Set aside the cleanup for a second: for pure power generation, nuclear is the ultimate clean energy source. Massive amounts of power, extremely cheap when amortized, liked by all political factions (except old-school '70s-era environmentalist liberals), a great source of jobs from blue to white collar, and no pollution or greenhouse gas emissions.
Turning back to nuclear waste: it's a solved problem. At least, very good solutions already exist. For example, see WIPP in New Mexico [0].
As with all energy sources, there is no perfect, one-size-fits-all solution: use a diverse set of energy sources based on what makes sense for the specific locale you're targeting. Nuclear will make sense for some areas (perhaps dense metros), while solar would make sense in others. Geothermal and natural gas as well.
Doesn't seem like that in practice. Nuclear's generally one of the most expensive per-kwh sources of energy on the grid. And nuclear-renewable diversity doesn't favor nuclear either: renewables absolutely destroy any margins nuclear might have, and both want to share the grid with storage or dispatchable fossil fuel generation like gas turbines.
Interesting, looks like I was out of date on that. Wikipedia shows the LCOE of different energy sources [0] and, while nuclear was at parity with natural gas & wind as the cheapest energy circa 2011, it has since become one of the most expensive (~2.5x solar).
Why did this happen? Why has the cost of nuclear doubled in the past decade?
I generate most of the power my house needs right ON my house. I’m perfectly happy sleeping , eating and living there. The rain that runs off the generators waters my vegetable garden.
Yeah if you're into that it's pretty cool, I am too. I don't think nor trust the average joe with maintaining XX kW of batteries next door.
> Do you want to live a few meters from a nuke?
You probably don't know what a nuke is. Anyways, the worst nuclear reactor catastrophe killed ~30 people directly and ~5000 indirectly. Pollution kills ~250k people par year in Europe alone (coal related pollution is ~30k), cars kill about ~4k people in France, per year.
Why do we accept car deaths as an acceptable cost of transportation but not (the extremely few) nuclear related deaths as an acceptable cost of energy production ? Why do we accept 30k deaths per year due to coal pollution but not 5k death, once, because of nuclear ?
It sounds a lot like "dumb apes scared big boom" more than rational reasoning. That or the proverbial boiled frog
Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it, while those who refuse to be exposed to nuclear's induced risks (for them and their children, and their children, and their children... thanks to nuclear waste) are out of practical and realistic options.
Even at 10x you're still a far cry from fossils related deaths, every single year
> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it
??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians, not even talking about air pollution due to exhaust fumes being produces en masse right in front of people's flats. 1/5 of road deaths in EU are pedestrians
The entire french nuclear waste, since the 70s, would fit in a cube with a side length of 15m... The one that matter: <3% of the total waste, the rest is low radioactivity/short half life waste
The question is not "which amount of fossil fuel, which amount of nuclear?" but about renewables and nuclear.
>> Because those who refuse to be exposed to induced risks can prevent most of it
> ??? In cities the bulk of deaths are cyclists/pedestrians
Being ultra-alert, or avoiding crossing any street or even avoiding any area where motorized vehicles zoom around is possible. Avoiding most of the effects of a major nuclear accident or of some wandering "hot" nuclear waste (during the upcoming 100000 years or so...) is way, way more difficult.
> Coal power plants are literally generating more radioactive ematerial
This is not about preferring coal to nuclear but about preferring renewables to nuclear.
Turning back to nuclear waste: it's a solved problem. At least, very good solutions already exist. For example, see WIPP in New Mexico [0].
As with all energy sources, there is no perfect, one-size-fits-all solution: use a diverse set of energy sources based on what makes sense for the specific locale you're targeting. Nuclear will make sense for some areas (perhaps dense metros), while solar would make sense in others. Geothermal and natural gas as well.
We live in the future. Act like it!
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant