[lostmyoldone]

If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet. When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet.

Nuclear (fission) technology is not the problem, we are the problem. Looking at the recent history of political leadership all over the world, and the baffling level of support even the most immature of policies have, it's clear we have a ways to go. Most people doesn't even seem to realize that as a species we've only just emerged, we're so young. Toddlers on any timescale but the most naïve and short sighted.

[jjoonathan]

If we hadn't stopped building nuclear power in the 80s and had merely kept up the pace, our electric grid would be 100% decarbonized by now.

Instead, we do have nukes and don't have a carbon free grid. Ditto everyone else.

Naïve, immature, and short sighted, indeed.

[Gwypaas]

A negative learning curve coupled with Chernobyl doesn't create a very compelling business case right at the end of the 80s.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

[throw0101a]

> If it is Prometheus' fire, we are not ready to handle that fire yet.

If we should only be allowed to use technology when we fully understand its consequences, then we should still be living as hunter gatherers (agriculture).

Heck, most people don't understand how wood has shaped humanity:

* https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Age-of-Wood/Rolan...

See also Marshall McLuhan:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

[VortexDream]

Either we use it and learn to use it or we wipe out wide swathes of the human population over the next hundred years. I'm sure the millions who die and suffer over the next few decades will be grateful to your absolute principles.

[ashtonkem]

1) We already have a ton of nuclear weapons laying around, without even getting the upside of lots of electricity. Stopping nuclear power to avoid nuclear proliferation has not worked.

2) The alternative for lots of the world is coal. Between letting the Germans have access to refined Uranium (not highly refined) and letting the Germans continue to burn coal, I’d take the former.

3) This argument falls apart once you realize how little we’ve invested in Thorium reactors, which don’t post a nuclear proliferation risk.

I think that the ugly reality is that fossil fuel companies have cynically co-opted legitimate fears about nuclear power (and there are legitimate concerns) in order to shut them down or push them off into “we can use them once <impossible condition> has been met” specifically because nuclear power is the only serious threat to their continued profits.

[mihaaly]

How about airplanes and internal combustion engines? Those are weaponised with track record off killing millions and millions. Should we immediately throw away those as well?

[vlovich123]

I'm unclear about what your point is. Are you saying that Nuclear power production is somehow linked to nuclear arms production?

[dboreham]

Of course it is.

[jjoonathan]

The anti-nuclear crowd is pretending to be the adult in the room, so let's get some accountability in here. Stopping nuclear energy rollout:

* Did not get rid of nuclear weapons and MAD

* Is directly responsible for putting >100 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is what "responsibility" looks like, folks!

[throwaway898989]

are you saying that nuclear power related accidents like chernobyl don't happen?

[vlovich123]

That seems like a little bit of a non sequitur to the topic in this particular thread chain.

Anyway, yes of course they happen. They happen in every power producing industry. It's hard to find good numbers of course as there's going to be some amount of error, but here's one [1].

The point isn't that in that report nuclear has fewer deaths than wind and solar as I'm sure that will cause an emotional reaction. The point is that it's so low and comparable. Even if it was 10x worse it would be worth the tradeoff of replacing coal.

Nuclear is our only choice for replacing industrial scale use of coal and oil. It's unfortunate that that's the case, but those are the facts on the ground currently and there's no sign of that ever changing. The way Wind and Solar generate energy are wholly incompatible with high temperature industrial uses where coal and natural gas are used let alone the problems of variability (batteries help, but there are limits and batter manufacturing at scale brings its own challenges).

If you're comparing Nuclear to Wind and Solar power generation, you're comparing power sources that don't compete. Nuclear is about replacing the worst problems coal and oil present us and staving off global warming. It's an extremely critical and underdeveloped resource and only gets safer and better with time. It would be erroneous to state any risk in a vacuum - you have to compare it with what's happening today.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

[throwaway894345]

To boot, almost every time a nuclear reactor is decommissioned, it is replaced by more fossil fuel plants, not by renewable energy. You can’t be seriously opposed to climate change and nuclear energy at the same time.

[newbamboo]

I’ve learned there are two distinct groups of people who claim to be concerned about climate change. One group that sees it coming and sincerely wants to find viable solutions to the problem, and a much larger group who use it to fuel somewhat misanthropic psychological control issues. This second group spend most of their time thinking (and arguing!) about how other people are not riding bikes to work, not using reusable grocery bags, not buying electric vehicles, and voting in ways that they don’t like. They see Greta thunderberg as the solution to climate change, “if only we could shame enough people into riding their bike to work, we will save the planet,” they think. “If we just invest in solar” they say, never mentioning the tricky details like battery manufacture and placement, “we won’t solve the problem, because it’s too late for that, but it would be better.”

These people are not going to solve the problem of climate change. That’s not really what they are in it for. And so the much smaller first group of people, who aren’t focused on changing behaviors of other people (social control) are the only hope. They, the first group, are hampered at every turn by the second group. The second group indeed are the cause of “climate denialism.”

It’s good to learn to spot these people and simply not engage. When they make inane claims about nuclear being unsafe, just correct the record and move on.

[DisjointedHunt]

We’re seeing this play out in real time in Europe and the lack of serious coverage in the USA is disappointing

[throw0101a]

> are you saying that nuclear power related accidents like chernobyl don't happen?

The 1975 Banqian Dam failure: 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

See also:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_st...

Does that mean hydroelectric dams should be shut down?

Over the many decades of nuclear operation, there have been two major incidents: Chernobyl and Fukushima. And Chernobyl could probably have been prevented with a containment building.

I live with-in 50km of a nuclear power station: I'll take my chances with nuclear over climate change, given the choice.

[DangitBobby]

Well, Chernobyl could have been much, much worse, right? We got incredibly lucky [1] that the worst was prevented.

1. https://fantasticfacts.net/252/

[kube-system]

When nuclear power plants kill people, we call it an accident.

When coal powered plants kill people, we call it normal operation.

[MR4D]

> When one of the core concerns of using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale.

Just wanted to point out that stone (trebuchets), wood (arrows), bronze (swords), and steel (guns, bombs, tanks, etc) fall into this category too. Silicon is probably there already as well, but hasn’t been used yet.

Mankind has used everything as his disposal to gain the upper hand over another group of humans since well before history began. I don’t ever expect it to stop.

[TheDudeMan]

Regardless of whether the big carbon-producing nations use nuclear power, they will stock nuclear bombs. Thermonuclear, in fact.

[prox]

I wonder what the pathway would be (in a perfect everything-matures-at-a-constant-rate way)

Probably better representative systems that don’t pit countries or peoples against eachother. A way to identify as a human or earthling above all nationalities.

A revolutionary better economic understanding so we don’t have to choose politically and have clear economic growth tied to wellness of people.

Probably connected to the above is a superior education system for everyone who wants to and help to realize mature atomic sciences.

[denton-scratch]

The issue that concerns me about nuclear power isn't so much weapons (they tend to be well-guarded, and it's hard to make weapons from reactor fuel), but decomissioning.

The UK was one of the first countries to build nuclear reactors; no UK reactor has ever been fully decomissioned, and from what I can see we haven't even got a strategy - WP says they're still working out whether decomissioning should occur over a 20-year or a 100-year span. The UK's first nuclear reactor, Calder Hall, was built in the year of my birth, and decommissioning is estimated to take well into the next century; my grandchildren will have died of old age.

You can stand next to a thermonuclear bomb without a mickey-mouse suit; you can even open it up, take the components out, and render the weapon unusable, fairly easily. Nuclear reactors, not so much.

I have grandchildren under 5. Until we've proved that a reactor design can be fully decommissioned, I don't think we should build more. That's not a problem that I want to dump on their shoulders.

[throwaway894345]

What sort of world will your grandchildren inherit if we don’t invest in nuclear? What happens if the mystery renewable energy storage and carbon scrubbing technologies never materialize? What happens if the climate scientists are right about the increasing droughts and floods and the knock-on effects to food supplies and so on? By comparison the risk of nuclear is negligible.

[denton-scratch]

> if we don’t invest in nuclear?

That depends. The trajectory we're on is one of unrestrained economic growth. In that scenario, demand for power will only increase. Growth has many other harmful effects, including ever-greater quantities of plastic waste, and depletion of natural resources like fish stocks and rainforests.

I have no idea how to tame growth. Most governments put growth near the top of their objectives. But I think it's growth that will blight my grandchildren's lives, not a shortage of electricity.

[ksec]

Am I missing something? Why is decommissioning nuclear power plants the problem here? There are plenty of nuclear power plants that has been decommissioned. So this is nothing new.

[denton-scratch]

In the UK, several nukes have been taken out of service; none has been "decommissioned", in the sense that the site can be re-used, people can live and work there. The first nuclear power plant in the UK was built in 1956, and the current plan is that decommissioning will be completed by 2104; I will be long gone. Until then, the site will be closed to the public.

Perhaps you know of nuclear power plants elsewhere that have been fully decommissioned. I don't, but there is an infinite number of things I don't know, and I would love to be surprised.

[simion314]

>using a technology is to prevent it being used to create weapons capable of obliterating entire cities, we are not as a species mature enough to use it on a wider scale. This is only one example of why we are not ready yet.

So now this big countries like US,Russia and the rest still have the bombs, you don't reduce the risk of a nuclear war or a big country accidentally or intentional detonating one by reducing the number of nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately the nuclear weapons already exist and any country with enough budget can create one, I suggest you try to understand that you can't have a group of terrorists dropping a plane in a nuclear plant and have it explode like a bomb, nuclear plants do not explode like an atomic bomb.

[lokimedes]

I tend to agree with you, but it should not be the conclusion. We must become ready to handle this, it is in my opinion the real underlying challenge behind the climate problem.

We have started this technologically driven expansion of the human footprint, and either we revert to pre-industrial levels or progress. Assuming that non-nuclear technology will let us have the cake (of prosperity) and eat it too (without drowning our cites) is the collective lie I see propagated politically.

In the spirit of the recent TV series release of "Foundation", this is our Seldon problem.

[q1w2]

Running a nuclear reactor does not produce nuclear weapons. This is simply fear-mongering fake news.

Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on.

If they were to all turn into zombies, for example, the reactor would simply shut off.

Omega Tau podcast also did an extensive series on nuclear waste storage that I highly recommend every skeptic listen to. Nuclear waste storage is not a problem.

The problem is that naivete people seem to have that renewables can provide 99% uptime baseload, the boomer ignorance that all-things-nuclear-are-bad-because-Greenpeace-told-me-so.

Moreover, China has proven that nuclear Gen III reactors can be built cheaply - they are concurrently building 24 1GW plants.

Steamline ancient western regulations, block the endless lawsuits against plant development, re-open the Nevada storage center, tell boomers to stop stonewalling the only ready climate change solution, and BUILD THE DAMN NUCLEAR PLANTS.

We have a PROVEN solution ready to go that can be deployed in literally 10-15 years. We just need to end the ignorance.

[chefkoch]

> We have a PROVEN solution ready to go that can be deployed in literally 10-15 years. We just need to end the ignorance.

No we don't. We don't have even one new Gen reactor running and even more important we don't have the people educated to build them in a massive scale.

It would take at least ten years to educate the nuclear engineers needed to build dozens or even hundreds of them. And even then they don't have experience, they are juniors building very complex multi billion dollar installations.

[throwaway894345]

It’s frustrating that the anti-nuclear folks (perhaps not you specifically, parent) worked to drain western societies of nuclear experience and advancement, and then use that inexperience and associated costs as a reason not to invest in nuclear.

Yes, nuclear has a long lead time, but so does economics grid-scale storage for renewables. “Long lead time” isn’t an excuse to forestall investment, it’s a reason to start now.

Moreover, nuclear has promising solutions for criticisms of cost, safety, and experience: Small Nuclear Reactors. A relatively small number of nuclear engineers can design blueprints for nuclear facilities which can be mass produced and shipped to site. The cost projections seem very favorable and certainly worth looking into more, but the biggest obstacle is anti-nuclear FUD. I’m not asking the anti-nuclear folks to help, but I do wish they would get out of the way so everyone else can save our planet.

[DisjointedHunt]

This is true.

Also the most efficient and safe reactors are arguably in the bellies of the leading edge Submarines. It's no surprise France is going all in on the Small Modular Reactor tech since they are rumored to possess some of the best in the world already. Likely a question of declassification.

The reactor at MIT has students allowed to run parts of the operation after they pass a few strenuous tests. This hypothetical scenario where the political will is ready to go and the skill gap is what is holding it up is imaginary.

[Gwypaas]

Military reactors tend to use weapons grade fuel. Would not want to spread that across all unstable regions of the world. So quite the different beasts compared to the civilian side.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070209223424/http://www.nti.or...

[johnny53169]

> It would take at least ten years to educate the nuclear engineers needed to build dozens or even hundreds of them. And even then they don't have experience, they are juniors building very complex multi billion dollar installations.

How did they do it in the past then? The first power station opened in 1956 when the technology was secretive and when there was no internet. The real problem looks completely because of red tape and NIMBY

Edit: You are also misinformed, there are Gen III reactors in operation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400

[chefkoch]

As i said to another commenter, you are right, i was thinking of Gen III+ like EPR.

When we started out building nuclear plants the where much simpler, much smaller designs and a lot of designs didn't work out the way hoped. Nuclear is hard, it's hard on the materials and often you problems appear while building or running it.

[kortex]

Define "we" and "running". While the US nuclear industry is admittedly a bit moribund at the moment, there are already many gen 3 plants in operation with passive safety features, and several gen 4 in late research and plans to build commercial plants. But the majority of plants in operation are gen 2. We could be doing so much better by just building out gen 3/3.5 plants today.

The big 3 nuclear disasters, Chernobyl (started construction in 1972), Three Mile ('67), and Fukushima ('67), were al really early gen 2, designed in the 60s.

[throw0101a]

> We don't have even one new Gen reactor running

Which is the generation is the "new" one?

There are a number of Generation III ones running:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor

Gen IV reactor used to burn up plutonium:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor

[chefkoch]

You are right, i was thinking of Gen III+ like EPR.

[throw0101a]

There are EPR reactors connected to grids:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taishan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Other Gen III+ reactors:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Pla...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Generat...

[kortex]

> Also, modern nuclear reactors are dangerous. The GenIII+ specification for all new reactors requires the use of passive shut off. Which means the operator must actively keep the reactor on.

This seems confused. Shouldn't this read not dangerous?

100% agree though on the broad point. Newer reactors have way better passive safety, and the way to cheaper, safer nuclear energy is build more new plants and retire the old ones.

[q1w2]

agh... typo. I forgot the NOT!

[bombcar]

So we’ll slowly level cities via burning coal instead “in the name of safety”.

[robwwilliams]

Brilliant comment. And yet we as a barely intelligent emergent species will play with politically dangerous fire/energy.

Let do it more as a basic science challenge and work 10X harder on the fusion chimera that is beginning to look real!