Why not Fission?

[Dassier]

We've seen a lot of people over the last decades criticizing nuclear fission for the danger that comes with a nuclear reactor. Yet, as the World Nuclear Association remarks in a recent article from febuary this year, i quote

In the chemical industry and oil-gas industry, major accidents also lead to improved safety. There is wide public acceptance that the risks associated with these industries are an acceptable trade-off for our dependence on their products and services. With nuclear power, the high energy density makes the potential hazard obvious, and this has always been factored into the design of nuclear power plants. The few accidents have been spectacular and newsworthy, but of little consequence in terms of human fatalities. The novelty value and hence newsworthiness of nuclear power accidents remains high in contrast with other industrial accidents, which receive comparatively little news coverage.

In avoiding such accidents the industry has been very successful. In the 60-year history of civil nuclear power generation, with over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years across 36 countries, there have been only three significant accidents at nuclear power plants.

The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be considered extremely safe. Every year several hundred people die in coal mines to provide this widely used fuel for electricity. There are also significant health and environmental effects arising from fossil fuel use. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear power saves lives by displacing fossil fuel from the electricity mix.

Of course, there are interests to be considered with this article. But i have researched their claims and they are verifiable and show strong contradictions in the "Danger" motif for the rejection of nuclear power.
On a personal note, i live in a country that cannot access nuclear power, at least for now, due to it being the country most prone to earthquakes, in addition do being where the single most destructive earthquake on the ritcher scale happened. This all makes it so every building here (that abides with construction regulations, and common sense) has to have above average earthquake-resistant structures. Adding this on top of the already high cost of building a nuclear reactor, my countries relatively small economy and non-zero possibility of a literally earth-shattering earthquake, in which case not even the best of protections could prevent a catastrophe of byblical proportions for any energy plant that uses any amount of any fuel, makes nuclear energy mostly out of the question for most people. Even then, this country still has 2 research nuclear reactors IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR LARGEST CITY, SINCE 1970, neither of them having any reported incidents even with a 8,8 earthquake happening very recently, which goes to show how much we overestimate nuclear power's dangers. It is to be mentioned, though, that these reactors are mostly scientific, and of a low water pool and power generation capacity, along with one being deactivated, though for unrelated budget reasons. And no, im not saying Alaska or California should have nuclear reactors built, since both share the same tectonic hotspot with chile, and California specifically having to account for Saint Andrea's Fault being able to raze everything at any second, but considering the last "major" (Above 7,0 Ritcher) east coast earthquake happened on 1886, and that it had a magnitude of 7,3 (Here in chile we have 6,0-6,9 degree earthquakes at least once every year) really goes to show the wasted potential that the US, with its gigantic capital and large swaths of plains and overall lands with 0 natural disasters in the last 100 years has for nuclear power. Quoting the US Department Of Energy:

Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.

All of this while coal, that theorically costs half to build than nuclear, costs DOUBLE THE CASH to generate the same amount of energy, all this without even considering CCS, while releasing toxic gas and having to source coal leading to, according to the official carbon credit site:

Even factoring in big disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power resulted in just 0.03-0.04 deaths per TWh. With coal, statistics indicated at least 24.6 (Our World in Data) to 100 deaths per TWh (WHO/CDC).

Thats, according to the low estimate, more than 600 times the deaths for coal.
So, if you are opposed to nuclear power, why? I invite you to fact check my claims, and I would love to hear other views, as long as they are well researched and backed, of course.

 

[CLAX1911]

We've seen a lot of people over the last decades criticizing nuclear fission for the danger that comes with a nuclear reactor. Yet, as the World Nuclear Association remarks in a recent article from febuary this year, i quote




Of course, there are interests to be considered with this article. But i have researched their claims and they are verifiable and show strong contradictions in the "Danger" motif for the rejection of nuclear power.
On a personal note, i live in a country that cannot access nuclear power, at least for now, due to it being the country most prone to earthquakes, in addition do being where the single most destructive earthquake on the ritcher scale happened. This all makes it so every building here (that abides with construction regulations, and common sense) has to have above average earthquake-resistant structures. Adding this on top of the already high cost of building a nuclear reactor, my countries relatively small economy and non-zero possibility of a literally earth-shattering earthquake, in which case not even the best of protections could prevent a catastrophe of byblical proportions for any energy plant that uses any amount of any fuel, makes nuclear energy mostly out of the question for most people. Even then, this country still has 2 research nuclear reactors IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR LARGEST CITY, SINCE 1970, neither of them having any reported incidents even with a 8,8 earthquake happening very recently, which goes to show how much we overestimate nuclear power's dangers. It is to be mentioned, though, that these reactors are mostly scientific, and of a low water pool and power generation capacity, along with one being deactivated, though for unrelated budget reasons. And no, im not saying Alaska or California should have nuclear reactors built, since both share the same tectonic hotspot with chile, and California specifically having to account for Saint Andrea's Fault being able to raze everything at any second, but considering the last "major" (Above 7,0 Ritcher) east coast earthquake happened on 1886, and that it had a magnitude of 7,3 (Here in chile we have 6,0-6,9 degree earthquakes at least once every year) really goes to show the wasted potential that the US, with its gigantic capital and large swaths of plains and overall lands with 0 natural disasters in the last 100 years has for nuclear power. Quoting the US Department Of Energy:

All of this while coal, that theorically costs half to build than nuclear, costs DOUBLE THE CASH to generate the same amount of energy, all this without even considering CCS, while releasing toxic gas and having to source coal leading to, according to the official carbon credit site:

Thats, according to the low estimate, more than 600 times the deaths for coal.
So, if you are opposed to nuclear power, why? I invite you to fact check my claims, and I would love to hear other views, as long as they are well researched and backed, of course.

The number of fatalities per kilowatt hour produced is lowest among nuclear energy.

People mining for coal people drilling for oil or natural gas, building windmills or solar power plants there are more deaths and all of that then in the entire history in the US with nuclear energy.

I get why nuclear energy is scary because that type of radiation that it produces will kill you before you even know it. But there are safeguards there's an entire regulatory commission and there's extensive training as well as fail safes.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The number of fatalities per kilowatt hour produced is lowest among nuclear energy.

People mining for coal people drilling for oil or natural gas, building windmills or solar power plants there are more deaths and all of that then in the entire history in the US with nuclear energy.

I get why nuclear energy is scary because that type of radiation that it produces will kill you before you even know it. But there are safeguards there's an entire regulatory commission and there's extensive training as well as fail safes.

Have you ever known they type of people who complain about nuclear power to be rational?

 

[CLAX1911]

Have you ever known they type of people who complain about nuclear power to be rational?

Nope. Put an alternate we do it very poor job of educating people on this probably because the educators are not very rational when it comes to it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Okay, another one ready for some...

(Being rational or even honest seems to be at a premium these days.)

 

[Volunteer]

Have you ever known they type of people who complain about nuclear power to be rational?

Stephen G. Burns - Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015-2017
Allison Macfarlane - Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012-2014
Richard A. Meserve - Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1999-2003

 

[Deuce]

Stephen G. Burns - Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2015-2017
Allison Macfarlane - Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2012-2014
Richard A. Meserve - Chair, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1999-2003

What about them?

 

[Volunteer]

What about them?

A poster asked what type of rational people complain about nuclear power. I provided a list. In addition I found what Gregory B. Jaczko said, after serving several terms as NRC Chairman,

"We have to stop believing the hype. Nuclear has never delivered on the hype, and to somehow hinge the future of the planet on unproven design is simply, I think, irresponsible, and we have to recognize that or we’re going to be throwing money at the technologies that are simply never going to deliver."

 

[longview]

A poster asked what type of rational people complain about nuclear power. I provided a list. In addition I found what Gregory B. Jaczko said, after serving several terms as NRC Chairman,

"We have to stop believing the hype. Nuclear has never delivered on the hype, and to somehow hinge the future of the planet on unproven design is simply, I think, irresponsible, and we have to recognize that or we’re going to be throwing money at the technologies that are simply never going to deliver."

Perhaps the "Hype" he is referring to is a quote from the 1954 Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss

"Nuclear electricity too cheap to meter"

Jaczko is correct, Nuclear never lived up to that hype, but it did proved a VERY stable baseload supply at competitive prices.

 

[Volunteer]

Perhaps the "Hype" he is referring to is a quote from the 1954 Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss

Jaczko is correct, Nuclear never lived up to that hype, but it did proved a VERY stable baseload supply at competitive prices.

Prices, in this government controlled market, yes. Costs, no-one knows what the free market, and supply and demand, would say.

 

[longview]

Prices, in this government controlled market, yes. Costs, no-one knows what the free market, and supply and demand, would say.

Well we know the wholesale prices for profit companies sell Nuclear generated electricity for, and I suspect they would not sell
electricity for a loss.

 

[Deuce]

A poster asked what type of rational people complain about nuclear power. I provided a list. In addition I found what Gregory B. Jaczko said, after serving several terms as NRC Chairman,

"We have to stop believing the hype. Nuclear has never delivered on the hype, and to somehow hinge the future of the planet on unproven design is simply, I think, irresponsible, and we have to recognize that or we’re going to be throwing money at the technologies that are simply never going to deliver."

So you still refuse to present any kind of context for the remarks? What are we supposed to be evaluating?

 

[Volunteer]

So you still refuse to present any kind of context for the remarks?

I was not asked to provide context and I have not refused anything.

What are we supposed to be evaluating?

The thread is titled, "Why not Fission?"

 

[Deuce]

I was not asked to provide context and I have not refused anything.

The thread is titled, "Why not Fission?"

Alright, if you have nothing to say there's nothing to discuss.

 

[longview]

I see Fission power as a necessary step to a sustainable energy future.
Photovoltaic Solar has the potential to provide all necessary energy, but not unless it is paired with massive
seasonal energy storage. The energy storage needed is starting but needs to mature.(Not batteries).
While alternative sources of energy like Solar are maturing, we need solid baseload electricity to keep up our
ever expanding demand. I think Nuclear is one of the pieces necessary to move us from where we are now to where we need to be.

 

[Brack]

Have you ever known they type of people who complain about nuclear power to be rational?

RFK Jr has argued against nuclear power during his days as a radical environmentalist.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The anti-nuclear power movement, to the extent that it exists anymore at all, hasn't really had any power or influence in 40+ years.

I'm officially "middle aged" now, and it was my parent's generation (and at least one of my parents specifically) - who were out there protesting nuke plants and having love-ins.

Anyone younger than the oldest gen-xers grew up in a world where nuclear power has always been a reality. It's not scary to us.

 

[Volunteer]

The anti-nuclear power movement, to the extent that it exists anymore at all, hasn't really had any power or influence in 40+ years.

I'm officially "middle aged" now, and it was my parent's generation (and at lnderstandeast one of my parents specifically) - who were out there protesting nuke plants and having love-ins.

Anyone younger than the oldest gen-xers grew up in a world where nuclear power has always been a reality. It's not scary to us.

Yeah many folks are too young to remember all the promises, made fifty years ago, of cheap, clean, electricity and promises that there would be a radioactive waste storage plan. Some of us didn't believe the hype, and still don't. Who here noticed the recent announcements of even more billions of taxpayer dollars given to commercial nuclear power? The spending goes unnoticed.

Nuclear power survives only on taxpayer life support. Free market, not politicians and big government, should determine energy policy. We should end the out-of-control tax credits and subsidies for all energy sources. We're far to deep in debt to continue this.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah many folks are too young to remember all the promises, made fifty years ago, of cheap, clean, electricity and promises that there would be a radioactive waste storage plan. Some of us didn't believe the hype, and still don't. Who here noticed the recent announcements of even more billions of taxpayer dollars given to commercial nuclear power? The spending goes unnoticed.

Nuclear power survives only on taxpayer life support. Free market, not politicians and big government, should determine energy policy. We should end the out-of-control tax credits and subsidies for all energy sources. We're far to deep in debt to continue this.

We should also make energy providers charge customers the real cost of that energy. Untold trillions of dollars in cost have been dumped onto society that never showed up on your electric bill or at the gas pump.