So basically you’re so caught up in this infighting between two carbon neutral energies that you’d rather spread disinformation about climate change and the negative effects of coal…
I have spread no disinformation. Seems to me you fail to come up with arguments against what I actually said so instead you create a strawman.
Nuclear costs are way higher than anyone has ever accounted for and they are kicked to future generations. This is a fact and we can do better.
The right thing to do is surely to spend now on tech that continues to pay dividends in the future. Maybe we ourselves won't see the benefits directly in our wallets but the future will.
You misunderstood the point: yes, burning coal is bad. The argument is that once you stop doing that, it’s over. I don’t think that’s completely true - the impact of mining and ash won’t instantly disappear - but if the question is whether we should switch from one thing which has significant environmental hazards to another which poses significant risks or alternatives which do not, that past example suggests that we should be having that conversation about how realistic it is to assume that a multi-century mitigation effort will be effective. Coal is especially interesting as an example because we’ve seen how the mining side of it became a powerful political force where even people whose families were negatively impacted by the pollution still lobbied for its preservation. Nuclear would be smaller but still likely to have that factor to account for as we’ve seen with “temporary” storage becoming de facto permanent.
> The argument is that once you stop doing that, it’s over.
My issue is that this statement is wrong, though. All the greenhouse gas from coal that was burned in the past, and all the coal we're still burning, will still be around and is still going to slowly bake the planet we live on for the next millenia [1].
Effectively, coal emissions are only considered this way because, after we stop producing, we stop seeing the smokestacks and we forget that the byproducts are still there. This is also true for most other pollution sources: industrial sites with heavy metal pollution don't magically clean themselves when the factory closes. WW1 battle areas are still deeply polluted and some are still unfit for agriculture. "Eternal" chemicals are never going back to the oil well. And, for us technologists, ewaste does not magically disappear [2].
It's really maddening that some people develop an acute perception that radioactive waste is "forever", but somehow fail to understand that the same is true for a very large part of the waste we create now, for which nature hasn't (over millions of years) evolved organisms able to eat them.
This also unfortunately makes a case against nuclear. For instance the worst coal burning country in Europe is Poland, which 5 years ago decided to build nuclear plants. They are set to break ground in a couple years and the first plant will be finished 2033 or so. The last ones 2040. And this all if it goes according to plan, which it won't. And even then they will be left with a significant amount of coal burning plants in the system.
So at least 15 years of effort to get one plant online during which time the country will continue to pump CO2 to the tune of 70% coal in their electricity mix. CO2 that will, as you say, continue to bake the earth. Nuclear is a terrible choice for decarbonization.
