[iNane9000]

Seems like nuclear power is always the elephant in the room. Wish people that like to post emotional comments about climate change spent similar time pushing for nuclear power. Some change in public sentiment around nuclear power would be much more impactful than “Because of my political opponents, we’re all gonna burn alive!” I tend to think we will need some sort of geoengineering solution, but I think nuclear power has to be part of any effort to reduce emissions. No easy answers.

[Macha]

I mean, I'd be for Germany reactivating some of the nuclear power plants they shut down in the panic after Fukushima. But the lead time on a nuclear plant is long and wind/solar have reached the point where they can be rolled out at similar quantities much quicker and cheaper.

It was a mistake not to go nuclear to get rid of fossil fuel plants 20 years ago. The window for new installations is closing rapidly as renewables improve however.

[kergonath]

Nuclear, solar, and hydro all have different production profile, different strengths and weaknesses. They are all complementary, and we're not going anywhere if we don't use all the means at our disposal.

Nuclear definitely has a long lead time (and requires huge initial capital), but it should be built nevertheless, as it is much more efficient than the alternative for base load production. It has also very good synergies with hydrogen production.

[reedjosh]

Nuclear plants produce stable energy unlike solar and wind, and can also be used for desalination. There are a number of benefits to nuclear that make it desirable beyond what solar and wind can do.

That said, in an effort to become more self sufficient I too will be installing solar panels in the near future.

[actually_a_dog]

The problem with nuclear power right now is that we can't build enough of it for it to matter in time. Even if we cut away half the regulatory burden, a plant that's started today would only come online at the end of the decade.

In [0], they give a figure of 5-6 years for actual construction. Add in a year or 2 for regulatory and other delays, and we're looking at 2027-2029-ish before we see a single megawatt of electricity out of them. What's more, there is probably only enough uranium to last about 5 years, if we could wave a magic wand and replace all existing power plants with nuclear [1]. Moreover, the plants themselves also have a finite lifetime of 40-60 years [ibid].

---

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...

[belorn]

I have a hard time understanding the reasoning why we don't have time to build nuclear plants, but we do have time to build new fossil fueled power plants in order to stabilize the power grid.

What if every time a country decided to build a new fossil fueled power plants, a rule went in to build a new nuclear power plant instead. In terms of climate goals, at worst we prevent the construction of new fossil fueled power plants. At best we arrive in the future with fossil fueled power plants replaced by an alternative that isn't cooking the planet.

[GordonS]

If we'd been more sensible on nuclear 20 years ago, it could have made a huge difference. Nuclear plants are very expensive to build, and can take decades from planning to commissioning (at least in the west) - I wonder if it's simply too late for nuclear now?

[foepys]

Why should we create nuclear waste for hundreds or thousands of generations to deal with when we can just expand renewables and phase out coal and gas over the next 20 years?

Planning and constructing a new nuclear reactor takes at least 15 years and it's the most expensive and also dangerous form of energy source.

Just look at Hinkley Point C in the UK where costs exploded and construction was delayed over and over. The cost of £92/MWh (estimated in 2012) is outrageously expensive as well when wind and solar are approaching half. New nuclear reactors make no sense now.

[pjerem]

> Planning and constructing a new nuclear reactor takes at least 15 years and it's the most expensive and also dangerous form of energy source.

This is false. Even accounting the few catastrophic failures (including Chernobyl and Fukushima), deaths by nuclear industry can be counted in dozens.

Here is what says Wikipedia about the Fukushima aftermath :

> There were no deaths from radiation exposure in the immediate aftermath of the incident, though there were a number of (non-radiation related) deaths during the evacuation of the nearby population. As of September 2018, one cancer fatality was the subject of a financial settlement, to the family of a former station workman.

There were a few more deaths in Chernobyl but it’s mainly due to the bad management of the cleaning process.

[Pokepokalypse]

Well, yeah, but entire towns had to be evacuated and interdicted.

How do you figure THAT external cost?

[belorn]

If we include those, the most costly and deadly energy is hydro. Last year a much bigger evacuation than Fukushima occurred in the US because of a dam failure.

It is kind of interesting that almost no one have heard of it, and that it did not make major international news.

[reedjosh]

> nuclear waste for hundreds or thousands of generations to deal with

Solar and wind don't generate waste?

And while batteries are getting better, they're still not to the point that solar and wind can just replace the kind of power nuclear produces.

Further, lithium batteries don't produce waste?

[foepys]

Nuclear waste is a lot worse than any other type of waste. It's dangerous for tens of thousands of years and we don't know if we will be able to tell a civilization 10,000 years in the future that the stuff we buried deep in a cave is dangerous.

[kergonath]

> Nuclear waste is a lot worse than any other type of waste.

It's really not. It is compact, contained, and isolated. It takes a tiny amount of space compared to any other solution.

> It's dangerous for tens of thousands of years

Some of it is. Most of it isn't. By definition, long-lasting isotopes are the least dangerous.

> we don't know if we will be able to tell a civilization 10,000 years in the future that the stuff we buried deep in a cave is dangerous.

We won't have a civilisation in the next century if we keep fucking it up. It is patently absurd, considering the state of the world, to keep saying that nuclear is the absolute worst. Non-nuclear is what put us in this very situation in the first place.

[Macha]

Per unit volume, sure: A cave full of nuclear waste is worse than a cave full of CO2.

Per energy generated, it's not clear at all to me that the nuclear waste from a country running off nuclear power is worse than the CO2 emissions of running that same country off fossil fuels.

That cave full of nuclear waste has something like "all the waste generated by the UK to date". Enough CO2 to fill a cave is one coal plant running for a few days.

[Pokepokalypse]

you keep comparing nuclear to fossil.

You should compare it to solar/wind/(etc) which produce neither CO2, nor radioactive plutonium, cesium, xenon, (etc)

[belorn]

> expand renewables and phase out coal and gas over the next 20 years

Put in a plan to stop building new coal and gas power plants in EU and that strategy would have a bit more support behind it. New coal, gas and oil is the core of the energy strategy for handling grid stability. It will last much longer than 15 years.

[splistud]

This is where citizens of a world that has enjoyed the type of civil stability and wealth to allow for caring for nuclear waste sites for roughly 200 years will inform you that they can categorically guarantee that there will be no issues caring for these sites in 500 years.

[deepnotderp]

Because civilized societies can provide electricity at night.