7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change | One Earth
www.oneearth.org
Nuclear doesn’t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with nuclear energy and why it is not a solution to the climate crisis.

Nuclear doesn’t just have one problem. It has seven. Here are the seven major problems with nuclear energy and why it is not a solution to the climate crisis.

  • solo@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
    43·
    2 days ago

    Energy storage is an issue also due to the mining it needs.

    Still, I don’t understand why you think this one problem you mention is more important than the 7 of the article, to the point of saying:

    nuclear is still a better choice today regardless of the problems

    Could you please explain?

    • Mihies@programming.dev
      61·
      2 days ago

      Nuclear for better or worse, is a stable and well known technology. That works. Almost 24/7 and reliably. But renewables aren’t reliable at all, when there is no sun, there is no energy from solar panels, when there is no wind, there is no energy from wind farms etc. Of course, there is also hydro but even that depends on drought seasons and when there is surplus you can’t store it. And options for hydro are geographically dependent and not infinite. Basically, if you want to go full renewable, you need a huge amount of energy storage. Not just huge, but HUUUGE. And we aren’t capable of building these today. Perhaps in the future. You can say there is hydrogen, but it has problems on its own and not feasible today if ever. Bottom line is renewables are not a reliable source of energy without energy storage which isn’t there by far.

      • MrMakabar@slrpnk.netEnglish
        52·
        2 days ago

        You massivly underestimate what hydro can do today. The reservoirs can be used as storage and those are massive. Norways hydro storage is 87TWh. That is about 11 days of electricity consumption of the entire EU in itself. Obviously there are issues with that, but it is a lot of storage.

        Solar and wind are weather dependent. So a large enough grid will have times with lower production, but it is never really nothing. With strong connections that massivly reduces storage needs. For the EU:

        https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&year=2024&interval=day&legendItems=jw3w1

        So overcapacity is another great option. Add a bit of battery storage to balance the grid and high renewable grids are entirly possible. Even with limited hydro.

        That is not to mention geothermal, biomass, hydrogen, adapting electricity consumption and a bunch of other more niche technologies.

      • solo@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
        23·
        2 days ago

        Nuclear is not stable nor reliable. Reliability for me is also related to safety. It is well know that this technology has issues related to problems briefly mentioned in this article in the following sections:

        • Weapons Proliferation Risk
        • Meltdown Risk
        • Waste Risk

        Also, it looks like you did not address any of the problematic aspects of nuclear. Which include the points above and the following:

        • Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
        • Cost
        • Mining Lung Cancer Risk
        • Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution

        Edit: the strikethrough, I thought it was used a synonym of “reliable”. Now that I think of it,I suppose it was in relation to the power grid?

        • Mihies@programming.dev
          4·
          1 day ago

          I thought it was used a synonym of “reliable”. Now that I think of it,I suppose it was in relation to the power grid?

          Yep, it is a constant flow of energy.

          About the problems - yes, there are problems and not minor ones, but OTOH we don’t have an alternative, do we? Also CO2 emissions are exaggerated - mining and other activities could involve more e-vehicles I suppose. What air pollution we are talking about? CO2?