> We've had nuclear generation for 64 years now and harm to the environment is minimal.
Has it been? I'm not really convinced that's actually the case because even if something nasty happens, the usual reaction seems to be to just pretend "everything is okay" and then raise the threshold levels for radiation exposure because that's pretty much the only thing that can be done.
Case in point: Fukushima is still sitting on loads of contaminated dirt and water, with no clue what to do with it [0].
On a global level that might be "minimal" but I doubt the local population cares very much about that distinction.
Imho this is quite similar to the naivety with which the US conducted their nuclear tests. Back then they also assumed "It's far enough away from population centers, there's no danger for anybody". Decades later, the statistics speak another language [1].
Which is a common problem with nuclear: Direct attribution is pretty much impossible and the long-term epidemiological studies required to recognize these effects are not only very complex but also extremely expensive.
Leading to a situation that down the road we might have repeated the same mistakes like previous generations before us did: Leaving the actual problems, and it's solutions, to following generations, who gonna curse us for our naivety and hubris.
There's also the factor that nuclear requires massive cooling, this last summer already has seen several plants, all over the globe, shut down/throttled down due to rivers running too hot for cooling [2]. If the trend of increasing average temperatures keeps on going, this will become a much more common issue.
>Leading to a situation that down the road we might have repeated the same mistakes like previous generations before us did: Leaving the actual problems, and it's solutions, to following generations, who gonna curse us for our naivety and hubris.
This is also the case if we do nothing. Consider that the alternative to Nuclear is baseload generation with coal, oil and gas, which we know for a fact are destroying our environment by raising global temperatures. And they're ruining our air. They're not going away any time soon, either.
I agree that there are no easy solutions to any of this, but that shouldn't blind us from the possible dangers of going down a road we can't back out from.
Particularly when it's about an industry that doesn't have an exactly stellar track record with "owning up" to their errors.
Because contrary to popular perception, the nuclear industry suffers just as much from "cutting corners" as any other profit-driven industry [0].
Costs and responsibilities for decommissioning and final waste storage are still issues we are a far away from solving [1].
Sorry for being such a Debbie Downer, but I just don't see any good way out of this that doesn't involve massively cutting back energy consumption on a global level.
Which is, of course, easier said than done. But it just feels like a massive oversight how we keep focusing on "increasing supply", while completely ignoring the option of "reducing demand" because it's too unpopular for any political support.
Has it been? I'm not really convinced that's actually the case because even if something nasty happens, the usual reaction seems to be to just pretend "everything is okay" and then raise the threshold levels for radiation exposure because that's pretty much the only thing that can be done.
Case in point: Fukushima is still sitting on loads of contaminated dirt and water, with no clue what to do with it [0].
On a global level that might be "minimal" but I doubt the local population cares very much about that distinction.
Imho this is quite similar to the naivety with which the US conducted their nuclear tests. Back then they also assumed "It's far enough away from population centers, there's no danger for anybody". Decades later, the statistics speak another language [1].
Which is a common problem with nuclear: Direct attribution is pretty much impossible and the long-term epidemiological studies required to recognize these effects are not only very complex but also extremely expensive.
Leading to a situation that down the road we might have repeated the same mistakes like previous generations before us did: Leaving the actual problems, and it's solutions, to following generations, who gonna curse us for our naivety and hubris.
There's also the factor that nuclear requires massive cooling, this last summer already has seen several plants, all over the globe, shut down/throttled down due to rivers running too hot for cooling [2]. If the trend of increasing average temperatures keeps on going, this will become a much more common issue.
[0] https://www.fastcompany.com/3058303/look-at-the-millions-of-...
[1] https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civi...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/07/weatherwatch-nu...