# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**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 20, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/101 "2019-02-20T18:23:07Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, you know…we ARE still using the steam engine. 😛 A nuclear reactor is, after all, a steam engine. Many other power generations methods still use a steam engine at it’s core as well… Well, steam turbines, anyway. [Steam engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine) refers specifically to the reciprocating kind. > [@](#): > > The term “steam engine” is generally applied only to reciprocating engines as just described, not to the steam turbine. ---
**Author:** ![EarlGrayHot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e480ec/32.png) [@EarlGrayHot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EarlGrayHot)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2019, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/102 "2019-07-25T14:24:39Z")
There have been way more serious incidents than the two you mention. 3 Mile Island among them. Waste disposal is a huge problem and in my opinion, we shouldn’t be using a technology before we have an adequate way of storing the waste that is generated from it. Fukushima was not the result of global warming but of an earthquake generated tsunami that swamped back-up generators poorly placed. Nuclear power is tricky-it needs to follow a lot of rules and regulations and it’s a problem if those rules are ignored or if the manufacture of materials used in generating such power is not to spec. Personally, I prefer to use technology that won’t result in huge areas being contaminated if an accident occurs, resulting in having to abandon those areas for hundreds or even thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2019, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/103 "2019-07-27T10:41:28Z")
> [@EarlGrayHot](#): > > There have been way more serious incidents than the two you mention. 3 Mile Island among them. Waste disposal is a huge problem and in my opinion, we shouldn’t be using a technology before we have an adequate way of storing the waste that is generated from it. Fukushima was not the result of global warming but of an earthquake generated tsunami that swamped back-up generators poorly placed. Nuclear power is tricky-it needs to follow a lot of rules and regulations and it’s a problem if those rules are ignored or if the manufacture of materials used in generating such power is not to spec. Personally, I prefer to use technology that won’t result in huge areas being contaminated if an accident occurs, resulting in having to abandon those areas for hundreds or even thousands of years. The way I see it is, what’s the relative scale of the disasters we’re talking about? It’s true that we don’t know what to do with the radioactive garbage from nuclear power plants. And it’s also true that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima may never completely be cleaned up. If global warming weren’t a threat, I’d love to see every last nuclear power plant in the U.S. shut down. If even the Japanese can’t do nuclear power safely, what’s the hope for us? But you could have forty Chernobyls or Fukushimas and it still wouldn’t be as bad as unchecked global warming. And it’s clear that the road to zero carbon can’t be done by renewables alone. It still sticks in my craw to admit it, but we’re going to need nuclear power - and we’re going to need a lot more of it than we’ve got now. ---
**Author:** ![Settimo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Settimo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Settimo)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/104 "2019-07-27T21:18:42Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#): > > Nuclear energy is a “simple” and fast solution to supply lots and lots of electricty, and it is…at least in my opinion…pretty safe. > > I think its time that we give nuclear a second chance if we want to make a fast and significant reduction of fossil fuel dependancy. You’re not alone. I skimmed the thread and didn’t see this ref (it’s a good one, germane; my apologies if it’s already in here but I missed it). I recall seeing this thinking multiple times in other reputable sources too (perhaps by the same promoters, and perhaps in the WSJ). [NYT article:](http://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html) > [@](#): > > But we actually have proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth: France and Sweden. They decarbonized their grids decades ago and now emit less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They did this with nuclear power. And they did it fast, taking advantage of nuclear power’s intense concentration of energy per pound of fuel. > [@](#): > > New nuclear power plants are hugely expensive to build in the United States today. This is why so few are being built. But they don’t need to be so costly. The key to recovering our lost ability to build affordable nuclear plants is standardization and repetition. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/105 "2020-01-24T01:38:12Z")
> [@BenedictusXIV](#): > > With all the attention for sustainable energy on wind and solar, [this](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/scientists-find-chernobyl-full-of-thriving-animals/ar-BBThFn7?ocid=spartanntp)Newsweek article got me thinking if nuclear energy deserves the bad reputation it has. Similar studies have shown the same conclusion: Wildlife loves disasters, even nuclear ones. > > Nuclear energy is a “simple” and fast solution to supply lots and lots of electricty, and it is…at least in my opinion…pretty safe. > In the roughly half a century we’ve been using nuclear plants, there have been two notable incidents: Czernobyl and Fukushima. Combined death count: Around one or two dozen, I guess. Less people than have died installing windmills. > Czernobyl was a first generation plant, uncomparible with modern facilities. Fukushima was clearly an act of God and ironically possibly the result of global warming by fossil fuels. > > Also, again in my opinion, it is pretty clean. Sure, the cores stay radio active for pretty much ever, but do people realize how little waste we are talking about here compared to all the polution that even the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines produce? > > I think its time that we give nuclear a second chance if we want to make a fast and significant reduction of fossil fuel dependancy. It’s definitely time for nuclear, especially molten salt reactors, commonly known as SMR (small modular reactors). They have a much smaller footprint than sprawling wind “farms.” Protecting scenery and wildlife/habitat used to be core policy agendas for environmental groups. Now, they speak as big land developers, with greenwashed disclaimers like “We know these projects have impacts but we must allow them because they’ll save lives down the road.” They’re trading major loss of open space for unproved claims that CO2 will actually be reduced by these oil-built machines. Bats are taking the biggest hit from wind turbines and there’s no logical way to stop it if many more are built. Some claim that impractical mitigation technologies “will” work, e.g. shutting down entire arrays for a few animals. You can see how uneconomic that is, and money always wins with humans. It’s grim for me to hear “environmentalists” describe bird deaths in terms of “well, cats kill more of them.” They routinely dismiss the ethical problem of something “green” causing mass carnage. I’m more concerned about environmental groups’ shift in attitude toward energy sprawl than global warming itself. Given that 350,000+ wind turbines (as of 2019) have done nothing tangible to slow CO2 emissions, you’d’ think environmental groups would stop blindly supporting wind power but they’re locked into it via funding and general rhetoric. Here’s a link for those who don’t fully comprehend the sprawl of Big Wind in America alone: [U.S. Wind Turbine Database](https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/) As for solar, I say put it in places that are already developed, and don’t threaten farm acreage. But it still can’t scale up to fossil fuels, and both it and wind power are built with same. See: [cubic mile of oil - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?&q=cubic+mile+of+oil) Nuclear is the best hope we’ve got and green groups should be realistic. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/106 "2020-01-24T01:45:37Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > This is the age of natural gas. It is plenty, cheap and has a lot smaller carbon foot print than coal. A natural gas plant also can be started up in lot shorter time (concept to startup) than a nuclear, does not require huge capital investment and cis size flexible from 25MW to 1000s of MW. > > There are also other benefits : like a Natural has power plant is easy to integrate with say Solar power plant. For example a nuclear power plant is hard to reduce to 50% capacity during the day and 100% at night (needed for integrating with solar). With natural gas it’s easy. > > I will bet that majority of the new power plants built will be natural gas 🙂 Gas is only a short term solution, though. You seem to imply it’s infinite. Read up on shale hype for both oil and gas: [peak shale production denial - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?&q=peak+shale+production+denial) Also, many “wind” energy projects are essentially natural gas plants with wind filling in the gaps when it blows. Many environmentalists seem completely naive about energy density, ERoI and related concepts. They just want all those nasty fossil fuels to go away, and never mind the math. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/107 "2020-01-24T01:50:55Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Nuclear is expensive due to all the safety and regulations that need to be baked in, some of which are certainly part of _why_ it is so safe. But yes, I’d definitely rather have a nuclear power plant, even in my general vicinity, than a coal plant. > > Unless batteries get a lot cheaper, nuclear power may be useful for baseline low-carbon energy in places like the Florida peninsula that aren’t near elevation changes high enough to use hydro and/or or pumped storage. I’d rather see sparse, low-profile nuclear plants, including underground SMR, than more horizons full of ugly wind turbines which have shown little ability to solve the carbon problem (no surprise when you see how they’re built). It confounds me that wind energy supporters criticize coal mining mountaintop removal, yet sanction its new cousin: [http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+turbines+mountain](http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+turbines+mountain) (_when talking to Greens you’re supposed to agree that mountains should look like that_) A technology that causes the least sprawl is going to be best for nature overall. I’m not just thinking about what people want or need. We have spoiled nature enough with technology, “green” or otherwise. [https://www.google.com/search?&q=energy+sprawl+wind+land+use](https://www.google.com/search?&q=energy+sprawl+wind+land+use) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/108 "2020-01-24T04:49:27Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > I’d rather see sparse, low-profile nuclear plants, including underground SMR, than more horizons full of ugly wind turbines which have shown little ability to solve the carbon problem (no surprise when you see how they’re built). I’m on the record of not agreeing with most environmentalists about not using nuclear power; however, recently Nuclear power plants are being shut down because private energy companies are seeing Natural gas as cheaper. That item takes place because conservatives (what are conservatives conserving nowadays? 🙂 ) fell for the dismissal of tools like cap and trade that would have included the real costs of contamination of our atmosphere. But since that was dismissed thanks to the disinformation coming from powerful interests then we get what we see, industry not finding a reason to keep nuclear going because CO2 emitting resources are not confronted with the costs that they should have. There is that and then the other item that was seen in France and other nations was anathema in the USA for even longer than cap and trade: France and others virtually used socialism, AKA as government intervention, and investing heavily in science education to get their nuclear industry going. > [@eg8576736](#): > > It confounds me that wind energy supporters criticize coal mining mountaintop removal, yet sanction its new cousin: [http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+turbines+mountain](http://google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=wind+turbines+mountain) (_when talking to Greens you’re supposed to agree that mountains should look like that_) > > A technology that causes the least sprawl is going to be best for nature overall. I’m not just thinking about what people want or need. We have spoiled nature enough with technology, “green” or otherwise. > > [energy sprawl wind land use - Google Search](https://www.google.com/search?&q=energy+sprawl+wind+land+use) Uh, clearly in many of the “google vomit” that I looked there the sprawl is less that we could get by continuing with other fossil fuels, and as per one cite you made there: > **[Energy Sprawl Is the Largest Driver of Land Use Change in United States](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0162269)** > > Energy production in the United States for domestic use and export is predicted to rise 27% by 2040. We quantify projected energy sprawl (new land required for energy production) in the United States through 2040. Over 200,000 km2 of additional land... > [@](#): > > Renewable energy production can be sustained indefinitely on the same land base, while extractive energy must continually drill and mine new areas to sustain production. We calculated the number of years required for fossil energy production to expand to cover the same area as renewables, if both were to produce the same amount of energy each year. The land required for coal production would grow to equal or exceed that of wind, solar and geothermal energy within 2–31 years. One thing I did agree a long time ago: biofuels would be a disaster when taking into consideration the sprawl needed if they were the **only** game in _future_ towns. ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/109 "2020-01-24T12:56:00Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > It’s definitely time for nuclear, especially molten salt reactors, commonly known as SMR (small modular reactors). They have a much smaller footprint than sprawling wind “farms.” Rolls Royce has recently been making noise about implementing small modular reactors (SMR’s) based on submarine nuclear reactors. The idea is that they’d be able to provide power to a mid-sized city. They’d provide an interim solution in the move from fossil fuels to renewables, and then a back-up to solar and wind as those become leading electricity sources. In countries that already have nuclear power, the SMR’s would be installed at nuclear power plant sites that have reached, or are reaching, the end of their working life. A coalition led by Rolls Royce received government funding for the design phase of their plans last year. > **[Rolls-Royce coalition to design mini nuclear power stations](https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7682843/Rolls-Royce-coalition-design-mini-nuclear-power-stations.html)** > > The consortium, which includes Laing O'Rourke and the National Nuclear Laboratory, wants to build 16 small reactors in the UK. It has spent four years on early plans for 'rapid assembly' power stations. However, the SMR’s would still need government support, both in terms of legislation and investment or price guarantees to be achievable. A few days ago a commentator stated that the government support isn’t happening, so until that changes, Rolls Royce is mothballing the project. > **[Anthony Hilton: Government is ignoring a mini solution to nuclear mess](https://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-the-government-s-ignoring-a-mini-solution-to-nuclear-mess-a4045696.html)** > > Toshiba has been almost bankrupted by nuclear power in America so it was no surprise that it decided to get out of building a new plant at Moorside in Cumbria last year. But then Hitachi, another Japanese company, decided it too should choose... However, there was further reporting today that Rolls Royce is still planning on building the SMR’s. > **[Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51233444)** > > The firm says it plans to build up to 15 of the mini reactors, which can be delivered by a lorry. It looks like Rolls Royce is trying to minimize their spending until they get the necessary government guarantees, but is still lobbying for those guarantees. As for wind farms, I’ve never understood the dislike for them. I wouldn’t want the entire coastline covered with them, but a few hectares every 30 kilometres or so doesn’t really bug me any more than a fishing town or an agricultural farm does. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173/110 "2020-01-24T22:36:41Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > This is the age of natural gas. It is plenty, cheap and has a lot smaller carbon foot print than coal. A natural gas plant also can be started up in lot shorter time (concept to startup) than a nuclear, does not require huge capital investment and cis size flexible from 25MW to 1000s of MW. > > There are also other benefits : like a Natural has power plant is easy to integrate with say Solar power plant. For example a nuclear power plant is hard to reduce to 50% capacity during the day and 100% at night (needed for integrating with solar). With natural gas it’s easy. > > I will bet that majority of the new power plants built will be natural gas 🙂 I wonder if the blended carbon load of a gas powered generator plus solar is lower than the carbon load of a nuclear power plant. I doubt it. A lot depends on how the search for power storage goes. Con edison used to store power in huge pendulums, it was where i learned about perpetual motion machines. If you could store energy in mechanical form without any loss, you will have licked much of our energy problem. If we can figure out how to store a week’s worth of global power, we would have all sorts of options. We are not going to march or protest or demonstrate our way out of this problem, we are going to have to science our way out of it. And frankly more and more kids are going into sciences [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-nuclear-energy-all-that-bad/829173.md?page=5)