You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Nuclear energy, fuel for the future or better left in the past?

in #science • 7 years ago

It pains me to disagree with someone for whom I have such respect. And certainly you know a lot more about the technical side of this subject than I do. However, I am troubled by some aspects of your post and would like to call them to your attention:

  1. Throughout you compare the dangers and environment impact of nuclear to fossil fuels. This is the wrong paradigm. We have to look to the future, not the past. We have to look to what we might be and not what we have been. If you think of all the resources, financial and intellectual, that have gone into the development of nuclear (and I mean, go back to pioneers in atomic science, to the Manhattan Project, etc.) we have done nothing, by comparison, for the development of renewables (truly green, not radioactive). Imagine if there was a Manhattan Project for the development of storage batteries? And not only for energy storage, but energy collection.

  2. You minimize the risk of nuclear and attribute it to out-dated technology. But no matter how "safe" we make this technology, the fact remains there will always be some waste, some byproduct of this energy that must be stored (nobody wants it) and secured. It will always be a target for bad actors and accidents--no matter how far in the future. Wouldn't it be smart to dedicate ourselves to a form of energy that does not have this legacy cost?

  3. There are environmental costs to the production of nuclear--impacts on aquatic life. Plants are located near bodies of water for cooling purposes--as outlined in the link, life associated with that water source is negatively, or can be negatively impacted.

  4. The process of mining uranium has serious environmental consequences. These consequences on the front end of nuclear energy must be considered in its "cost" and danger.

This is not an exhaustive consideration of the downside of nuclear energy. Just a few points off the top of my head. There is much more to be said, but after all, this is a comment, not a blog :)

Hope you don't mind my contrary view. Offered always with respect.

7 years ago in #science by
$0.00
    1 vote
    Reply 4
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     7 years ago 

    No on the contrary! I like the fact that you critique my writing and start a discussion. And with all due respect, I can only share my point of view on your remarks 😉

    1. The resources put into the development of the technology definitely shaped how we use the technology now, but such projects, in my opinion, can only occur in specific political climates. To me it feels a bit like saying, Imagine if we all could just put more effort or investments in eating less meat and being conscience about our consumption? A great future it would be indeed! But I'm afraid an ideal climate for such projects won't be for the near future, as long as no nation would yield great power from developing the cheapest and most efficient solar panel/battery. Or am I missing your point on this one?
    2. It might be that, to exaggerate my point, I minimized the risk of nuclear waste and indeed, the newest most efficient nuclear power plant would still produce it. But why don't we think about the carbon emissions in the same way? An unavoidable waste with direct negative effects, passed down to all future generations, a waste that cannot even be stored (so far). Wouldn't it be smart to dedicate ourselves to a form of energy that at least allows us to store its waste safely kilometers under ground? of course it will be expensive and nobody wants it, but at least we are conscience about the fact that it exists.
    3. No doubt about that, but I can imagine the same environmental costs about oil spills or drilling sites. I have no numbers on these effects, neither for nuclear, nor for fossil fuels, so I can't make a statement which one would be "better".
    4. Same as 3 actually.

    Indeed Nuclear power is not a green energy source and it has its downsides, Al I want to do is get rid of it's bad image, just because it has consequences that are easy to visualize (the disasters so to speak) while other industries, such as fossil fuels easily have an even more dramatic impact and still get away with it.
    Thanks for leaving your feedback! It's nice to hear from you.

    [-]
     7 years ago 

    Thank you for taking the time to reply and going through each of my points. The sad part is, so much of what you say is true. And we are in an immediate crisis--very little time left to address the effects of fossil fuels. But if we "dedicate" ourselves to uranium, if there's an easy out, where will the motive come from to invest in a better future?

    Actually, meatless Mondays are becoming quite popular:)

    I think the education you offer on the danger of fossil fuels is a service to the planet, but I can't endorse dedicating resources to a nuclear future. Just can't do it...

    [-]
     7 years ago 

    The motivation for green energy sources will always be there, because as you also mentioned, nuclear energy is not ideal. I am still a strong supporter of actual green energy sources and changes in habits to reduce energy demand. But if I had to choose between replacing fossil fuels with green energy over time, or changing nuclear energy with green energy over time, that's what I'll choose.

    It feels indeed like choosing between pest and cholera. I think it all boils down to the question: Do we want a lot of slightly bad carbon waste that we cannot contain, or do we want a fraction of that waste (less then one millionth to be precise) but which is highly dangerous and lasts 100 times longer. And perhaps this will always be a personal choice.

    [-]
     7 years ago 

    It feels indeed like choosing between pest and cholera

    You captured it...and you've made me think long and hard...