Yeah, unfortunately it’s kinda hard to find objective information. It’s either the environmental activists, or the nuclear lobby who publish the articles that show up on the first several pages of Google search. I’ve linked some report from the government and scientists in this thread, regarding cost. But the proper studies are hard to read and several hundred pages long. I doubt anyone here will read such things, they just claim something counter-factual without really knowing anything on the subject.
The Kyle Hill videos aren’t objective either. What he visits isn’t permanent storage. And it’s not accounting for all of the waste. I mean the reactor core has to be dismantled at some point, and so has the whole plant. And that won’t fit into the barrels. What he also doesn’t show is the groundwater contamination and environmental damage plus waste from uranium mining and milling. And I mean it’s nice that he shows one shiny and clean temporary storage facility. While the other side shows some corroding barrels at the bottom of the ocean. Or inside of some leaky salt mine. That’s all just framing. His opponents make arguments and dig up numbers that make nuclear fission look bad, while he shows the one facility that looks clean and good on camera. Trying to bullshit his viewers into believing his framing. In reality he just disregards the existence of the other facts, which definitely also exist. He just doesn’t talk about it to make it look a certain way.
I think what we can agree on is that nuclear energy has a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuels. But in turn it generates hazardous waste. And it’s not renewable either. And the barrels in the video won’t last 5.000 years or 30.000 years. It’s going to be expensive handling all of this for tens of thousands of years. And nuclear fission energy already is more expensive than renewable energy, even without the storage factored in. It’s definitely an expensive and problematic option. And nuclear fission is temporary anyways. There is a limited supply of uranium on earth and it’s not even that much. Peak uranium is currently predicted to be at about 2035. (That might change. And Uranium 235 isn’t the only thing that can be used for nuclear fission, afaik.)
I’d say all of this says we should avoid relying on nuclear fission, starting now. Claiming it’s carbon neutral definitely is a lie. And if someone generates waste, they’re responsible to treat it. Energy price needs to factor in the 40.000 years of storage. Doing inspections on all of the barrels every few years for tens of thousands of years, topping up the helium inside, transferring the waste into new barrels every few hundred years once they become defective… Clearing leaky salt mines and transferring the waste into a new one. Making sure it never gets into the groundwater. Handling accidents and incidents. I think that has to be paid now by the people who actually use that energy. The cost of our current energy can’t be burdened upon the future thousands of generations of people. That’s why I’m opposed to it. Because how it currently works is: Generate “cheap” nuclear energy and let the taxpayer pay for the majority of the issues with it, while companies get their energy subsidized that way. All the problems with storage will have to be dealt with by future generations. We currently don’t have any good idea for permanent storage, but that isn’t stopping us from generating even more waste. We’re “investing” in a technology that is known not to last us into the next century, because the fuel is most likely used up by then. And we do all of that while we have better and cheaper options available. Those come with way less issues. They’re already cheap and there will be a massive payoff if we invest in them. But somehow we’re opposed to that?
And I think the perspective in the YouTube videos is very naive. Alike a 4 yo who thinks beef, chocolate and vegetables come from the supermarket. And the packaging vanishes in the trash bin and that’s it.
For waste, yeah it has to be taken care of. However, nuclear is the only energy resource that we require to do this. All others tend to just let the public (or others in the area) deal with it. Solar also creates waste through mining. Wind is pretty good, but not perfect and the turbines aren’t yet recyclable, and you can bet they aren’t having to pay for their storage. They also will require some form of energy storage that nuclear won’t need, which will likely partially include chemical batteries, which are not environmentally friendly to produce, but again won’t be rolled into their cost.
The anti-nuke movement is largely funded by existing energy companies who don’t want to compete on even ground. They’ve had so many laws passed that increase costs. There are countries where nuclear is much cheaper, which shows that a large part of the cost is regulations, not fundamental costs. Even in the US it’s competitive with offshore wind and coal for cost though, which we still build both of.
Most nuclear waste does not need to be stored for tens of thousands of years either, like you imply. Some does, but not much. Yeah, we still need a solution for that small amount, but those solutions already exist, they just need to be implemented. Again, no other energy gets waste handling rolled into their cost. They just become negative externalities someone else has to deal with. Nuclear is just easy to capture the waste, so they store it. This should be a positive, not a negative.
It’s also ridiculously clean and safe. Even including nuclear accidents (which become less likely each time, and are now almost impossible), it’s next to the safest energy source. The only thing safer is solar, by a tiny amount.
It is a great baseline power source we should be relying on. Obviously I agree, it shouldn’t be everything. Solar and wind are ideal to make up the majority of the grid, but as a safe and reliable supply of power, nuclear should support them. It perfectly fills the gap left by them that otherwise requires massive amount of power storage, which is far from ideal. We should remove the regulations that have kneecapped them to protect traditional dirty energy and provide solutions for permanent waste disposal so it doesn’t artificially increase their costs.
The IPCC report lists higher lifecycle emissions for nuclear than your numbers. We probably need to take all of that with a grain of salt. But it’s about comparable to some of the renewables.
And even if you want to use nuclear for baseline power, you’re going to have a problem in like 40-100 years once uranium mining gets harder as we’re depleating the resources.
And I mean “theoretically” having storage is kind of a joke, since we’re not generating the waste in theory, but in practice. So we also need the solution to actually exist. And as far as I know it might be a hoax anyways and there might be a good reason why we struggle actually implementing it. Usally people claim the waste can be put somewhere underneath the earth. In an old salt mine or something like that. And the geologists I asked said it’s true that a salt reservoir underneath the earth is stable for 100.000s of years… Unless someone tampers with it. For example breaches it by digging into it, taking the salt out and putting waste inside. Then it’ll become unstable. And we have precedent for that.
So. I’ve heard the same things about long term storage. But it seems to me there is more to it. Until now nobody was able to build a proper one. Sure they claim in theory it’s easy, still they didn’t do it. And geologists have some doubt it’ll work on that timescale in the first place. And looking into the past we also weren’t very successful with putting waste into old mines. A good amount of them has become leaky. Or something happened with the groundwater that wasn’t expected to happen… And I’d rather not have toxic waste mix with groundwater anywhere close to where I live…
I mean that’s just one concern. Mainly I’d like to know what’s the actual cost of containing a large amount of waste for a shorter timespan, and containing a smaller amount of waste for tens of thousands of years. All the maintenance, cost to handle incidents and making sure it doesn’t escape into the environment with close to absolute certainty. Added up for the necessary timescale. Just hoping our grandkids will figure out a way is the same mentality as burning oil and letting them deal with the consequences.
I’d really like to force them (Google in this instance) to pay for it. And as we need a renewable alternative anyways, I’d also on top like to invest in finding solutions to for example recycling of wind turbine parts. And a “smart” grid that handles electricity being not at 100% all the time. At some point we need it anyways, and the sooner we begin, the earlier it pays off.
Yeah, unfortunately it’s kinda hard to find objective information. It’s either the environmental activists, or the nuclear lobby who publish the articles that show up on the first several pages of Google search. I’ve linked some report from the government and scientists in this thread, regarding cost. But the proper studies are hard to read and several hundred pages long. I doubt anyone here will read such things, they just claim something counter-factual without really knowing anything on the subject.
The Kyle Hill videos aren’t objective either. What he visits isn’t permanent storage. And it’s not accounting for all of the waste. I mean the reactor core has to be dismantled at some point, and so has the whole plant. And that won’t fit into the barrels. What he also doesn’t show is the groundwater contamination and environmental damage plus waste from uranium mining and milling. And I mean it’s nice that he shows one shiny and clean temporary storage facility. While the other side shows some corroding barrels at the bottom of the ocean. Or inside of some leaky salt mine. That’s all just framing. His opponents make arguments and dig up numbers that make nuclear fission look bad, while he shows the one facility that looks clean and good on camera. Trying to bullshit his viewers into believing his framing. In reality he just disregards the existence of the other facts, which definitely also exist. He just doesn’t talk about it to make it look a certain way.
I think what we can agree on is that nuclear energy has a lower carbon footprint than fossil fuels. But in turn it generates hazardous waste. And it’s not renewable either. And the barrels in the video won’t last 5.000 years or 30.000 years. It’s going to be expensive handling all of this for tens of thousands of years. And nuclear fission energy already is more expensive than renewable energy, even without the storage factored in. It’s definitely an expensive and problematic option. And nuclear fission is temporary anyways. There is a limited supply of uranium on earth and it’s not even that much. Peak uranium is currently predicted to be at about 2035. (That might change. And Uranium 235 isn’t the only thing that can be used for nuclear fission, afaik.)
I’d say all of this says we should avoid relying on nuclear fission, starting now. Claiming it’s carbon neutral definitely is a lie. And if someone generates waste, they’re responsible to treat it. Energy price needs to factor in the 40.000 years of storage. Doing inspections on all of the barrels every few years for tens of thousands of years, topping up the helium inside, transferring the waste into new barrels every few hundred years once they become defective… Clearing leaky salt mines and transferring the waste into a new one. Making sure it never gets into the groundwater. Handling accidents and incidents. I think that has to be paid now by the people who actually use that energy. The cost of our current energy can’t be burdened upon the future thousands of generations of people. That’s why I’m opposed to it. Because how it currently works is: Generate “cheap” nuclear energy and let the taxpayer pay for the majority of the issues with it, while companies get their energy subsidized that way. All the problems with storage will have to be dealt with by future generations. We currently don’t have any good idea for permanent storage, but that isn’t stopping us from generating even more waste. We’re “investing” in a technology that is known not to last us into the next century, because the fuel is most likely used up by then. And we do all of that while we have better and cheaper options available. Those come with way less issues. They’re already cheap and there will be a massive payoff if we invest in them. But somehow we’re opposed to that?
And I think the perspective in the YouTube videos is very naive. Alike a 4 yo who thinks beef, chocolate and vegetables come from the supermarket. And the packaging vanishes in the trash bin and that’s it.
For waste, yeah it has to be taken care of. However, nuclear is the only energy resource that we require to do this. All others tend to just let the public (or others in the area) deal with it. Solar also creates waste through mining. Wind is pretty good, but not perfect and the turbines aren’t yet recyclable, and you can bet they aren’t having to pay for their storage. They also will require some form of energy storage that nuclear won’t need, which will likely partially include chemical batteries, which are not environmentally friendly to produce, but again won’t be rolled into their cost.
The anti-nuke movement is largely funded by existing energy companies who don’t want to compete on even ground. They’ve had so many laws passed that increase costs. There are countries where nuclear is much cheaper, which shows that a large part of the cost is regulations, not fundamental costs. Even in the US it’s competitive with offshore wind and coal for cost though, which we still build both of.
Most nuclear waste does not need to be stored for tens of thousands of years either, like you imply. Some does, but not much. Yeah, we still need a solution for that small amount, but those solutions already exist, they just need to be implemented. Again, no other energy gets waste handling rolled into their cost. They just become negative externalities someone else has to deal with. Nuclear is just easy to capture the waste, so they store it. This should be a positive, not a negative.
It’s also ridiculously clean and safe. Even including nuclear accidents (which become less likely each time, and are now almost impossible), it’s next to the safest energy source. The only thing safer is solar, by a tiny amount.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/
It is a great baseline power source we should be relying on. Obviously I agree, it shouldn’t be everything. Solar and wind are ideal to make up the majority of the grid, but as a safe and reliable supply of power, nuclear should support them. It perfectly fills the gap left by them that otherwise requires massive amount of power storage, which is far from ideal. We should remove the regulations that have kneecapped them to protect traditional dirty energy and provide solutions for permanent waste disposal so it doesn’t artificially increase their costs.
The IPCC report lists higher lifecycle emissions for nuclear than your numbers. We probably need to take all of that with a grain of salt. But it’s about comparable to some of the renewables.
And even if you want to use nuclear for baseline power, you’re going to have a problem in like 40-100 years once uranium mining gets harder as we’re depleating the resources.
And I mean “theoretically” having storage is kind of a joke, since we’re not generating the waste in theory, but in practice. So we also need the solution to actually exist. And as far as I know it might be a hoax anyways and there might be a good reason why we struggle actually implementing it. Usally people claim the waste can be put somewhere underneath the earth. In an old salt mine or something like that. And the geologists I asked said it’s true that a salt reservoir underneath the earth is stable for 100.000s of years… Unless someone tampers with it. For example breaches it by digging into it, taking the salt out and putting waste inside. Then it’ll become unstable. And we have precedent for that.
So. I’ve heard the same things about long term storage. But it seems to me there is more to it. Until now nobody was able to build a proper one. Sure they claim in theory it’s easy, still they didn’t do it. And geologists have some doubt it’ll work on that timescale in the first place. And looking into the past we also weren’t very successful with putting waste into old mines. A good amount of them has become leaky. Or something happened with the groundwater that wasn’t expected to happen… And I’d rather not have toxic waste mix with groundwater anywhere close to where I live…
I mean that’s just one concern. Mainly I’d like to know what’s the actual cost of containing a large amount of waste for a shorter timespan, and containing a smaller amount of waste for tens of thousands of years. All the maintenance, cost to handle incidents and making sure it doesn’t escape into the environment with close to absolute certainty. Added up for the necessary timescale. Just hoping our grandkids will figure out a way is the same mentality as burning oil and letting them deal with the consequences.
I’d really like to force them (Google in this instance) to pay for it. And as we need a renewable alternative anyways, I’d also on top like to invest in finding solutions to for example recycling of wind turbine parts. And a “smart” grid that handles electricity being not at 100% all the time. At some point we need it anyways, and the sooner we begin, the earlier it pays off.