[mdorazio]

1) Please stop using fatality comparisons when talking about radiation incidents - it's disingenuous. You need to look at total impact, including negative outcomes like cancers and reduced life expectancies rather than outright deaths.

2) If your argument is "it's better than the worst alternative" then your argument is not very good. You should be comparing to power sources that are not fossil fuel-based, which is the real alternative we want to move toward

[woodruffw]

> 1) Please stop using fatality comparisons when talking about radiation incidents - it's disingenuous. You need to look at total impact, including negative outcomes like cancers and reduced life expectancies rather than outright deaths.

It's my understanding that nuclear power performs very favorably in these metrics as well. Living near a coal-fired plant isn't very healthy, and probably exposes you to more radiation anyways[1].

I don't really follow the alternative power source news, but I don't think anybody's argument actually stops at "it's better than the worst." Most people seem to think that nuclear power makes a good choice because it's a consistent source of power and has a proven track record (see: France).

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

[jfengel]

Comparing it to coal is precisely "better than the worst". Coal is the worst option, and even the US is phasing it out rapidly.

(Developing countries are still using it, and China is still acting as if it were a developing country. But coal simply isn't the alternative to nuclear any more in any developed country. Even natural gas is better for the environment than coal.)

[woodruffw]

> Comparing it to coal is precisely "better than the worst". Coal is the worst option, and even the US is phasing it out rapidly.

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. The claim is only that there are lots of sufficient reasons for nuclear power that don't stop at "it's not the worst."

[Manuel_D]

> 1) Please stop using fatality comparisons when talking about radiation incidents - it's disingenuous. You need to look at total impact, including negative outcomes like cancers and reduced life expectancies rather than outright deaths.

Granted, you would also need to do the same for whatever you're comparing it against. Fossil fuels have profound negative impact beyond fatalities, like pollution, supporting cruel regimes, environmental spills, and more. And also climate change.

Dams exacerbate water evaporation and disrupt ecosystems. Solar panels require vast amounts of land to generate significant power.

> 2) If your argument is "it's better than the worst alternative" then your argument is not very good. You should be comparing to power sources that are not fossil fuel-based, which is the real alternative we want to move toward

And what are those alternatives? Renewables need to be backed by a dispatchable source to deal with intermittency. If your country already gets 30-50% of its power from hydroelectricity that's great. But for most places, this means fossil fuels. The reality is that the alternatives like wind and solar are really wind and solar plus fossil fuels.

[ncmncm]

"Plus fossil fuels" is, again, a markedly temporary situation. Numerous storage methods are still vying for which will end up cheapest. Batteries look like they will end up the most expensive, but easiest to field. Underground and underwater compressed air are being proved out. A GW-scale liquified-air system is coming online in UK. We will need efficient electrolytic H2 and NH3 processes anyway, and both are good for both storage and fuel.

So, burning LNG continues for a while because the equipment is already in place, and nobody wants to invest immediately in what might not end up the cheapest storage, or anyway is not yet nearly so cheap as it will shortly be when volume balloons.

Underground compressed air is compatible with existing LNG turbines. Liquified-air storage has useful side products. Fuel you will make anyway is a good storage medium too.

[Manuel_D]

Global battery production remains in the low hundreds of gigawatt hours annually. And only a small fraction of that is going to grid storage, in the single-digit gigawatt hours. Global electricity consumption is 60 TWh per day and continuing to rise. Alternatives like compressed air, hydrogen, thermal batteries, etc. still remain in the prototyping phase. Whether or not they prove to be viable is totally unknown.

We are going to be in this markedly temporary situation until we experience a miraculous breakthrough in energy storage that yields several orders-of-magnitude improvement. Breakthrough technology that's 10-20 years away often stays 10-20 years away for a lot longer than that.

[ncmncm]

Since we will not need to rely on batteries for utility energy storage, battery production capacity is no impediment to renewable grid storage buildout.

There are plenty of known viable storage methods, which you oddly omit all of except compressed air. There are no impediments to their implementation beyond simply scaling up; no new materials science, no new physics or chemistry, or industrial process barriers need to be solved. It is just not clear which will end up cheapest in each use environment.

Other, less mature technologies, e.g. electrically synthesizing ammonia and hydrogen efficiently, need to be developed anyway, and once developed, will also be incidentally useful for storage. Their independent industrial demand will drive fast improvement, so they may come to displace the others.

[Manuel_D]

There absolutely are impediments to implementation. Producing hydrogen efficiently through electrolysis demands very effective electrodes which we are still trying to develop, for example. We only know that these solutions ar hypothetically possible, not that they are viable. Let alone viable at scale. Let alone cheaper than existing options.

Until one of those storage methods actually becomes viable at scale, rather than in laboratories, we'll be burning fossil fuels.

[ncmncm]

You pivot again to hydrogen, which is not among the cheap, currently-viable alternatives being scaled.

[stickfigure]

1) Fatality statistics are the best measurement we have. Sure, there's a long tail of lesser impacts for nuclear power; there's also a long tail of disabilities and reduced life expectancies for pollution too.

2) How about "it's better than other power sources that can consistently service base load"?

[caddywompus]

When it comes to base load, nuclear is pretty interesting. I remember reading that some plants sell electricity at below cost during low periods (nighttime in some locations), since they can't ramp the reactor up or down quickly.

It's a situation where both intermittent renewable sources and nuclear plants would benefit from a way to store excess produced energy

[onethought]

Love the base load argument… if only there was a way to store electricity, we’d stop hearing these ridiculous “base load” arguments

[hetman]

You mean, if only there was an economically viable way to store electricity. Still waiting on that one.

[onethought]

Batteries. Economic viability is the next argument when you externalise the true cost (carbon).

[hetman]

Carbon is not the only possible cost to the environment. Building batteries is not exactly easy on the planet either.

[onethought]

You mine a resource (lithium), that can be recycled endlessly with very little loss.

You are right about Cobalt, but it is already being reduced/removed.

It's not even comparable to fossil fuel mining (even though technically it is fossil fuel mining). Because it's recyclable, so we aren't "losing" any material, in the form of converting it to an unproductive/hazardous byproduct.