While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Well no, it doesn’t, not at the moment. It may be low carbon, but it certainly isn’t clean, as the £120 billion ( and rapidly rising) costs of cleaning up the Sellafield site demonstrates. A cost so large that the “low-cost electricity” argument used to justify it’s build are proven to be false- the electricity wasn’t cheap, it was very expensive, the bill was just deferred until end-of-life.
Though it’s also worth pointing out that Sellafield is Europe’s largest nuclear site and has operated since the 40’s and suffered the disaster in 1957 when reactor design, nuclear safety and safe handling were in their infancy, and the world was just starting to explore harnessing nuclear power generation.
And also to be more relevant to the subject of the article; this is one of the reasons why fusion should be being researched, much lower chance of problems arising from waste/risk of meltdown etc.
Fusion isn’t fission, it could provide relatively cheap and clean nuclear power.
I find it hard to imagine a future where fusion power would be cheap. The reactors will most likely be highly complex, with very expensive materials and lots of custom parts. Fission reactors are much simpler and even they have become too expensive to run without subsidies. ITER is supposed to cost 22 billion, but the US DOE estimates it will be closer to 65 billion. And ITER is a tiny test reactor that will still draw energy from the grid while running. If we ever get a fusion reactor that can actually produce energy, it’s going to be so much bigger and more complex than ITER. And it will have a maximum output and operating life, so a finite amount of energy it can produce during its lifetime. Divide the cost for R&D and construction by the amount of energy produced, and it will most likely come out as much more than solar/wind + storarge.
Right now, nuclear power plants use fission, which creates energy by splitting atoms — the science at the center of the blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” While nuclear power produces bountiful clean energy,
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And right now, neither does fusion.
Clean and expensive are different things. Sure, it produces waste that has been expensive to contain (though it shouldn’t be), but it is contained. Meanwhile most other alternatives produce waste that is not contained and they don’t pay for that. Nuclear fission is still clean, regardless of if it’s the cheapest option.
Well no, it doesn’t, not at the moment. It may be low carbon, but it certainly isn’t clean, as the £120 billion ( and rapidly rising) costs of cleaning up the Sellafield site demonstrates. A cost so large that the “low-cost electricity” argument used to justify it’s build are proven to be false- the electricity wasn’t cheap, it was very expensive, the bill was just deferred until end-of-life.
Though it’s also worth pointing out that Sellafield is Europe’s largest nuclear site and has operated since the 40’s and suffered the disaster in 1957 when reactor design, nuclear safety and safe handling were in their infancy, and the world was just starting to explore harnessing nuclear power generation.
And also to be more relevant to the subject of the article; this is one of the reasons why fusion should be being researched, much lower chance of problems arising from waste/risk of meltdown etc.
Fusion isn’t fission, it could provide relatively cheap and clean nuclear power.
I find it hard to imagine a future where fusion power would be cheap. The reactors will most likely be highly complex, with very expensive materials and lots of custom parts. Fission reactors are much simpler and even they have become too expensive to run without subsidies. ITER is supposed to cost 22 billion, but the US DOE estimates it will be closer to 65 billion. And ITER is a tiny test reactor that will still draw energy from the grid while running. If we ever get a fusion reactor that can actually produce energy, it’s going to be so much bigger and more complex than ITER. And it will have a maximum output and operating life, so a finite amount of energy it can produce during its lifetime. Divide the cost for R&D and construction by the amount of energy produced, and it will most likely come out as much more than solar/wind + storarge.
Read the article. It claims that right now, nuclear fission produces bountiful clean energy, which it clearly doesn’t. And right now, neither does fusion.
Clean and expensive are different things. Sure, it produces waste that has been expensive to contain (though it shouldn’t be), but it is contained. Meanwhile most other alternatives produce waste that is not contained and they don’t pay for that. Nuclear fission is still clean, regardless of if it’s the cheapest option.