This is the first time I have read your work. Your piece was recommended by someone I follow on Twitter. I don’t consider myself an environmentalist by today’s standard as I don’t think our current use of fossil fuels represents an existential threat to mankind. At the same time, I passionately believe we should find alternative energy sources and get away from our over use of disposable plastics because our continued reliance on these things does harm our environment. Reading your article answered several questions I had regarding nuclear energy and also confirmed concerns I have about our seemingly blind pursuit of wind energy and battery usage without understanding their substantial environmental and other costs. You did a great job with your investigation into nuclear energy and I appreciate what you have taught me. Kudos.
Yes, I agree and am always impressed with anyone like Zion who is intellectually honest enough to change their views when confronted with more accurate information.
Hi Zion: Very useful to have such a thorough review of the nuclear waste issue. I’d say from my friends and relatives, most of whom are anti nuclear, that “what do you do with the waste?” is their biggest question. Problem is of course, that I can give them this article and I’m not sure they will even read it, or if read it, believe it. It’s a real issue. Still, I’ll keep trying to change views one person at a time.
I’ve written a piece directed at anti Nuke folks who have said they are open to reading and being persuaded. So far they haven’t responded! Sigh. （I cover three areas: Waste, Safety, Costs).
I have to keep reminding myself that I too could suffer from similar cognitive dissonance, as rhe anti nuke brigade — Not even realise I’m in a bubble! That said, I *did* change my mind, as did Zion, from anti to very pro nuclear.
Let’s go, New Clear!
And thanks again to Zion Lights for great work. You are doing good for the world!
Thank you. People don't change their minds unless they are presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence,m and then are honest enough to accept it, as you and Zion have done.
I worked for 5 years in a theoretical chemistry/physics group associated with the Hanford waste site in central Washington state. Great article! I could not agree more, both with regard to nuclear energy and to fossil fuels.
Excellent piece. I salute you for your bravery in continuing your advocacy of nuclear powered electricity production, considering you turned you back on people, with whom you were in locked step, who's continued outlook on nuclear, is now at complete odds with your knowledge and understanding. To nail ones 'colours to the mast' but then be able to take them down, shows extreme fortitude. Thank you.
I just read your article on the Free Press on your coming out of the cult of climate activism.
That was the very first insiders expose I have read anywhere on the net in the 3 years of intense research on everything relating to all the current crises from A to Z, which was kickstarted by being a non-essential business owner in a world gone mad with Covid-19 fascism, which is being funded and driven forward by same international cartel that is behind the climate change activism and groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop oil.
Anyway I will not wax on about that because I turned up here after subscribing to your page in order to say thank you for your courage and integrity in rejecting that which you spent so much of your time, energy and life involved in - that was I have no doubt a very difficult and painful process, and being attacked for it once you had withdrawn must have hurt as well.
This is a global disinformation war against humanity and in removing yourself and speaking up you have chosen the right side - to fight for humanity and not against our best interests.
I cannot thank you enough for this article. Even though I am against doing away with oil and gas like many in positions of power today, I have always been deathly afraid of nuclear power for the very reason of waste. Even though I’ve searched for information on this topic many times, solely due to the favorable arguments made by proponents of nuclear power, I’ve never been able to find anything that explains this in layman’s terms. I had heard recently on a podcast, and I don’t recall who it was, stating that the best way, the most cost efficient way, to build nuclear power plants on scale is to develop and offer some basic models from which a country or state can choose. These could be mass produced and shipped and assembled more efficiently. Different variations would allow for the geographical variations, and various power needs of any particular region. There should even be “mini” plants that would serve smaller locations. Thank you so much for your article!
I learned many things that I was previously misinformed about. The one thing I would add is that while yes, the batteries are not recyclable, there are startups that are removing the rare earth minerals from the batteries (i.e. lithium, nickel etc....) seeing that the costs to mine - environmental, financial and social - are enormous. These minerals are treated somehow (I don’t remember the details sorry) and reused. I’m optimistic more companies will join this rush to recycle. Also, I believe there is attention being paid to the massive amount of solar panels that are beginning to be decommissioned. Once again, I forget where I read about this, but it makes sense. I have 13kw of solar on my roof and will take the panels when they are finished and use them to make a cover for my back porch or somewhere on my property (shh, my wife doesn’t know this yet!). They are very durable and look really neat when used for this purpose. And I’m guessing with the cost of lumber etc... it will be less expensive. THAT will be my selling point to my wife.
Anyway, thanks again for this great article. I’m looking forward to taking this information and other sources about nuclear and getting into good discussions with my green friends!
Also, looking forward to learning more from you, my friends, and the well-thought-out comments right here!
There's a fundamental safety issue with Lithium-ion batteries. Once they catch on fire, it cannot be extinguished. This is because both the fuel and the oxidant are mixed together in the same compound. So the only thing that can be done is to isolate the battery and let it burn to the ground.
If you can isolate it. A number of recent ship fires including the complete loss of the ship doing the car transport shows that this involves very large resulting fire losses. In the case of shipping automobiles, once they catch on fire, the only thing you can theoretically do is push them overboard into the ocean, where they will continue to burn on the way to the ocean floor.
Battery safety issues delayed the completion of the testing and safety work of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner by several years in the last decade. Batteries catching fire on board aircraft in flight is not an easy problem to solve.
And no there are no alternatives to using lithium batteries that have similar low weight and storage performance and never will be. All of the electromotive combinations possible were identified 50 years ago, and there are no new elements remaining to be discovered in the periodic table.
Aluminum Air batteries are very energy dense. I am not actually advocating for scaling up Aluminum Batteries but there are alternate chemistries that may work. They will begin proving themselves out in the marketplace or not over the next ten years.
When I think of EV batteries, I often think the perfect is the enemy of the good. Perhaps a pure EV is not the best option. Sodium Ion batteries may be good option for light duty vehicles. Rather than an EV with 270 mile/434 km, a Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) with a Range Extender may be a good option. Let's say the EV gets 100 miles/161 km electric range only and a rotary engine as a range extender. Mazda MX 30 PHEV with a Rotary Wankel Engine would be an example. Though, you would need to improve range, motor as well as battery configuration. The Wankel engine can run on hydrogen, methanol, ethanol, dimethyl ether (DME), ammonia (e.g., farm use) diesel as well as gasoline. 80% of Americans drive less than 50 miles/80.5 km per day. Sodium Ion batteries would address many of the negatives of Lithium Ion batteries even though they are not as energy dense (reference https://www.hinabattery.com/en/index.php?catid=12 ). Lastly, the Methanol (reference - Carbon Recycling International: CRI) and DME could eventually manufactured using process heat from nuclear energy, hydrogen from HTSE as well as CO2 from sea water (https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/mit-team-explores-removing-co2-from-ocean/).
I agree. Let the customers and the market decide, not government fiat. From what we can see right now, customers have decided that PHEVs are a better solution than pure EVs. Pure EVs seem to have a very high rate of customer dissatistaction and dealership returns.
In my household, I have two EVs and one ICE vehicle. I really like my EVs. However, you lose a lot of range in the winter. I assume that you live in Canada. What happens when you get outside of the cities in Canada or upstate New York? PHEV with Sodium Ion batteries would be ideal. It works down to 40 degrees C/F. In hot weather, it works to 76 degrees C/~170 degrees F. Also, I do not have to prohibit anyone driving a pickup or SUV. Your Canadian company Magna already has really good tech in queue to be deployed circa 2025. Again, I think the first 100 miles/160 km could be EV only. Most would rarely use the fuel. Lastly, a Magna tech deployment would allow a F250 to go 0-60 mi/0-96 km in under 5 seconds. Magna's EtelligentForce Heavy Duty EV Powertrain - https://youtu.be/GBWm_LZ0GYs
As a retired nuclear energy licensed operator, nuclear plant worker, nuclear instructor trainer retired, I welcome u to a brave new world. Thank u for seeing the truth and expressing it so well.
Best regards,
Curtis Suit
Oconee Nuclear Station,
Salem Nuclear Station,
Hope Creek Nuclear Station,
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) certified instructor,
Masters in Industrial Training, Clemson University.
Excellent analysis and entirely correct. I would only add two, perhaps not so small, points.
1. The existing storage systems of used nuclear fuel have a perfect safety record. There have been zero fatalities or injuries to members of the public because of the proper storage of used nuclear fuel.
2. All used nuclear fuel can be turned into new fuel and used again. The world's existing inventory of used fuel can produce about 15,000 times as much energy as was produced the first time it was used. This technology was developed and demonstrated decades ago, and is in use in France and Belgium.
Very good piece. Very informative. The problem with nuclear power as opposed to other form of renewable energy sources is that it's very expensive for a country to set up. Otherwise it would be an excellent source of clean energy
The reason that it is so expensive is now well understood, and it relates to the excessive caution with which we treated radioactivity. In a nutshell, construction regulations treat a life lost to radioactivity from a nuclear plant as being at worth at least 100 times more than a life lost to pollution from other energy sources.
That is why it is cheaper to build coal-fired power plants even though they are at least 100 times more dangerous. They even emit more radioactivity. Nuclear energy would be cheaper than other energy sources if they were regulated in the same way.
Also, the costs of renewable energy are underestimated. While it may be cheap to install solar and wind sources, it is very expensive (1) dealing with their intermittancy and (2) expanding the electrical grid to connect these more distributed sources.
Nuclear energy does not have these additional costs. They can be built on the same sites as fossil fuels power stations.
They taught these facts about Uranium & nuclear energy in physics and chemistry at University back in the 1970 & 80s but the young & dumb anti - nuclear energy activists & journalists refused to either listen or believe.
At this point, I would not say that waste is the main issue. There are security and safety problems that have to be dealt with in order to operate a nuclear plant.
Security and Safety in the nuclear power industry both have extremely high standards. There aren’t Security & Safety “problems”. The problem is the high cost of sustaining these extremely high standards. They’re by far more safe and secure than any other heavy industry, including aerospace. The two are close in the security realm but nuclear has much higher safety standards (yes, I’ve worked in both). One of the obstacles for nuclear is difficulty attracting & maintaining employees due to the high standards of safety & security. Workers ask themselves why put up with the headache when they can work in a different industry without the hassle. In fact, Nuclear facilities are shutting down at a record pace, not because of waste or environmental concerns, they’re shutting down due the high cost of enforcing their own self regulated high standards. They’ve policed themselves to death from a financial standpoint.
Great article. I worked on high level waste storage at Yucca Mountain many years ago. It was and is the perfect place to store the high level waste until we in the US are smart enough to process it into fresh reactor fuel.
Nuclear waistes have a very little impact in the environement, if and only if it is not leaked to the environement ^^'. I think the problem is not nuclear power plants, but nuclear bombs that will spread all radioactive materiel in tha atmosphere water and land, this is the big and the biggest probleme that humanity will deal with, sooner or later.
This is the first time I have read your work. Your piece was recommended by someone I follow on Twitter. I don’t consider myself an environmentalist by today’s standard as I don’t think our current use of fossil fuels represents an existential threat to mankind. At the same time, I passionately believe we should find alternative energy sources and get away from our over use of disposable plastics because our continued reliance on these things does harm our environment. Reading your article answered several questions I had regarding nuclear energy and also confirmed concerns I have about our seemingly blind pursuit of wind energy and battery usage without understanding their substantial environmental and other costs. You did a great job with your investigation into nuclear energy and I appreciate what you have taught me. Kudos.
Yes, I agree and am always impressed with anyone like Zion who is intellectually honest enough to change their views when confronted with more accurate information.
Hi Zion: Very useful to have such a thorough review of the nuclear waste issue. I’d say from my friends and relatives, most of whom are anti nuclear, that “what do you do with the waste?” is their biggest question. Problem is of course, that I can give them this article and I’m not sure they will even read it, or if read it, believe it. It’s a real issue. Still, I’ll keep trying to change views one person at a time.
I’ve written a piece directed at anti Nuke folks who have said they are open to reading and being persuaded. So far they haven’t responded! Sigh. （I cover three areas: Waste, Safety, Costs).
I have to keep reminding myself that I too could suffer from similar cognitive dissonance, as rhe anti nuke brigade — Not even realise I’m in a bubble! That said, I *did* change my mind, as did Zion, from anti to very pro nuclear.
Let’s go, New Clear!
And thanks again to Zion Lights for great work. You are doing good for the world!
Peter Forsythe
Hong Kong
Thank you. People don't change their minds unless they are presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence,m and then are honest enough to accept it, as you and Zion have done.
I worked for 5 years in a theoretical chemistry/physics group associated with the Hanford waste site in central Washington state. Great article! I could not agree more, both with regard to nuclear energy and to fossil fuels.
Excellent piece. I salute you for your bravery in continuing your advocacy of nuclear powered electricity production, considering you turned you back on people, with whom you were in locked step, who's continued outlook on nuclear, is now at complete odds with your knowledge and understanding. To nail ones 'colours to the mast' but then be able to take them down, shows extreme fortitude. Thank you.
Hi Zion Lights,
I just read your article on the Free Press on your coming out of the cult of climate activism.
That was the very first insiders expose I have read anywhere on the net in the 3 years of intense research on everything relating to all the current crises from A to Z, which was kickstarted by being a non-essential business owner in a world gone mad with Covid-19 fascism, which is being funded and driven forward by same international cartel that is behind the climate change activism and groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop oil.
Anyway I will not wax on about that because I turned up here after subscribing to your page in order to say thank you for your courage and integrity in rejecting that which you spent so much of your time, energy and life involved in - that was I have no doubt a very difficult and painful process, and being attacked for it once you had withdrawn must have hurt as well.
This is a global disinformation war against humanity and in removing yourself and speaking up you have chosen the right side - to fight for humanity and not against our best interests.
Welcome to Substack.
Ivan M. Paton
I cannot thank you enough for this article. Even though I am against doing away with oil and gas like many in positions of power today, I have always been deathly afraid of nuclear power for the very reason of waste. Even though I’ve searched for information on this topic many times, solely due to the favorable arguments made by proponents of nuclear power, I’ve never been able to find anything that explains this in layman’s terms. I had heard recently on a podcast, and I don’t recall who it was, stating that the best way, the most cost efficient way, to build nuclear power plants on scale is to develop and offer some basic models from which a country or state can choose. These could be mass produced and shipped and assembled more efficiently. Different variations would allow for the geographical variations, and various power needs of any particular region. There should even be “mini” plants that would serve smaller locations. Thank you so much for your article!
This is an excellent article. Accurate, balanced and fair. I am sharing it widely.
I've protested it.
But now there is the Dual Fluid Reactor to burn it !
Great article, thank you!
I learned many things that I was previously misinformed about. The one thing I would add is that while yes, the batteries are not recyclable, there are startups that are removing the rare earth minerals from the batteries (i.e. lithium, nickel etc....) seeing that the costs to mine - environmental, financial and social - are enormous. These minerals are treated somehow (I don’t remember the details sorry) and reused. I’m optimistic more companies will join this rush to recycle. Also, I believe there is attention being paid to the massive amount of solar panels that are beginning to be decommissioned. Once again, I forget where I read about this, but it makes sense. I have 13kw of solar on my roof and will take the panels when they are finished and use them to make a cover for my back porch or somewhere on my property (shh, my wife doesn’t know this yet!). They are very durable and look really neat when used for this purpose. And I’m guessing with the cost of lumber etc... it will be less expensive. THAT will be my selling point to my wife.
Anyway, thanks again for this great article. I’m looking forward to taking this information and other sources about nuclear and getting into good discussions with my green friends!
Also, looking forward to learning more from you, my friends, and the well-thought-out comments right here!
Have a great day everyone!
John
There's a fundamental safety issue with Lithium-ion batteries. Once they catch on fire, it cannot be extinguished. This is because both the fuel and the oxidant are mixed together in the same compound. So the only thing that can be done is to isolate the battery and let it burn to the ground.
If you can isolate it. A number of recent ship fires including the complete loss of the ship doing the car transport shows that this involves very large resulting fire losses. In the case of shipping automobiles, once they catch on fire, the only thing you can theoretically do is push them overboard into the ocean, where they will continue to burn on the way to the ocean floor.
Battery safety issues delayed the completion of the testing and safety work of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner by several years in the last decade. Batteries catching fire on board aircraft in flight is not an easy problem to solve.
And no there are no alternatives to using lithium batteries that have similar low weight and storage performance and never will be. All of the electromotive combinations possible were identified 50 years ago, and there are no new elements remaining to be discovered in the periodic table.
Aluminum Air batteries are very energy dense. I am not actually advocating for scaling up Aluminum Batteries but there are alternate chemistries that may work. They will begin proving themselves out in the marketplace or not over the next ten years.
Perhaps. But their usefulness is highly limited by their non-rechargeable nature.
When I think of EV batteries, I often think the perfect is the enemy of the good. Perhaps a pure EV is not the best option. Sodium Ion batteries may be good option for light duty vehicles. Rather than an EV with 270 mile/434 km, a Plug In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) with a Range Extender may be a good option. Let's say the EV gets 100 miles/161 km electric range only and a rotary engine as a range extender. Mazda MX 30 PHEV with a Rotary Wankel Engine would be an example. Though, you would need to improve range, motor as well as battery configuration. The Wankel engine can run on hydrogen, methanol, ethanol, dimethyl ether (DME), ammonia (e.g., farm use) diesel as well as gasoline. 80% of Americans drive less than 50 miles/80.5 km per day. Sodium Ion batteries would address many of the negatives of Lithium Ion batteries even though they are not as energy dense (reference https://www.hinabattery.com/en/index.php?catid=12 ). Lastly, the Methanol (reference - Carbon Recycling International: CRI) and DME could eventually manufactured using process heat from nuclear energy, hydrogen from HTSE as well as CO2 from sea water (https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/mit-team-explores-removing-co2-from-ocean/).
I agree. Let the customers and the market decide, not government fiat. From what we can see right now, customers have decided that PHEVs are a better solution than pure EVs. Pure EVs seem to have a very high rate of customer dissatistaction and dealership returns.
In my household, I have two EVs and one ICE vehicle. I really like my EVs. However, you lose a lot of range in the winter. I assume that you live in Canada. What happens when you get outside of the cities in Canada or upstate New York? PHEV with Sodium Ion batteries would be ideal. It works down to 40 degrees C/F. In hot weather, it works to 76 degrees C/~170 degrees F. Also, I do not have to prohibit anyone driving a pickup or SUV. Your Canadian company Magna already has really good tech in queue to be deployed circa 2025. Again, I think the first 100 miles/160 km could be EV only. Most would rarely use the fuel. Lastly, a Magna tech deployment would allow a F250 to go 0-60 mi/0-96 km in under 5 seconds. Magna's EtelligentForce Heavy Duty EV Powertrain - https://youtu.be/GBWm_LZ0GYs
Dear Zion Lights;
As a retired nuclear energy licensed operator, nuclear plant worker, nuclear instructor trainer retired, I welcome u to a brave new world. Thank u for seeing the truth and expressing it so well.
Best regards,
Curtis Suit
Oconee Nuclear Station,
Salem Nuclear Station,
Hope Creek Nuclear Station,
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) certified instructor,
Masters in Industrial Training, Clemson University.
Excellent analysis and entirely correct. I would only add two, perhaps not so small, points.
1. The existing storage systems of used nuclear fuel have a perfect safety record. There have been zero fatalities or injuries to members of the public because of the proper storage of used nuclear fuel.
2. All used nuclear fuel can be turned into new fuel and used again. The world's existing inventory of used fuel can produce about 15,000 times as much energy as was produced the first time it was used. This technology was developed and demonstrated decades ago, and is in use in France and Belgium.
Thank you - good points.
Very good piece. Very informative. The problem with nuclear power as opposed to other form of renewable energy sources is that it's very expensive for a country to set up. Otherwise it would be an excellent source of clean energy
The reason that it is so expensive is now well understood, and it relates to the excessive caution with which we treated radioactivity. In a nutshell, construction regulations treat a life lost to radioactivity from a nuclear plant as being at worth at least 100 times more than a life lost to pollution from other energy sources.
That is why it is cheaper to build coal-fired power plants even though they are at least 100 times more dangerous. They even emit more radioactivity. Nuclear energy would be cheaper than other energy sources if they were regulated in the same way.
Also, the costs of renewable energy are underestimated. While it may be cheap to install solar and wind sources, it is very expensive (1) dealing with their intermittancy and (2) expanding the electrical grid to connect these more distributed sources.
Nuclear energy does not have these additional costs. They can be built on the same sites as fossil fuels power stations.
They taught these facts about Uranium & nuclear energy in physics and chemistry at University back in the 1970 & 80s but the young & dumb anti - nuclear energy activists & journalists refused to either listen or believe.
At this point, I would not say that waste is the main issue. There are security and safety problems that have to be dealt with in order to operate a nuclear plant.
Security and Safety in the nuclear power industry both have extremely high standards. There aren’t Security & Safety “problems”. The problem is the high cost of sustaining these extremely high standards. They’re by far more safe and secure than any other heavy industry, including aerospace. The two are close in the security realm but nuclear has much higher safety standards (yes, I’ve worked in both). One of the obstacles for nuclear is difficulty attracting & maintaining employees due to the high standards of safety & security. Workers ask themselves why put up with the headache when they can work in a different industry without the hassle. In fact, Nuclear facilities are shutting down at a record pace, not because of waste or environmental concerns, they’re shutting down due the high cost of enforcing their own self regulated high standards. They’ve policed themselves to death from a financial standpoint.
Excellent main article!
I have not heard this. Why are the standards expensive?
Great article. I worked on high level waste storage at Yucca Mountain many years ago. It was and is the perfect place to store the high level waste until we in the US are smart enough to process it into fresh reactor fuel.
Nuclear waistes have a very little impact in the environement, if and only if it is not leaked to the environement ^^'. I think the problem is not nuclear power plants, but nuclear bombs that will spread all radioactive materiel in tha atmosphere water and land, this is the big and the biggest probleme that humanity will deal with, sooner or later.