Enrolled in an energy/"climate-focused" masters degree funded by British Petrol.
The only downside in nuclear is plants being a sensitive target in warfare.

That video is strange marketing nonsense. Running a train doesn't apply the same forces and wear-down as nature will, just ask your mother.

pro-nuke when you tell them nuclear energy is fossil fuel energy: 😡

*wind and solar are unarguably the best energy sourcrs, and the only sustainable ones.

Nuclear fuel is a kind of fossil fuel

That's beside the point. Nuclear isn't sustainable on the long run, period.And solar can potentially generate all the electricity needed and more by itself.

Calling us propagandised while pro-nukes are the ones saying shit like "solar panels are expensive and require specialised maintenance" (both lies)

Nuclear is an either or situation. Either nuclear or renewables. It makes no sense to build a nuclear plant and not run it at 100%. They are way too expensive for that. That means your energy prices will not go down even though we have incredibly cheap energy available. Nuclear is not cheap, not renewable and obtaining the nuclear material another problem on it's own.

And earthquakes, and tsunamis, and hurricanes, and floods, and any other unforeseen circumstance which will result in rising level of cancer and lowering life expectancy for generations in the centuries to come. But yes who cares?! Glowy thing go brrrrrrr!

BREATHE*

More and more words are apparently becoming to hard to use correctly for a big part of people online. This is one that I almost never saw anyone getting wrong until a couple of years ago and it's becoming more and more common, same with writing "cloth/cloths" instead of "clothe/clothes". It's infuriating.

Nuclear is an either or situation.

No its not, how did you make up that conclusion? You can absolutely have both and you should.

Nuclear can be used to reduce the need for rather expensive storage for solar/wind energy.

You know what many places do now when solar falls short or at nighttime when the sun does not shine? They burn gas, oil, or coal.

I'm surprised by all the angry comments of people on this thread, people don't realize the true potential modern nuclear energy has, to produce a lot of energy and just right besides where that energy is needed, one of the biggest problems of renewables is that you don't get to choose where they are produced, so in most cases it implies transmission lines, very high capacity ones and very long ones, my country recently had a country wide outage caused by the failure of one of those that caused a cascading failure.

I'm not saying that renewables aren't incredible tech, they are, they really do, like they're one of the best sources of energy available, but they aren't perfect, and them being complemented with nuclear would do a big deal of good, as I said before nuclear has it's own unique strengths that can help out a lot.

And also I see a lot of people here talking from outright ignorance about the state of the arts of the tech, it has advanced a lot since the 1950's lol, and repeat the same arguments, forever debunked, people do about nuclear that frustrating, Fukushima and Chernobyl were both plants with stupidly old tech, run by clowns and ignoring really well known risks for the sake of the lulz, even when all nuclear accidents combined, the tech has killed a fraction of people than what hidro has killed, modern tech is heaps more advanced and has included everything needed for that sort of accident to be impossible, even nuclear waste is a solved problem, the only thing stopping it from fully materializing is political will (Altough is kind of a blessing in hiding because now tech to use spent fuel seems to be the future also).

IDK, people do disappoint on their ignorance.

it isn't tough, fossil fuel implies hydrocarbons, as that's where the fossil part comes from.

Nuclear fuel is non renewable but it is also clean.

honestly, IDK how much of a strawman it is, Germany literally replaced nuclear with coal.

It's talking about ignorance honestly, hidro has killed way more people.

Nuclear is bad for the climate

Nuclear has basically no CO2 output, so that's wrong.

has the worst waste humanity can produce (...) we do not have the tools to plan for that kind of timespan AT ALL, everyone saying he can build structures safe for that time is lying or mislead.

There's one super simple method. We just don't use it, because it flies in the face of regular waste disposal and remediation methods: Grind up the waste, pour it in concrete pellets, mix it with the mining tailings and chuck it back into the hole you found it. You're basically restoring the status quo if you do that. The only reason we don't do this is because legal frameworks don't allow this. In a way, long term geologic storage is exactly this. Drill holes in the ground, stuff the spent fuel inside, cap the hole. You can do that far easier, but it's legally not allowed because people like greenpeace (and you) think radiation is magically dangerous.

And nuclear is hard and expensive to build.
There is not a single reason someone to build reactors,

There are 62 nuclear plants in china right now, most from the past 10 years, and there are 34 being built now, with 150 planned. They are basically disproving every "Expensive and slow" stereotype, simply by doing what nuclear proponents have been saying since the 50's: "Build more, and it'll get cheaper". It's the exact same way solar, wind and batteries are getting cheaper. China builds nuclear because it hugely improves air quality, because the alternative is coal.

We used to be able to build nuclear plants quickly and affordably in the west too, but eeeeeveryone stopped doing it when chernobyl happened, which was basically specifically built to explode.

it isn't, transmission is a complex thing to do lol, my country had a full blackout last year because a cascading failure caused by a transmission line.

Nuclear fuel will last long enough for us to both have nuclear fission and the capacity to space mine materials.

solar doesn't work in places that don't have land available to be turned into solar farms, here in chile they do a lot of solar, and cool melted salt solar too, but is far north in the Atacama and they have to bring it in, wich is a huge bottle neck, A nuclear power plant in Santiago would relieve a lot the strain in the grid.

My momma doesn't work in hazardous materials handling, I do. So maybe your mom can ask me?

so a train will be less terrible than to be stored in seismically inactive rock?

it literally isn't, why people are saying this? the fossil part comes from being, well fossilized organic material, hence hidrocarbon rich, nuclear isn't tthat, it's not renewable but is clean energy.

It's clean regarding chemical waste.

I've helped build nuclear waste caskets, nothing is perfect but the amount of attention put into making it safe is incredible! The layers (and quality) of stainless steel welds would put your average steel bridge to shame....

But fission will always be limited (as in non-renewable). If everything was powered by nuclear, I'm sure we'd see even more awefull mining operations. Also, fusion should in theory be much better, if the thermodynamics of it end up working.

You realise that death isn't the only bad thing that can happen to you? I'd say crippling you and future generations for life is worse than death.

Bruh

1. Renawbles are capable of generating a ton of energy manageable distances from where they are used in most cases, even for the cases which they are not it is orders of magnitudes cheaper and better for environment if you make green hydrogen, ship it to where its needed and convert it back into current where you need it considered the absurd amounts of time and cost it takes to manage nuclear waste. Not even considering the cost to mine and ship nuclear fuel, build the reactor and safely dispose of it at the end of its lifespan as its miniscule compared to maintain any sort of storage building for a time longer than the time between humanitys first building and now.

2. Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries.
   Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces shows the absurdity of your argument

Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.

3.Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties....I dont even know where to start with this "argument" its bs on so many levels

So why are we arguing for nuclear when nuclear and hydro both have that same problem of being necessarily megaprojects with huge risks if anything is mismanaged, incorrectly planned, or getting attacked in some way.

When we could instead argue for solar plus storage which is cheaper, much less vulnerable to attacks/ disaster, often good for the microclimate where it's deployed, without any need for permanent staffing, has a much more resonable path to resource recovery at eol. ..............

fusion 100% is the future whenever it's figured out.

But I'm not as scared as mining, my country has a lot of mining operations, mostly copper, but the modern tech they have is quite incredible, they use robots to mine, wich are safely controlled in an office building in the city.

People are actually using this argument to keep using fossil fuels? That's crazy.

Yes, transmission is a complex thing to do, and that's why more funds should used to improve research in that direction, rather than wasting hundreds of billions on ticking time bombs, so that mining company owners can get richer while making us sicker.

1 hour of sunlight that hits the sunlit hemisphere, contains enough energy to satisfy the needs of the whole planet for 1 year. That's how much solar is better than nuclear.

I really can't believe that in 2026, the idea of generating energy by boiling water, is still considered "advanced tech" just because they wanna use a different fuel. Lol

And no, solar doesn't need land.

but is clean energy

Look at all this cleanliness:

Solar still uses boiling water, thermosolar at least, that has a lot of benefits over the photovoltaic cell, as it can generate energy steadily and even trough the night, here in chile they built cerro dominador, quite impressive thing.

it depends on the geography of the place, in my country it would be reasonably a huge challenge to build farms over the sea because of the geography of here (it's like a underwater cliff)

and still, I'm heavily pro renewables, but that doesn't I won't be pro nuclear also, both are crucial tech to de-carbonize the world.

I could look up photos of people hurt at a wind farm or something, but we would both agree of the utter ridiculousness of it, of it being a rare and freak ocurrance, numbers don't lie as nuclear having a low death per kW ratio.

Ah, that must be why first world countries like France are trying to export their nuclear waste into third world countries, after they were forced to stop exporting it into Russia...

If it's so safe, why have they been closing down every single high level waste permanent storage site over the last decade?

because ppl act over irrational fear and lobby their politicians to close perfectly safe sites.

Photovoltaic is the future, it'sprettyy much unarguably the only technology that can create energy without moving parts or without any sort of burning.

You don't get any more futuristic than this.
The only problem with photovoltaic and wind is that they've been actively boycotted.

Here in the UK energy providers habitually stop their own wind turbines just because otherwise the price of energy will get too low. That's how fucked up the system is. And nuclear is nothing more than an astute way for these capitalist pigs in control of the energy sector to keep making money from something that should be free already.

Riiiight people are protesting for no reason...

The French government has yet to authorize Cigéo's construction, and now the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) and the Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) have raised concerns about the design. Although it acknowledges overall progress, IRSN questions whether the sealing would be a strong enough barrier and says ANDRA needs to do more to reduce the risk of radioactive leaks. The agency also needs to improve its strategies to monitor risks and to rehabilitate the facility in case of radioactive spills, IRSN says.
Perhaps the biggest problem, however, is medium-level radioactive sludge immobilized in bitumen, or tar, a technique introduced in the 1960s that has now been abandoned. IRSN says that in case of fire in a tunnel, bituminized waste could rapidly overheat and burn. “We would risk creating a phenomenon that we don't know how to stop,” and trigger “a very substantial” release of radioactivity into the environment, says François Besnus, director of IRSN's Environment Division in Fontenay-aux-Roses. Both agencies say ANDRA and the producers of nuclear waste need to study treatments that prevent overheating; if that fails, a major redesign of the facility may be needed.

...

Others say the risks are simply too high. Radiation will break down water in the rock and cause corrosion of metal structures, leading to the release of explosive hydrogen gas, says biologist and engineer Bertrand Thuillier, an associate professor at the University of Lille. ANDRA plans to ventilate the tunnels, but that could exacerbate fires by providing oxygen, he says. A failure could be catastrophic, Thuillier warns: The area around Bure helps provide eastern Paris with water and is close to one of the world's most cherished wine regions, Champagne.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.357.6354.858

Edit: and just so we're clear, this is "the biggest, most complex
and costliest nuclear decommissioning and radioactive
waste management programme on earth." With planned cost between 23 and 54 bilion €

I fully agree that solar will be the majority of electricity produced in the near future, but photovoltaic has the disadvantage of following the sun, and honestly, chermical batteries aren't really the solution (and I'm saying this when my country is one of the biggest lithium producers in the world) Gravity batteries are, but surprise surprise, they are water turbines and water pumps lol, they will last way longer than a chermical battery anyways.

Thermosolar has the molten salt as a buffer between the sun and the electricity, you can use it to produce energy steadily, even in the night, wich solves the problem of having to build gravity damns and the associated risk of them.

I'm confident studying mech, because it isn't going away anytime soon.

and yeah, I full agree that we need to reform the power grid and enact at least partial statization.

but still, nuclear is a good tech that can produce clean energy right where is needed, we shouldn't discard it just because renewables are quite O.P.

Which country was that? I am only aware of the large outage in southern Europe which was due to fossil plants not following regulations.

Trust me bro, nuclear power is clean, I read it on reddit or some shit idk

About the point 2.

I live in a thinrd world country, and it angers me to no end when they try to take this moral stand when a lot of times they're the ones who didn't let us all develop in the first place lol.

My country depends on it's mining industry, the biggest copper mining country in the world and i think the 2nd on lithium, they say it's the wage of chile, most of the copper is extracted by the State owned CODELCO, wich money goes to schools and hospitals, and even the one who is mined privately is taxed and has to pay royalties that go to help the people.

Miners aren't even poorly paid for Chilean standards, and they have benefits, they're strongly unionized lol, and mines here have an extremely high tech level, making people don't have to go to risky places, a lot of mines are totally automated, where robots extract the material and take it out, while their operators sit comfortably in a control room in the city.

So don't come to lecture me on these "poor people in third world countries" because you know nothing, you are a firstworlder who had benefited from colonization and political meddling in our affairs, now that we're finally advancing, and making a better country for ourselves, you come to say this thing? Bruh.

chile lol, it was a crazy experience it lasted long enough for the cell network to fail, I was fortunately in home but it was chaotic for people going home at the time, the goverment ordered a curfew to be had at night so people also were in a hurry, and it was quite a thing lol, I only had the radio left to inform myself on what was happening and it was crazy stuff hearing how they talked about the efforts to cold start the grid back again, they had to do like 3 attempts before success, "the Rapel dam is on maximum power, trying to provide energy to x power plan who then may be able to provide energy to..."

That is priced in yeah. Until recently that would have made it more expensive, but we now have the tipping point where overbuilt solar and batteries beat nuclear in price so finally there are no more caveats. Solar is cheaper, even at high latitudes like in northern europe, even for baseload application with big battery buffers right next to the solar farm.
I see a ton of them being spammed out like that now, solar fields with batteries in a small house in the middle, or in boxes along one side of the field.

Solar itself is so cheap, that overbuilding or latitude hardly factor in, it's mostly about the batteries.
The solar costs are also mainly the land and the construction of the frames.

I fully agree with you that my ancestors have chosen the path of violence and colonization, which I absolutely condemn and try to make up for in my every day live.

And you are right, I dont know about uranian mines in Chile, nice that its state owned and actually beneficial for the area.

I understand if you argue for nuclear if the mines have developed your region and is actually beneficial to the people from an emotional point of view.

You hit me with an argumentum ad hominem, which is kind of deserved by what the society I live in did to a lot of the world (even if I myself try to fight that, lots of the privileges I have stem from exactly those past oppressions, can't change that) but its still an argumentum ad hominem, and therefore not really contributing to the matter at hand

Nuclear is bad for humanity, even if I live in Europe.

I'll try to find some more sources later, for now I only have appeal to authority, sorry. I took a lecture on modern grid design for renewables and had a lot of coverage specifically on the state of renewable production, storage, and the pricing.

At a cursory look the numbers online are hard to parse because articles usually are not clear on the specifics they base their costs on, like what sort of stability the renewables can achieve at a stated cost. From what I have seen a lot of numbers do have to be about still varying supply over the day and accross seasons.

There is another argument (that used to be used before this recent price crossover), which maybe makes it easier to accept without up to date numbers: Because of the long build-time, you can buy the batteries 10 years from now, comparing to a nuclear plant that starts construction today. Surely you can see that the battery improvements over the next decades, specifically for grid batteries, will be huge. Currently batteries are still often very similar to car batteries, there are entirely new chemistries that will be in production 10 years down the line.

It's not like I am saying we should scrap ongoing constructions.

Edit:
Low tier source, probably ai generated, no citations, site is funded by the solar industry. This thing claims 100usd/MWh for "sunny" cities.

I also remembered I should mention my point of comparison is anchored in mainland europe, as that is what my lecture and my own focus is centered on. Mainly this means nuclear is more expensive than if you were willing to become dependent on russia for fuel and maintenance, or even make military concessions (like say turkey is). I think a fair optimistic number for nuclear here is 100€/MWh i.e. 10¢/kWh, assuming the country is already familiar in constructing nuclear plants in the not too distant past.

Hahaha nuclear has basically no co2 output so its not bad for the climate
Dont even need to read further.

Lead is also not bad for your health, because it doesn't contain cyanide - same level of arguing

Things that produce co2 in large amounts are bad for the environment and need to be abandoned, no question, but that doesn't mean everything which doesn't produce co2 is good for the environment lol

In the 1990s, the NRC had to “take repeated actions to address defective welds on dry casks that led to cracks and quality assurance problems; helium had leaked into some casks, increasing temperatures and causing accelerated fuel corrosion”.[11]

With the zeroing of the federal budget for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada in 2011, more nuclear waste began being stored in dry casks. Many of these casks are stored in coastal or lakeside regions where a salt air environment exists, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology posited that corrosion in these environments could occur in 30 years or less, while the NRC was studying whether the casks could be used for 100 years as some hoped.[12]

Impervious to absolutely anything, except a little helium, or slightly salty air.

Because of the long build-time, you can buy the batteries 10 years from now, comparing to a nuclear plant that starts construction today.

Sure, but that's a shitty comparison, because I can also build 20 nuclear powerplants, and bring costs WAY down. And that's the thing. These comparisons are always "If we keep boosting X, and supressing Y, then X will perform better!". Yes. Duh.

Look at what China is doing. They've built dozens of plants in the past years, and have >30 under construction right now, with ~150 planned. They're building them for a fraction of the cost, because they're not completely reinventing them every single time.

It’s not like I am saying we should scrap ongoing constructions.

Fair, we shouldn't. But my worry is that even in 10 years, we're still going to be using lots of fossil fuels, and that will always be lower if we ALSO build nuclear. Or at the very least stop heavily opposing it.

Solar is cheaper, even at high latitudes like in northern europe, even for baseload application with big battery buffers right next to the solar farm.

Honestly, that sounds extremely unlikely. I don't live that far north in europe, and while I manage about 0kWh on my residental panels on a yearly basis. Thanks to seasonal changes, I would either need 4 more rooftops to keep the power on during january, or I would need to bank something like 700kWh to make it through 3 winter months. That's not counting the electric car, or heating. Heating would roughly quadruple the numbers (being almost entirely clustered when solar isn't producing), and the car would add roughly another house on top (assuming 50% is charged away from home).

Quick maths that I did because I wanted to try going off-grid: I would need ~100m2 of solar panels, and 2500kWh of battery storage. Or on a national level, 63 TWh of storage as well as just under a 1000km2 of solar panels if everyone lived as low-footprint as we do. And that's just housing, it doesn't include commercial buildings or industry.

The big buffers next to the solar farm are actually quite tiny. The largest under-construction battery park in the netherlands banks about 1200 MWh. With an average househould consumption, that's just about enough to carry some ~4000 2-person households through the 3 winter months, assuming you put down enough solar to meet your yearly energy household energy demands (which we don't have). They're obviously not meant for long-term storage, but long-term storage is exactly what you need to make solar work.

And nuclear doesn't have any of these issues. The only issue is that it's expensive, because we stopped building them.

Or budget cuts, corrupt management, lazy employees, bad training etc...

Its not matter that people die, because they do and will from anything, it is how many

And the “seismically inactive geology” that somehow always funnels into a local aquifer.

Im not a nuclear bro, but a vast majority of the planet's Uranium is mined in Australia and Canada and both countries have pretty massive reserves. They have strict regulations and safety surrounding uranium operations. Naturally occurring uranium doesnt even pose much safety risk on its own, its the Radon that is generated by decay that causes problems for humans. Im not too familiar with how uranium mining is done but I imagine Radon risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with ventilation.

my country extracts copper nor uranium, I just used it as an example.

but the story is the same, the thing people in third world country needs the least is for countries to stop buying their exports, and also that mining can be done way more modernly.