Really enjoyed this, it's great to see the reality put so plainly. Credible scientists have even argued our revised Chornobyl figures are overestimates.
I think it's courageous to be open about the risk of future accidents, especially knowing how anti-nuclear activists will warp the truth. In the spirit of candour perhaps we could state the risk numerically: e.g. 1 serious accident per X hundred years, with the loss of (<1) lives and displacement of 0 people. And use better terminology... "Nuclear meltdown" evokes ridiculous allusions to atomic weapons and the fictional China syndrome. Perhaps 'Reactor Fuel Melt' would be better, followed by an assessment of containment.
Thank you for another outstanding article on nuclear energy. I’m so glad you highlighted the negative health consequences of fossil fuels. Not enough people understand this.
enjoyed reading, just to add a note, however, well, what is the reason for re-think if instead could think properly in the first place and not regretting afterwards, the reason might be very powerful politics behind which has the authority to decide even if the thinking is correct but not have authority to make final decisions. Research centers not only think good but must have authority to make the final decisions. If the decisions comes from results of knowledge that is good but if it comes from decisions made from other powers like politics then there is room for regret.
nicely framed. In general I think your views are very well supported, but you're a little too dismissive about Chernobyl. While the Chernobyl disaster should never have happened, and it seems unlikely that anything quite like it would happen again, the accident spread a lot of radioisotopes across a large population. It's perhaps impossible to accurately measure long-term impacts on health from these low (but far above background) exposures, but there surely are some, and they could be substantial. Much less than death and injury from coal and oil, but not zero.
This is really thorough and clear eyed. Something I looked up on the topic is the cost. Meltdowns are pretty expensive, equaling a risk of roughly $500 million per GW. However that assumes that Fukushima is just as likely today. Most or all reactors worldwide are now prepared for a 10,000 year tsunami
An interesting counterpoint to that is considering the uncounted future value of nuclear energy. It does sound like wind/solar and storage will have a higher than understood price at high penetrations due to transmission and backup costs. So 40 years into the future when a nuclear plant has paid off its initial costs it may then continue running at quite a bit less than renewable costs at that time. If nuclear runs at $30/MWh and the alternative system at $80/MWh then 1 GW of nuclear would be worth $10 billion at the time of extension if it runs for another 35 years
Really enjoyed this, it's great to see the reality put so plainly. Credible scientists have even argued our revised Chornobyl figures are overestimates.
I think it's courageous to be open about the risk of future accidents, especially knowing how anti-nuclear activists will warp the truth. In the spirit of candour perhaps we could state the risk numerically: e.g. 1 serious accident per X hundred years, with the loss of (<1) lives and displacement of 0 people. And use better terminology... "Nuclear meltdown" evokes ridiculous allusions to atomic weapons and the fictional China syndrome. Perhaps 'Reactor Fuel Melt' would be better, followed by an assessment of containment.
Thank you for another outstanding article on nuclear energy. I’m so glad you highlighted the negative health consequences of fossil fuels. Not enough people understand this.
enjoyed reading, just to add a note, however, well, what is the reason for re-think if instead could think properly in the first place and not regretting afterwards, the reason might be very powerful politics behind which has the authority to decide even if the thinking is correct but not have authority to make final decisions. Research centers not only think good but must have authority to make the final decisions. If the decisions comes from results of knowledge that is good but if it comes from decisions made from other powers like politics then there is room for regret.
We should switch from military tecnology for civil purposes to Dual Fluid Reactor: Not only no melt down, but even burning nuclear waste !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_fluid_reactor
or better:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-Fluid-Reaktor
nicely framed. In general I think your views are very well supported, but you're a little too dismissive about Chernobyl. While the Chernobyl disaster should never have happened, and it seems unlikely that anything quite like it would happen again, the accident spread a lot of radioisotopes across a large population. It's perhaps impossible to accurately measure long-term impacts on health from these low (but far above background) exposures, but there surely are some, and they could be substantial. Much less than death and injury from coal and oil, but not zero.
This is really thorough and clear eyed. Something I looked up on the topic is the cost. Meltdowns are pretty expensive, equaling a risk of roughly $500 million per GW. However that assumes that Fukushima is just as likely today. Most or all reactors worldwide are now prepared for a 10,000 year tsunami
An interesting counterpoint to that is considering the uncounted future value of nuclear energy. It does sound like wind/solar and storage will have a higher than understood price at high penetrations due to transmission and backup costs. So 40 years into the future when a nuclear plant has paid off its initial costs it may then continue running at quite a bit less than renewable costs at that time. If nuclear runs at $30/MWh and the alternative system at $80/MWh then 1 GW of nuclear would be worth $10 billion at the time of extension if it runs for another 35 years