I think there is a good argument, though few people actually bring it, that nuclear reactors and radioactive material disposal can be safe and reliable, but no nuclear reactor or disposal site we are institutionally capable of building will be safe enough to trust. Ie. the problem is civilizational, not technological, inadequacy.
The argument can be further simplified: Nuclear power hasn't got a track record of being economical or safe. The costs of contaminating areas like Fukushima and Chernobyl are astronomical an uninsurable. Spent fuel is piling up. End of life costs are known to be very high, but are also unbounded and unfunded. Maybe alt-fuel reactors are the answer. Maybe the industry can be optimized based on current technology. But there is no demonstration that this is true.
> McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
Coal, oil, and even gas are dirty and dangerous. But they are investable and insurable, with less (but definitely not zero) government support.
I'm all for pricing-in the externalities. And if that makes nuclear a relatively better investment, hurrah! If new technologies turn nuclear into something supportable in normal capital markets, hurrah! But there is no proof-of-concept yet.
Or the still not practically solved used fuel problem. Or that Germany already now often does not run nuclear power plants (that are for now still allowed to run) because they are too expensive.
Even if the "new reactor types cannot possibly do harm" was true, that's exactly what you told us the last few decades. Every reactor was safe. It was physically impossible that all those safety systems could be overridden, defective, whatever. Impossible.
And every time we saw that it's not true.
After several decades of this we don't trust you anymore. As no sane person would.
You might even be objectively right. But your safety arguments werde wrong the first two hundred times. Why listen to your explanation of your two hundred and first attempt? Let's try something else where experience doesn't virtually guarantee us that we'll be burnt.
Nuclear has the fewest deaths per kWh, period. It's really simple. Now, the cost of bringing new ones online is prohibitive, but shutting down existing ones was really dumb.
I thought one of the major pro-nuclear power points was that old reactor designs were flawed and new designs address the issues. Isn't that point consistent with shutting down existing reactors?
No. Considering Chernobyl on its own, treating all radiation exposure cases which are above the statically insignificant cancer rate threshold as deaths, and coal is still more dangerous per kWh. [Source](http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclea...).
After the accident, Chernobyl continued to provide power to Ukraine, up until it's last reactor was shutdown in 2000.
Deaths is just one measurement. Certainly making a sizable geo area uninhabitable is another. What about cancer is things go sideways? These are both legit insurance risks.
I'm not trying to take an anti nuke stand, just pointing out deaths isn't the whole of the risk.
It should be made clear that Hydroelectric has made an order of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear.
Coal has made _three_ orders of magnitude more land uninhabitable for human habitation than has nuclear.
And whereas fish may thrive behind a dam, nothing humans can eat will grow in a coal strip mine, ash flow, or other coal-related topography change. Whereas in nuclear exclusion zones, wildlife flourishes.
But first, I agree there are always trade offs. We have alao been horribly slow in finding better energy.
As for hydro + coal and uninhabitable land. I think it depends on what you define as inhabitable in the first place. Much of it is done in obscure (?) areas that few care about. Of course, this contributes to out of sight out of mind. None the less, this should be considered.
On the other hand, nukes are closer to population, as well as near water. And, as mentioned, for these more people are more aware of them. You can also thank Hollywood for the fear(s).
That's my point, they're conflating everyone now saying "nuclear power is safe", with some people 60 years ago who said "nuclear power is safe". I didn't mean that who they were addressing was unclear.
You're right, I'm also sure you don't drive a car because of how unsafe they were 50 years ago as well, nor do you fly planes, because why trust them now when they lied before?
> And every time we saw that it's not true.
Every time? That seems a bit excessive does it not?
Thank you.
There are also studies about childhood loicemia near nuclear power plants. Of course, these studies could be wrong or lied, but I' rather assume that the ones with a financial interest in nuclear power are downplaying its riscs on a massice scale.