Namely, do you think it has a future in the wave of next gen clean energy sources? If you support it, do you think it will always be viable or that it should only be a temporary measure to get us off fossil fuels while our renewable infrastructure grows?
I’ve mostly come around to it as: 1.) Stewart Brand did, 2.) it’s hard to meet all our energy needs with just renewables, and 3.) France seems to have done a good job of nuclear for several decades now.
I am all for it! Honestly don’t think solar/wind is feasible for whole countries without relying on coal in some part, and solar/wind still need to develop nuclear tech is already here. Solar/Wind also produce waste, plus the battery waste, nuclear has the waste of size football field, Finland is also doing work on that.
My biggest concern about nuclear is that politicans don’t use it to make bombs and nuclear waste.
In general I think nuclear is much better option than renewables on large scale, solar is ok for personal use.
It’s the waste for me. If we had a way to decontaminate and clean up the wasted nuclear material, then I’d be more okay with nuclear. I think if we are going to use it, it has to be for a significant time just because of how LONG it takes to set up and take down. I’ll always hesitate with the risk factor, so I’d probably never advocate for it in cities or by them, but then rural populations shouldn’t suffer from it just because there are less of them, and the fact that our food grows in areas better suited for isolation for nuclear. I think at this point it’s be better to work on renewables full steam and trying to use older energy sources more efficiently (like a central fire to heat homes/cook food/provide light/etc. )
What’s your opinion on Finland’s long-term nuclear waste storage project? In theory, once the one of the waste chambers is sealed, nothing should be able to get to it again, barring someone deliberately digging a long way into the ground at that location.
It’s a little better, but the waste is still sitting and taking up space. I guess waiting until it’s half-life is an option, but I’d need to see more in terms of how much needs to be used to provide enough energy and the plan for when a natural disaster hits, like earthquake, sinkhole, or something along those lines of shifting and potentially breaking the buried material. Which, I’m sure it is possible just like we are still digging up ancient ruins accidentaly but I’d like to see some science applied to it.
I spent a lot of time discussing with French people in YouTube comments. And I need to say that a lot of beliefs of nuclear energy are wrong.
- France got a very good re-processing of nuclear wastes
- Nuclear energy is the energy with the smallest mortality rate compared to any other energy. The worst being coal with 2 deaths per removedt
- Nuclear energy is still pretty clean on a pollution side.
I don’t like this energy but trying to throw it away, without reducing the demand, sounds impossible to me.
Something I really regret about nuclear energy though is the fact that you are completely dependent on other countries and industries.
So another belief (on the side of pro-nuclear this time) is the fact that it makes you independent of your own electricity. Except that all your uranium is coming from another countries, this is not what I call “independent”.
TL;DR: I don’t like centralization of the electricity production. But with the current demand, it’s the only viable choice.
Something I really regret about nuclear energy though is the fact that you are completely dependent on other countries and industries.
Yeah I agree with that, that should be solved somehow.
