Nuclear is the only one that can actually satisfy base load demand, we don't have enough batteries in the world to make up for solar and wind. Nuclear is also the safest.
Another issue is that solar panels only last 5 to 10 years and they will need to be replaced and we do not have the infrastructure required to properly recycle them. There is going to be a large bill to foot when they start dropping like flies, though, to be fair nuclear has a much high upfront cost.
Another issue is that solar panels only last 5 to 10 years
This is completely false. There are solar-panels that are still in operation after 30 years easily.
These figures usually come from commercial operations where it is cheaper to replace them with new ones when they drop some percentage of efficiency. Basically 20 year old panels only have 80% of the original efficiency, so in some places where space is premium the new panels pay for themselves and thus is it economical to replace the old ones after 10 years or so.
So it happened that we discorvered in Africa in 1972 a natural uranium reactor. That is a place where the uranium naturally has a fissile reaction. The reactor was active 2billion years ago.
The place wasn't harmful for human or nature, which means we know that putting nuclear wastes in the ground is safe forever. And thus there is no problem of waste other than properly dealing with it.
The other thing worth noting is that nuclear plants don't have to produce really nasty waste. Most/all existing nuclear power plants are either bomb factories, or derived from bomb factories. They were designed to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. There are FAR better designs available. Unfortunately, the research has been killed off. It will take a long time to rebuild the knowledge base.
On a side note, most coal power stations emit more radioactive material than nuclear power plants are allowed to. It's mixed into most coal reserves.
As for the waste, most "nuclear waste" isn't as bad as it first sounds. It's things like gloves or other rubbish that is slightly radioactive from contamination. The amount of hyper radioactive waste is quite low (and can actually be eaten as fuel by newer designs).
Unfortunately, nuclear has been delayed for too long. We no longer have time to use it as a backbone of combatting climate change. It will take too long to design and build the new plants, let alone get the skill base to do it well and fast.
Spent fuel rod reactors are well into development, and they will be able to use that waste to generate power and leave behind non-radioactive materials.
The confusing bit: solar is (thermo)nuclear - but we with our mirrors and panels are just a side effect of solar energy. A peculiar flavour of biomass created by the reactor, so to say. :P
19 replies
Dam based hydro is way worse for the environment than nuclear. Nuclear is also safer than dam based hydro.
Pretty sure tidal is still safer and more environmentally friendly but you can't really use tidal just anywhere.
Nuclear is the only one that can actually satisfy base load demand, we don't have enough batteries in the world to make up for solar and wind. Nuclear is also the safest.
Another issue is that solar panels only last 5 to 10 years and they will need to be replaced and we do not have the infrastructure required to properly recycle them. There is going to be a large bill to foot when they start dropping like flies, though, to be fair nuclear has a much high upfront cost.
This is completely false. There are solar-panels that are still in operation after 30 years easily.
These figures usually come from commercial operations where it is cheaper to replace them with new ones when they drop some percentage of efficiency. Basically 20 year old panels only have 80% of the original efficiency, so in some places where space is premium the new panels pay for themselves and thus is it economical to replace the old ones after 10 years or so.
We also don't have infrastructure to properly deal with spent fuel rods
Nuclear is safer than solar and wind? That doesn't sound right
With a better worldwide energy grid, I'd like to think geothermal could be a contender too.
It's present but you can't see it because it's underground
Nuclear waste sucks!
BUT: We already have about 60 years worth of it, and we need to find a long term storage solution regardless.
And assuming we would double the amount of nuclear waste, then it would only take one additional half-time to decay.
Go nuclear!
So it happened that we discorvered in Africa in 1972 a natural uranium reactor. That is a place where the uranium naturally has a fissile reaction. The reactor was active 2billion years ago.
The place wasn't harmful for human or nature, which means we know that putting nuclear wastes in the ground is safe forever. And thus there is no problem of waste other than properly dealing with it.
The other thing worth noting is that nuclear plants don't have to produce really nasty waste. Most/all existing nuclear power plants are either bomb factories, or derived from bomb factories. They were designed to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. There are FAR better designs available. Unfortunately, the research has been killed off. It will take a long time to rebuild the knowledge base.
On a side note, most coal power stations emit more radioactive material than nuclear power plants are allowed to. It's mixed into most coal reserves.
As for the waste, most "nuclear waste" isn't as bad as it first sounds. It's things like gloves or other rubbish that is slightly radioactive from contamination. The amount of hyper radioactive waste is quite low (and can actually be eaten as fuel by newer designs).
Unfortunately, nuclear has been delayed for too long. We no longer have time to use it as a backbone of combatting climate change. It will take too long to design and build the new plants, let alone get the skill base to do it well and fast.
Spent fuel rod reactors are well into development, and they will be able to use that waste to generate power and leave behind non-radioactive materials.
Yes that's true but that's also not the point. The point is that we already have a problem and making it twice the size doesn't make it twice as bad
It will take quite a while to double our spent fuel rods, and once we start using them for fuel we can tackle the rods faster than we produce them.
In the meantime underground storage works just fine without harming people or the environment much.
OP what have you done ? You woke them up !
Now all the pro nuclear are going to comment under your post explaining why nuclear is better than hydro.
Also, even though hydroelectricity is amazing I think we already have dams on most of the suitable areas. There is not much room left for expansion.
Replace solar with another nuclear reactor.
Solar is better than Nuclear because it uses fewer UPS.
The confusing bit: solar is (thermo)nuclear - but we with our mirrors and panels are just a side effect of solar energy. A peculiar flavour of biomass created by the reactor, so to say. :P