Cause once again no one can see the potential advancements nuclear technology can have if it had proper investment. Everyone see's Chernobyl and Fukushima and then they switch off.
Yes Renewables are better than nuclear for the moment but to demonize and not even discuss it is just burying your head in the sand
To be fair, I also see Hanford (Washington state). I see that we can't commit to 50 years of maintenance, let alone hundreds of years. I see saddling generations with cost and care so we can have electricity today. I'd feel better about nuclear if we paid for the full cost upfront.
A critical point is that basically all the nuclear power plants ever built are either bomb factories, or modified bomb factories. A lot of the nasty waste is a by-product of this side of things.
A lot of the newer designs are done to not produce significant medium or long term waste. They are also a lot more fail-safe, rather than the "fail-deadly" with layers of protection.
It's also worth noting that nuclear regulations are extremely strict. If regulated in the same way, most coal power stations would be in breach of the regs. There is more radioactive material in coal dust than a nuclear power plant is allowed to emit. Unfortunately the press loves being alarmist over any nuclear release. Readers don't have the context for what is safe Vs dangerous.
My hang up is actually on how long the site and materials would need to be cared for to be safe. Unless the technology has shortened that aspect substantially, I have reservations. I really worry about leaving future generations with commitments they had no say in and may have limited benefit from.
I fully agree with you. The newer plant designs use different types of nuclear fission. They don't produce the really nasty waste. In fact, some designs can effectively eat it as fuel. There is still some waste, but it's generally the low grade stuff e.g. gloves with slightly toxic materials on them. You want to keep them away from the water table, but you likely wouldn't be able to tell, without specialist equipment.
Cause once again no one can see the potential advancements nuclear technology can have if it had proper investment. Everyone see's Chernobyl and Fukushima and then they switch off.
Yes Renewables are better than nuclear for the moment but to demonize and not even discuss it is just burying your head in the sand
To be fair, I also see Hanford (Washington state). I see that we can't commit to 50 years of maintenance, let alone hundreds of years. I see saddling generations with cost and care so we can have electricity today. I'd feel better about nuclear if we paid for the full cost upfront.
A critical point is that basically all the nuclear power plants ever built are either bomb factories, or modified bomb factories. A lot of the nasty waste is a by-product of this side of things.
A lot of the newer designs are done to not produce significant medium or long term waste. They are also a lot more fail-safe, rather than the "fail-deadly" with layers of protection.
It's also worth noting that nuclear regulations are extremely strict. If regulated in the same way, most coal power stations would be in breach of the regs. There is more radioactive material in coal dust than a nuclear power plant is allowed to emit. Unfortunately the press loves being alarmist over any nuclear release. Readers don't have the context for what is safe Vs dangerous.
My hang up is actually on how long the site and materials would need to be cared for to be safe. Unless the technology has shortened that aspect substantially, I have reservations. I really worry about leaving future generations with commitments they had no say in and may have limited benefit from.
I fully agree with you. The newer plant designs use different types of nuclear fission. They don't produce the really nasty waste. In fact, some designs can effectively eat it as fuel. There is still some waste, but it's generally the low grade stuff e.g. gloves with slightly toxic materials on them. You want to keep them away from the water table, but you likely wouldn't be able to tell, without specialist equipment.
Thorium reactors are a good example.