one, I imagine.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Fear mongering is the main one, I imagine.

Could you tell me who is doing that and how it could be effective enough to interfere with a real solution to a problem? Are political leaders politicians and climate activists afraid to champion nuclear power because of a fear mongering campaign or is there some other reason that they prefer pursuing policies that, unlike simply moving to a larger role for nuclear, involve redistributive economic models and don't actually reduce worldwide carbon emissions ?

 

[eclipsenow]

Doctor Helen Caldicott is one of the worst exports Australia ever put on the world stage — a rabid anti-nuclear activist with a background in paediatrics. Now, normally a background in medicine might be considered a great way to start a discussion about the risks and benefits of nuclear power and nuclear accidents, but not with Helen. Unfortunately she read Nevil Shute's book "On the Beach" about a nuclear war, and correlated that with nuclear energy. She quickly became one of the world's foremost anti-nuclear activists, and has influenced an extraordinary number of environmental and conservation organisations to become anti-nuclear in their core missions statements. She has punched well above her weight, influencing international environmental organisations to become anti-nuclear. But are her fears justified, or even remotely credible? Investigative journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot interviewed Helen for "Democracy Now". In my mind, that interview raises concerns not only about her claims, but about her mental health! She seems to come across as a bit unhinged.
Part 1:

Part 2:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Could you tell me who is doing that and how it could be effective enough to interfere with a real solution to a problem? Are political leaders politicians and climate activists afraid to champion nuclear power because of a fear mongering campaign or is there some other reason that they prefer pursuing policies that, unlike simply moving to a larger role for nuclear, involve redistributive economic models and don't actually reduce worldwide carbon emissions ?

I don't feel that it's full on political as such. It's just that since the Cold War and the state of anything that came after that, especially in works of fiction, anything nuclear and specifically nuclear energy is always taken as a negative and should be feared.
That's just my take on interactions I have had on the internet and from what I've seen in fiction. So... yeah, grain of salt.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Doctor Helen Caldicott is one of the worst exports Australia ever put on the world stage — a rabid anti-nuclear activist with a background in paediatrics. Now, normally a background in medicine might be considered a great way to start a discussion about the risks and benefits of nuclear power and nuclear accidents, but not with Helen. Unfortunately she read Nevil Shute's book "On the Beach" about a nuclear war, and correlated that with nuclear energy. She quickly became one of the world's foremost anti-nuclear activists, and has influenced an extraordinary number of environmental and conservation organisations to become anti-nuclear in their core missions statements. She has punched well above her weight, influencing international environmental organisations to become anti-nuclear. But are her fears justified, or even remotely credible? Investigative journalist and environmentalist George Monbiot interviewed Helen for "Democracy Now". In my mind, that interview raises concerns not only about her claims, but about her mental health! She seems to come across as a bit unhinged.
Part 1:

Part 2:

Zealots often appear to be unhinged to those that are not true believers. Someone that has unquestioned faith in something finds it hard to deal with someone that questions that thing's validity.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't feel that it's full on political as such. It's just that since the Cold War and the state of anything that came after that, especially in works of fiction, anything nuclear and specifically nuclear energy is always taken as a negative and should be feared.
That's just my take on interactions I have had on the internet and from what I've seen in fiction. So... yeah, grain of salt.

I agree with your analysis of why many people are afraid of nuclear power. I do think the whole thing is more about power than about energy though. From my perspective it seems that people are being led to react out of emotion over logic While others are using that emotion to push things in a direction that suits their purposes rather than solves the problem. When the preferred policies do not in reality address the problem that has been identified as needing a solution one must consider the idea that a bait and switch is being offered. I suggest the thinking is something along the lines of --Make people fear enough things so that they will allow me to do what I want that suits my purposes even though what I propose to do does nothing to solve the problems I have made them afraid of.

 

[eclipsenow]

Nuclear power is illegal in Australia. Our greens group is supposed to be about protecting the environment, right? Not just beautiful national parks and threatened ecosystems (which I of course support), but the global environment — the climate. They believe Dr James Hansen when it comes to his diagnoses of the climate emergency, but scorn his prescription to solve it. They pick and choose what they want to hear, and have been influenced by the ranting, rabid Helen Caldicott.
One of our prominent Greens. I mean, the hypocrisy here is overwhelming!

 

[Ophiolite]

I mean, the hypocrisy here is overwhelming

I don't think it is useful when alternative explanations exist, some of which hold out the possibility of eventual agreement. Other explanations:
1. Caldicott is unfamiliar with all the relevant data and has therefore reached an erroneous conclusion. No hypocrisy.
2. Caldicott finds a different suite of risk factors to be applicable, thus rendering nuclear energy unacceptable. No hypocrisy.
3. Caldicott is in the pay of "Big Oil" or similar. No hypocrisy, just corruption and dishonesty.
4. Caldicott does not trust our civilisation to be able to implement a nuclear strategy in a mature way, regardless of any calculations and assurances to the contrary. No hypocrisy.

By claiming that hypocrisy is present you ensure an adversarial position between two segments of those people committed to tackling global warming. It's the equivalent of me responding to you offer to back me up in a street fight by saying "I never fight alongside someone wearing unpolished shoes."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not a great fan of conventional (existing) style nuclear, even if built and operated with great care (it often isn't), because the designs are not as safe and efficient as they could be, but especially because the mining, extraction, and transportation of uranium is damaging and polluting of the environment and produces vast amounts of CO2.

OTOH, modern advanced reactor designs are far safer and more efficient, and can use spent conventional fuel as their supply, vastly reducing the requirement for mining, extraction, and transportation of uranium.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Thank you for doing this. My main hangup has always been the storage issue, but the fact that it's only dangerous for 300 years is really nice.

Only radiologically dangerous for about that long yes (but the longer you leave it the better). You still have the other issues though (ordinary heavy-metal toxicity being the obvious, but several are also a bit prone to be a bit pyrophoric which is a bit inconvenient to be around).

PersonallyI'd go for LFTR as a short term solution for the next thirty or so years until fusion is viable (this thirty years does have a habit of moving though, it was the same in the 70s, the 90s and is still there to this day, as people build bigger and bigger research reactors and find more and more complexities to overcome).

Honestly, for places like Australia, and especially most of WA, the climate is arid-hot and the population density is tiny. If that isn't an absolutly perfect mach for large-scale solar then there really isn't one anywhere. It's where there are more people and less obvious resources (like Europe, Southern Asia and North America) that'll benefit most from nuclear.