# Is nuclear energy all that bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2019, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173 "2019-02-08T11:27:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/21 "2019-02-08T17:35:53Z")
Hey I can burn Sulfur for a power plant ������������ for my community, make enough power for my entire community and have 0 carbon emissions and 0 greenhouse gas emissions ������������ and sell sulfuric acid as a revenue generating byproduct. And there is heaps of sulfur lying around oil refineries available for cheap. I am of course being facetious but how you account for GReenhouse emissions is very arbitrary at present. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/22 "2019-02-08T19:21:37Z")
Yes, nuclear energy is bad and has a number of negatives. Fossil fuel energy is worse. Nuclear energy has the ability to make relatively small areas uninhabitable and to kill thousands. Fossil fuel energy has the ability to make almost the entire world uninhabitable and kill millions. Nuclear energy is able to replace a huge amount of fossil fuel energy, so it should be pursued as the lesser of two evils. If other energy forms that are ‘less bad’ become more practical, then they should be used to replace nuclear. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/23 "2019-02-08T20:00:34Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Is this just your guess, or do you have data to back this up? It’s not impossible - and there are certainly scientists who attempt to speak authoritatively outside of their area of expertise - but so much of learning about science is learning how to be skeptical and how human mental failings trap us into believing false things, so I personally would guess that scientists as a whole were more careful and self-reflective about the nature of their knowledge and beliefs and would not be more susceptible to dunning-krueger. How about the very example that I was replying to? But yeah, scientists against climate change, against vaccines, against a round earth, even scientist 911 troofers. Outside of their fields, they are no better than layman. However, even outside of their field, they feel that they have more authority than layman, and people seem to accept that. More susceptible on an individual level? I suppose that may be a hard one to defend, even though, IMHO, it is likely, but more influential and dangerous when they do, I don’t know if that is even debatable. > [@XT](#): > > If you are trying to say I’m spouting anti-nuclear propaganda, well…that’s ironic. Not sure what in my post you think is anti-nuclear propaganda, but feel free to flesh out an actual rebuttal. Or not. Sounded like a pretty anti-nuclear post to me. Lots of downsides, lots of negatives, some of which are true, and some of which don’t have to be. You may see it as simply an observation as to the current state of the nuclear economy, but many would see it as a reason for the current state of the nuclear economy. > [@senoy](#): > > Yes, nuclear energy is bad and has a number of negatives. Fossil fuel energy is worse. Nuclear energy has the ability to make relatively small areas uninhabitable and to kill thousands. If everything goes wrong, and all of the designs to prevent that from happening happen anyway > [@](#): > > Fossil fuel energy has the ability to make almost the entire world uninhabitable and kill millions. If done the way that it is typically done. > [@](#): > > Nuclear energy is able to replace a huge amount of fossil fuel energy, so it should be pursued as the lesser of two evils. If other energy forms that are ‘less bad’ become more practical, then they should be used to replace nuclear. Fusion is only “30 years” away. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/24 "2019-02-08T20:14:22Z")
Compared to the consequences of the 2C global warming target, (which I expect we will overshoot), nuclear power is cheap and safe. We should start building reactors everywhere immediately. But we’re not going to do that, because the atom-phobes do not have an adult concept of risk when it comes to nuclear power. Ironically these tree-hugging hippies are the ones who are going to doom life on earth to serious harm or extinction. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/25 "2019-02-08T20:46:42Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > But we’re not going to do that, because the atom-phobes do not have an adult concept of risk when it comes to nuclear power. Ironically these tree-hugging hippies are the ones who are going to doom life on earth to serious harm or extinction. Point of order: it’s not the “atom-phobes” and “tree-hugging hippies” that don’t have an adult concept of risk. It’s _humans_. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/26 "2019-02-08T21:05:22Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Point of order: it’s not the “atom-phobes” and “tree-hugging hippies” that don’t have an adult concept of risk. It’s _humans_. Eh… not all humans have a wildly skewed view of the risk of nuclear energy, so I’m sticking with the hippie story. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/27 "2019-02-08T21:10:03Z")
There is no measure whatsoever by which nuclear is worse than coal. There may be other options that are even better than nuclear, and it may be that the endgame of energy generation includes neither coal nor nuclear. But let’s worry about that after we’ve taken the obvious first step of replacing all coal plants with something else, nuclear if nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/28 "2019-02-08T21:20:19Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > There is no measure whatsoever by which nuclear is worse than coal. There may be other options that are even better than nuclear, and it may be that the endgame of energy generation includes neither coal nor nuclear. But let’s worry about that after we’ve taken the obvious first step of replacing all coal plants with something else, nuclear if nothing else. Yeah… I mean, when we factor in the long-term cost and suffering of not just climate change but the environmental impact of coal, we could have a full-on Fukushima meltdown every 5 years and _still_ be better off. (I’m not saying we would or should have that many nuclear disasters, and I definitely don’t want that event in my back yard or anyone’s back yard - just sorta hyperbolically saying, if we look at the worse-than-worst case scenario, even wildly unsafe nuclear energy is still better than staying with coal or dicking around with windmills while the oceans boil around us). And I still blame the hippies for not letting us have this. ---
**Author:** ![GinoC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f4b2a3/32.png) [@GinoC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GinoC)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/29 "2019-02-08T21:22:03Z")
No discussion of molten salt reactors? I’m not an expert by any means, but from what I understand they are much cheaper to build than conventional fission reactors, can use the spent fuel rods from conventional reactors, and cannot have a meltdown due to their design. Is it the demonization of nuclear energy that has held them back? ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/30 "2019-02-08T22:05:00Z")
> [@GinoC](#): > > No discussion of molten salt reactors? I’m not an expert by any means, but from what I understand they are much cheaper to build than conventional fission reactors, can use the spent fuel rods from conventional reactors, and cannot have a meltdown due to their design. Is it the demonization of nuclear energy that has held them back? Weaponization is always a concern with nuclear reactors and I understand MSR reactors are especially problematic on that account. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/31 "2019-02-08T22:31:49Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > 1. Nuclear energy has zero carbon footprint : Nit so fast!!! Mineral processing for making nuclear fuel is very energy intensive and is fossil fueled. Same goes for nuclear waste processing. The total lifetime carbon footprint needs to be considered. And coal and gas and oil has no carbon footprint for mining, moving and processing? I will be fossil fuels have many times the carbon footprint just in that area, and a thousand times more in toto. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/32 "2019-02-08T22:42:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Sounded like a pretty anti-nuclear post to me. Lots of downsides, lots of negatives, some of which are true, and some of which don’t have to be. > > You may see it as simply an observation as to the current state of the nuclear economy, but many would see it as a reason for the current state of the nuclear economy. Only by those who have a wildly different definition of ‘anti-nuclear’ and ‘propaganda’. All of the things I pointed out are real world down sides or realities of nuclear energy. No, it doesn’t HAVE to be that way wrt lawsuits and foot dragging NIMBY types or rabidly opposed anti-nukes, but it IS that way in real life, at least in the US. In China, of course, they just go ahead and build the things and the people can go fuck themselves if they have a problem (or go to a re-education camp and possibly be portioned out for spare parts). So, no…I don’t see pointing out real world negatives as being either ‘anti-nuclear’ OR ‘propaganda’. I’m very pro-nuclear…I just know the realities of the situation in the US, and why nuclear power is a dying industry here, instead of the expanding one we need and have needed for the past few decades, especially in light of global climate change. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/33 "2019-02-08T22:52:01Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Point of order: it’s not the “atom-phobes” and “tree-hugging hippies” that don’t have an adult concept of risk. It’s _humans_. > **[Nuclear Free Future](https://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free)** > > .section-block p a:not(.btn) { color: #008294; display: inline-block; font-weight: 700; } \*The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy. Although nuclear plants have been in operation for less than 60 years, we now have seen three serious disasters. Tragically, it took a horrific disaster in Japan to remind the world that none of the fundamental problems with nuclear power have ever been addressed. Besides reactor safety, both nuclear proliferation and the required long-term storage of nuclear waste (which remains lethal for more than 100,000 years) make nuclear power a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity. Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources. Help us work to phase out nuclear as quickly as possible. For more information, visit our Nuclear Free Campaign Grassroots Network website. - Yep, it is “tree-hugging hippies”. They are still opposed to Nuke power, and they also fight hydro, solar and wind at every turn. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/34 "2019-02-08T22:54:45Z")
With that spiel they could give anti-vaxxers lessons in distortion and misdirection though. Well done, Sierra Club! ETA: And I’d like to point k9b to this as an example of what actual ‘anti-nuclear’ and ‘propaganda’ means, at least by my definition. ---
**Author:** ![BenedictusXIV](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b19c9b/32.png) [@BenedictusXIV](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BenedictusXIV)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/35 "2019-02-08T23:12:45Z")
> [@andros](#): > > You _guess_? > > Chernobyl-related deaths could be 4000 (dismissing the more alarming/alarmist numbers put forth by Greenpeace and UCS, whose estimates range from tens to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths). Over 1300 deaths have been attributed to the Fukushima meltdown (primarily due to the evacuation). Yes, I guessed. What fun is a great debate if I start off with nothing but the facts? Turns out I\m a pretty good guesser, though. The actual number for Chernobyl is 29. There is no consensus about fallout victims, other than 15 children who died from thyroid cancer. Sure, the number could be 4000, I guess. Don’t get me started on Greenpeace. The actual death count in Fukushima? ZERO. > **[List of nuclear and radiation accidents by death toll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll)** > > There have been several nuclear and radiation accidents involving fatalities, including nuclear power plant accidents, nuclear submarine accidents, and radiotherapy incidents. > Estimates of the total number of deaths potentially resulting from the Chernobyl disaster vary enormously: A UNSCEAR report proposes 45 total confirmed deaths from the accident as of 2008\[update\]. This number includes 2 non-radiation related fatalities from the accident itself, 28 fatalities from radiation doses in the imm... Number of wind turbine related accidents in the UK: Around 2400, including 15 fatalities. > **[fullaccidents.pdf](https://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf)** > > 533 B ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/36 "2019-02-08T23:12:56Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The biggest problem with nuclear is that we don’t do enough of it. Everything we do is a prototype, a one off. We don’t have mass manufacturing of components and the economies of scale that go along with that. And we will not have any way of bringing the costs down until we actually start building them. > > Building modular reactors that can be made in a factory or shipyard, and then shipped to the location that only needs to provide the turbine hall, will decrease the cost and complexity by orders of magnitude. There is, as I understand it, one kind/class of current nuclear that is more like the modular design you’re advocating - military reactors like on ships and subs. I don’t know how practical it is to use those designs though. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/37 "2019-02-08T23:17:17Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#): > > Don’t get me started on Greenpeace. Those Nazca-fucking motherfuckers! And I’m all about the whales, but it turns out I rate archaeology higher than the widdle beasties… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/38 "2019-02-08T23:30:05Z")
> [@XT](#): > > With that spiel they could give anti-vaxxers lessons in distortion and misdirection though. Well done, Sierra Club! > > ETA: And I’d like to point k9b to this as an example of what actual ‘anti-nuclear’ and ‘propaganda’ means, at least by my definition. Yes, I used to support and even was a member, but no longer. They are simply luddites. The only way to save the planet is for everyone to use less, according to them. ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/39 "2019-02-08T23:48:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And coal and gas and oil has no carbon footprint for mining, moving and processing? I will be fossil fuels have many times the carbon footprint just in that area, and a thousand times more in toto. Short answer - you will be losing the bet. Almost all nuclear fuels occur in very very low concentration in their ores. And processing the ores is much more energy intensive. For strip mining coal, you are just digging through land and burning the coal which comes out ready to burn. For gas - it comes out readily once drilled and maybe a little processing for cleanup. The whole uranium mining and processing is kept under wraps due to security reasons so it will be hard to find publicly available data. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2019, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/40 "2019-02-08T23:50:06Z")
> [@GinoC](#): > > No discussion of molten salt reactors? I’m not an expert by any means, but from what I understand they are much cheaper to build than conventional fission reactors, can use the spent fuel rods from conventional reactors, and cannot have a meltdown due to their design. Is it the demonization of nuclear energy that has held them back? I didn’t want to get into specifics, but those are what I am talking about about designs that we are working on that have some promissing applications. Most of them are still more paper than reality, and quite a bit needs to be done to determine whether they are truly viable, and if they are, to deploy them. Work that will not be done as long as we dick around and stay opposed to it. > [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Weaponization is always a concern with nuclear reactors and I understand MSR reactors are especially problematic on that account. How so? MSR’s don’t even really exist yet, so it is hard to say how they would be problematic, but most of the designs seem to be more proliferation resistant than current generation plants. Going to a Thorium cycle give an even greater advantage, in that, not only would it be a real pain to extract fisionables from the reactor, and it would be a real pain to work with them being as radioactive as they are, but no one has actually built a bomb using u-233. In order to make a bomb, you’d have to go through the entire process of designing the bomb all over again. Digging up dirt and feeding it through centrifuges would be easier for any small state, and any large state doesn’t need to try to do it on the sly like that. > [@XT](#): > > Only by those who have a wildly different definition of ‘anti-nuclear’ and ‘propaganda’. All of the things I pointed out are real world down sides or realities of nuclear energy. No, it doesn’t HAVE to be that way wrt lawsuits and foot dragging NIMBY types or rabidly opposed anti-nukes, but it IS that way in real life, at least in the US. In China, of course, they just go ahead and build the things and the people can go fuck themselves if they have a problem (or go to a re-education camp and possibly be portioned out for spare parts). So, no…I don’t see pointing out real world negatives as being either ‘anti-nuclear’ OR ‘propaganda’. I’m very pro-nuclear…I just know the realities of the situation in the US, and why nuclear power is a dying industry here, instead of the expanding one we need and have needed for the past few decades, especially in light of global climate change. Were I a fence sitter, your post would convince me to move towards anti-nuke. Nothing in your post was wrong, but many of the problems that you pointed out can be solved, some with technology, and some with education. It does come across as though you are listing problems that we will not be able to overcome. I’ve had enough conversations with you to know that you are very pro-technology, not a luddite by any means. I am just talking about this particular post, it struck me as being rather negative, more negative than necessary China will be leading the way on this, and yes, part of that is because they are not going to let NIMBY’ers and luddites derail their growth. We have a democracy, which is cool, but it does mean that we need to convince people to vote for what we want, rather than just making them accept it. I prefer that system, but it does lead to issues like the one we are in. My problem with your post was that it was excessively pessimistic, and listed problems that exist with current generation plants, problems that could be solved with the next generation, and also listed problems that are based entirely upon public perception, which is what we are trying to change. > [@XT](#): > > With that spiel they could give anti-vaxxers lessons in distortion and misdirection though. Well done, Sierra Club! > > ETA: And I’d like to point k9b to this as an example of what actual ‘anti-nuclear’ and ‘propaganda’ means, at least by my definition. I agree that that is very anti-nuclear, stupid, and wrong. Your post had the distinct advantage of not being stupid or wrong. But I consider something to be on the side of anti-nuclear if it doesn’t help to educate and even persuade people about the benefits of nuclear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173.md?page=3)