The promise of nuclear energy is clear: It's the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gases and combating climate change while still meeting the world's growing demand for energy.
he promise of nuclear energy is clear: It's the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gases and combating climate change while still meeting the world's growing demand for energy.
What about nuclear waste? Has this problem been solved? Or is this not really a problem?
What about accidents? Are newer power plants really that much saver than older ones or is that mostly lobby talk?
I'm (almost) always ready to update my views. Are there sources on the above topics that you recommend, Klement?
Also: Electricity from new renewables seems to be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear (https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth). Does that hold up? If so: Why bother with new nuclear?
All good points, each of which could be a very long discussion, but here are a few short personal views from me:
1. It is impossible for terrorists (or Greenpeace) to create any major damage by reading into a nuclear power plant. A nuclear detonation like in an atomic bomb physically not possible. The worst would be to create a meltdown like the ones we have seen I at Chernobyl or Fukushima, or for terrorists to steal nuclear material and create a dirty bomb, I.e. a conventional bomb that spreads radioactive material locally. But you can’t just take a piece of a rod because they are very big, very heavy and very hard. Chipping away a few poeces is practically impossible and you can’t just put a whole rod on a truck and drive it through your local neighborhood. It’s pretty easy to stop such a transport.
2. Nuclear waste is a still unsolved problem and it is undeniably problematic. But my personal view is that nuclear waste is a local problem while climate change is a global problem. If we have to create a limited amount of unlivable wasteland to save the planet I am fine with it.
3. Molten salt reactors and small scale nuclear reactors are designed in such a way that a meltdown a la Fukushima is physically impossible. The problem with these reactors is that they are more expensive to built than conventional reactors which is why they have not materialized so far in practical applications. See also here: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/i-think-there-is-a-future-for-nuclear?s=w
4. Yes, electricity from renewables is always cheaper than from nuclear power. The problem is that renewable energy is delivered intermittently and not always when we need it. There are two solutions to that problem. Either we build massive large scale energy storage which is multiple times more expensive than using nuclear or gas as supply of base load electricity. Or we use peaked gas plants or nuclear power for base load and use renewable energy plus a limited amount of energy storage facilities to cover the majority of our energy needs. The problem with gas is that it emits CO2 and can be used as a geopolitical blackmail (see Russia at the moment). The problem with nuclear power is that it creates nuclear waste and the risk of a local radioactive accident.
In the end it’s up to us to pick our poison. Personally, I am still more in favor of Parker gas but I the face of our abysmal track record of reducing greenhouse gases or any functioning carbon capture and storage system, I am trending more and more towards small scale nuclear reactors. But it is a tough call to make.
The promise of nuclear energy is clear: It's the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gases and combating climate change while still meeting the world's growing demand for energy.
he promise of nuclear energy is clear: It's the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gases and combating climate change while still meeting the world's growing demand for energy.
My main worries about nuclear power are:
Nuclear plants could be terrorist targets. If Greenpeace can set off fireworks inside a nuclear plant (e.g. https://www.thelocal.fr/20171012/greenpeace-activists-set-off-fireworks-at-nuclear-plant-in-france/), terrorists can likely do much worse, can't they?
What about nuclear waste? Has this problem been solved? Or is this not really a problem?
What about accidents? Are newer power plants really that much saver than older ones or is that mostly lobby talk?
I'm (almost) always ready to update my views. Are there sources on the above topics that you recommend, Klement?
Also: Electricity from new renewables seems to be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear (https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth). Does that hold up? If so: Why bother with new nuclear?
All good points, each of which could be a very long discussion, but here are a few short personal views from me:
1. It is impossible for terrorists (or Greenpeace) to create any major damage by reading into a nuclear power plant. A nuclear detonation like in an atomic bomb physically not possible. The worst would be to create a meltdown like the ones we have seen I at Chernobyl or Fukushima, or for terrorists to steal nuclear material and create a dirty bomb, I.e. a conventional bomb that spreads radioactive material locally. But you can’t just take a piece of a rod because they are very big, very heavy and very hard. Chipping away a few poeces is practically impossible and you can’t just put a whole rod on a truck and drive it through your local neighborhood. It’s pretty easy to stop such a transport.
2. Nuclear waste is a still unsolved problem and it is undeniably problematic. But my personal view is that nuclear waste is a local problem while climate change is a global problem. If we have to create a limited amount of unlivable wasteland to save the planet I am fine with it.
3. Molten salt reactors and small scale nuclear reactors are designed in such a way that a meltdown a la Fukushima is physically impossible. The problem with these reactors is that they are more expensive to built than conventional reactors which is why they have not materialized so far in practical applications. See also here: https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/i-think-there-is-a-future-for-nuclear?s=w
4. Yes, electricity from renewables is always cheaper than from nuclear power. The problem is that renewable energy is delivered intermittently and not always when we need it. There are two solutions to that problem. Either we build massive large scale energy storage which is multiple times more expensive than using nuclear or gas as supply of base load electricity. Or we use peaked gas plants or nuclear power for base load and use renewable energy plus a limited amount of energy storage facilities to cover the majority of our energy needs. The problem with gas is that it emits CO2 and can be used as a geopolitical blackmail (see Russia at the moment). The problem with nuclear power is that it creates nuclear waste and the risk of a local radioactive accident.
In the end it’s up to us to pick our poison. Personally, I am still more in favor of Parker gas but I the face of our abysmal track record of reducing greenhouse gases or any functioning carbon capture and storage system, I am trending more and more towards small scale nuclear reactors. But it is a tough call to make.