[throwaway894345]

I really don't understand the assault on nuclear power. It's literally the only proven clean energy solution for solving the base load problem, and it's not like we can only choose between nuclear and renewables--we can and should have a diverse energy portfolio.

Not only is nuclear power clean, it's two orders of magnitude safer than fossil fuels and on-par with wind and solar (it's considerably safer than rooftop solar, in fact). And that is including Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Further, while nuclear is expensive, Small Modular Reactor designs are safer, smaller, simpler, and faster to build. We should be building them now if only to make sure we have the experience if we need to scale them up quickly.

Yes, nuclear waste has to be dealt with, but there's very little of it and we already have to deal with it.

Ignoring nuclear and praying for a breakthrough solution for the renewable base load problem is tremendously risky and there's virtually no upside.

[colechristensen]

Nuclear was built up as the boogeyman in the mid 20th century as a vehicle to garner political support for various factions and to boost sentiment for conflict with the USSR. That’s why. It worked as a useful tool to grab people’s attention and give them strong opinions.

[gradschool]

> Yes, nuclear waste has to be dealt with, but there's very little of it and we already have to deal with it.

A little nuclear waste goes a long way. If you have any concrete, practical suggestions for ways to deal with it, the world needs you. Summarizing them here will make me an advocate.

[throwaway894345]

> A little nuclear waste goes a long way.

I see your point, but it also doesn't go a long way. It's very dense and solid, and tends to stay put as far as wastes go.

> If you have any concrete, practical suggestions for ways to deal with it, the world needs you. Summarizing them here will make me an advocate.

This is wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. We already know how to deal with nuclear waste: [deep geological repository][0].

2. Moreover, we can continue to safely manage nuclear waste above ground for a very long time. Far longer than we can continue fossil fuel pollution. And this worst-case solution is still far, far, far safer than fossil fuels.

If skeptics aren't convinced, I don't think their skepticism is founded in reason.

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

[opo]

>...Summarizing them here will make me an advocate.

In terms of the waste, right now nuclear waste can be recycled (as it is in France) which would reduce the amount of waste:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel:

"...What is more important today is why fast reactors are fuel-efficient: because fast neutrons can fission or "burn out" all the transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides) many of which last tens of thousands of years or longer and make conventional nuclear waste disposal so problematic. Most of the radioactive fission products (FPs) the reactor produces have much shorter half-lives: they are intensely radioactive in the short term but decay quickly. The IFR extracts and recycles 99.9% of the uranium and Transuranium elements on each cycle and uses them to produce power; so its waste is just the fission products; in 300 years their radioactivity will fall below that of the original uranium "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry some people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amount of waste is very manageable (the Netherlands actually stores their waste in an art museum!) and in a relatively short amount of time we will likely be able to use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.

(To help put it in perspective, do some web searches about the problems with coal waste - it will be a much harder problem to solve than nuclear waste. The problems with coal waste aren't discussed much since people focus on the air pollution from burning coal as it directly kills so many people.)

[duped]

To be fair, the number of people killed directly or indirectly from Chernobyl (as well as children born with birth defects, higher cancer rates regionally, etc) is hotly disputed and certainly higher than the "official" tally.

[docflabby]

The number of people killed just by coal power plants in Europe is around 20k a year, choosing to abandon nuclear without clean alternatives in place first was irresponsible.

[duped]

I totally agree, but it's disingenuous to compare estimated indirect deaths from coal plants to direct deaths of a nuclear accident that was covered up for decades with no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness from exposure.

[throwaway894345]

To the extent that the comparison is disingenuous, I would think it's because we're comparing the criminal mismanagement of a Soviet nuclear facility with ordinary coal facilities. Frankly Chernobyl wouldn't happen in the west (and thus using it as a reason not to invest in nuclear seems disingenuous), and certainly not with newer, smaller, and safer reactor designs.

[jcranmer]

> a nuclear accident that was covered up for decades

The cover-up of Chernobyl lasted barely days.

> with no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness from exposure.

Only a multitude of studies. The current consensus in the scientific community is that somewhere around 20,000-30,000 total deaths attributable to Chernobyl have or will occur.

[dragontamer]

> no good estimate of the indirect deaths and illness

Don't we have Geiger counter that can measure the amount of radiation emanating from nuclear power plants, including Chernobyl?