Comment by Kon5ole
1 day ago
>Nuclear has no real cons other than time/cost of deployment,
That's not true. It's extremely expensive to operate for one, so expensive in fact that nobody in the private sector wants to do it without having nation states basically guarantee profits for the lifetime of the plant or accept all liability. Which in several countries means that he operator is the nation state. Like in France.
The profits are guaranteed by collecting extra taxes from the population, not by increasing the price of electricity. Which is why people believe France has cheap electricity when they really don't.
Also of course each nuclear plant carries a nonzero chance of a trillion dollar incident (we've had two so far) as well as a nonzero chance of millions of casualties. Both these cons are entirely unique to nuclear power plants. No hydro plant, solar plant, wind farm, coal, oil or gas plant can cause as much damage as a nuclear plant.
>t's that or buying gas from Russia.
Not at all, there are many options (including buying gas from someone else). Some options got viable so recently people still haven't realized it. Like batteries. They're cheap now, you know, and China can build as many as we want. China has also caused a severe drop in the cost of hydrolyzers, used to create e-fuel. E-fuel means you can use solar power in winter and during night, which removes the remaining weakness of renewable sources. Europe should spend every eurocent in that direction instead of nuclear. That's the path to true energy independence.
And anyway, europe still gets 70% of it's nuclear fuel from Russia. How is that better than gas?
> Also of course each nuclear plant carries a nonzero chance of a trillion dollar incident (we've had two so far) as well as a nonzero chance of millions of casualties. Both these cons are entirely unique to nuclear power plants. No hydro plant, solar plant, wind farm, coal, oil or gas plant can cause as much damage as a nuclear plant.
The Banqiao dam failure killed 250,000 people in a single incident. Pollution from coal plants running normally causes 1 million premature deaths per year. The deepwater horizon spill was a $100 billion disaster with an environmental impact greater than any nuclear incident. The Centralia fires in PA are still burning after over 60 years and lead to a town being abandoned. Nuclear is not uniquely risky by any rational metric.
>The Banqiao dam failure killed 250,000 people in a single incident.
The incident was a typhoon that caused 60 dam failures in a densely populated area prone to flooding. Estimates range from 26000 to 240000 people dead, but rationally one has to assume the typhoon would have caused some damage in these areas even without the dams.
So claiming this was a single hydro dam causing 250 000 dead is hardly rational.
If you live in a narrow valley downstream from a dam you are aware of the danger. You as an individual can take action to protect yourself. If you live upstream by even 10 feet you are in no danger at all from the dam.
With nuclear, people in Scotland are in danger from a plant in the Ukraine, can't do anything to protect themselves from it, and have to live with the consequences for 30+ years. That's much worse by any metric.
Deepwater horizon was bad, but nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl or Fukushima. Also it wasn't a power plant, not even indirectly as oil is mostly used for transportation, not electricity. Chernobyl and Fukushima were power plants.
So again, there is just no comparison between nuclear plants and any other power plant. Nuclear really does have a unique level of risk.
Risk is often defined as consequence x likelihood, and for nuclear the consequence is immense. Meaning effort has to be spent keeping the likelihood extremely small, in order for the risk to be low.
This has to be accepted and considered in any discussion about nuclear power. Pretending it doesn't exist is not rational.
It's cheap to operate. See https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...
The statement about getting 70% from Russia is total bullshit
What non zero chance of millions of casualties? Chernobyl, a shit design that weren't allowed in the west even then is estimated to kill about 4k in total. In Fukushima the number is zero or 1 deaths from radiation due to low dose. And that's old gen2 reactor striken by tsunami and earthquake
I've seen what antinuclear europe does to remove the weakness of renewables - subsidies for new gas peakers in Germany
>It's cheap to operate. See https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte...
It's not, the estimated production cost for existing swiss nuclear plants is 4-6 centimes per kWh, which is already expensive electricity and frequently higher than the market prices today. That is also the self-cost price, meaning whenever the market pays less for electricity, ch nuclear plants lose money.
And as always, swiss taxpayers cover that loss so you won't ever see it in the operators financial reports.
Also worth noting is that EDF in France sells for 7 cents after being bailed out when sellng at 4 cents. This is not cheap electricity.
> What non zero chance of millions of casualties?
Just to take one trivial example:
If nobody is able to refill the water in spent fuel pools at any nuclear plant, they will catch fire. Assuming a radial spread of the fallout it will be near guaranteed lethal for at least 50 miles, probably lethal for some 500 miles, and you "won't want to live there" for even further than that. And this will remain the case for millennia to decades, depending on weather and distance.
So basically 500 miles radius, uninhabitable for several generations if you run out of water.
Then consider that Switzerland is covered by a circle of some 120 miles, and has a population of several million.
Do you think the 4-6 centimes per kWh covers a scenario like that? I don't. Good thing Switzerland has lots of water...