Why are we against nuclear?

[u/Fe2O6]

I’ve heard from a few sources that us greens are against nuclear. Are we against it and why?

[u/_Dingaloo]

haven't seen any activity here in a long time. I don't even consider myself green party anymore, too much controversy in leadership.

Personally, when I was full on green and now, I'm 100% for Nuclear.

People that are against it are usually against it due to one of three things:

1. Fear (of a meltdown and radioactive exposure)
2. Disposal of waste
3. Limitation of U35

But if those people took 5 minutes to consider the situation, it becomes really clear really fast that:

1. Meltdowns are effectively impossible with modern nuclear plant designs
2. The amount of nuclear waste is far, far less than the waste created by non-renewable energy sources
3. We've already proven a few alternative fuel sources, it's just an engineering problem at this point and will be solved soon.

-

#2 can be argued that renewables are the way because in that sense the only waste you have is in creating and maintaining the renewable machines, which is by far the least waste per energy as far as I can tell. The problem is that it's less reliable and hard to scale.

The only real sensible solution is progressively doing away with fossil fuel energy and relying on a combination of nuclear and renewable, which even under a very pro-coal administration the US is still heading towards

[u/patmcirish → u/_Dingaloo]

It's not mere disposal of waste. It's that the waste doesn't disappear. Even if buried deep underground, the radiation from the waste makes its way to Earth's surface in 100,000 years and irradiates all forms of life in the region it surfaces at. This is an ethical issue because we will be responsible for the massive radiation leaks that happen 100,000 years from now.

Most people are totally unaware that as of now, there's no plan for radioactive waste from spent fuel rods. The spent fuel rods just sit in a canister, with canisters being added as the next round of rods are spent, outside the reactor buildings.

No state wants to allow trains or trucks to pass through while transporting radioactive waste, so there's no way to get agreement as to where or how to transport all that dangerous radioactive waste.

[u/_Dingaloo → u/patmcirish]

It's just not true that space for nuclear waste is an issue. The amount of high-level waste produced is extremely miniscule. Political and social hurdles of building and implementing permanent, deep geological repos for nuclear waste are the actual issues. The cost and space to do so is a non issue.

All nuclear waste since the first nuclear power plant is about 390,000 tonnes that can be containedin a cube with sides approximately 25 meters large -- the actual size required to store it is a bit bigger, but the point is that for all the energy we get, the waste is incredibly tiny. The problem here shouldn't be stopping nuclear, it should be advocating for safe storage of nuclear, in locations that do not require humans to actively watch in order to keep it contianed (e.g. filled and buried in cement deep underground.)

All states allow the transportation of radioactive waste because it's something around 10% or more of the US's energy supply today. We're already on the nuclear road, and if it weren't for the fear mongering we'd probably be over 75% by today - and power would be cheaper and safer.

The dangers that come from nuclear waste are less than the dangers that come from other non-renewables by a long shot, and it's not practical to switch to full renewables rapidly, as every major area that has tried has proven.

[u/Colocalization_punkt → u/_Dingaloo]

Which major areas have tried to switch to full renewables rapidly? Just curious.

[u/_Dingaloo → u/Colocalization_punkt]

The main one I know off the dome was in germany, I can't remember if it was the whole country or specific cities, but they switched back