Elon Musk urges decommissioned nuclear plants to reopen and vows to repeat his Fukushima stunt

[Redaktion]

Not only would the world have to pump more fossil fuels out of the ground in the short run to offset the impact of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, claims Elon Musk, but it would also have to get more nuclear energy, too. Tesla's CEO advises that Europe needs to reopen its decommissioned nuclear power plants.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Elon-Musk-urges-decommissioned-nuclear-plants-to-reopen-and-vows-to-repeat-his-Fukushima-stunt.606911.0.html

[vertigo]

Most people who are anti-nuclear don't actually know much about it IME. Yes, it has risks, but they are mostly overblown and misunderstood, whereas nuclear has the ability to replace much of the other energy sources which have a guaranteed negative effect.

[Erik]

Most people who are anti-nuclear don't actually know much about it IME. Yes, it has risks, but they are mostly overblown and misunderstood, whereas nuclear has the ability to replace much of the other energy sources which have a guaranteed negative effect.

The whole issue with nuclear is the long term storage and the actual operation costs when you facture everything from the building of the nuclear plant to the structure that will have to store its waste for thousands of years.

[OmegaWave]

Modern MSR's will not only eliminate long term waste production but it will use the currently stored waste as fuel, rendering your concern a 100% non-issue.
This is besides the point that even old nuclear tech is safer than any other energy source bar wind. But without large scale storage wind is not remotely as green as nuclear because it needs conventional source backup.

[CyborgAlienBariaur]

@elon come to Oak Ridge, TN and eat some 6 legged duck, 3 headed fish, or 2 headed deer... You'll be glowing just like the city before you leave! Green glow in the clouds...

[t4n0n]

Most people who are anti-nuclear don't actually know much about it IME. Yes, it has risks, but they are mostly overblown and misunderstood, whereas nuclear has the ability to replace much of the other energy sources which have a guaranteed negative effect.

The whole issue with nuclear is the long term storage and the actual operation costs when you facture everything from the building of the nuclear plant to the structure that will have to store its waste for thousands of years.

Costs - yes, can't disagree with that, although the advent of new designs and modern technology (most existing plants were built decades ago) should see the strike price fall.

However, storage is the biggest non-issue of them all. People simply don't realise just how big the Earth is, especially when you can utilise three dimensions (i.e underground storage).

Norway for example, has completely solved their nuclear waste storage with their Onkalo nuclear waste repository.

[_MT_]

The whole issue with nuclear is the long term storage and the actual operation costs when you facture everything from the building of the nuclear plant to the structure that will have to store its waste for thousands of years.

While nuclear power stations aren't cheap, the electricity they produce is dirt cheap compared to the electricity from gas power stations at current prices in the EU. And in general, their problem is the capital cost, not the running cost. One advantage of nuclear power is that the cost of generating electricity is highly stable and predictable once the station is operational. And when it comes to green house gases, even after including all the concrete and everything, it's superb and only solar can compete with wind a fairly close third (assuming "green" electricity is used in the manufacture of the solar panels). Hydro is surprisingly bad. Gas might be relatively good compared to coal but it's not even playing the same sport as these three.

Nuclear is just unpopular among many people and has been for decades. Which is a problem because the uncertain future has been making financing very expensive and research also isn't where it should be (why research something that won't be used). The cost of financing is very important, it makes a big chunk of the cost and the chunk can get huge. You end up paying for expensive nuclear energy because banks see it as risky business (a government could decide to shut you down at any time, etc.). Because of the high capital expenditure, nuclear power stations are very sensitive to interest rates and therefore any delays in construction. Solar doesn't have this problem. Essentially, to build a nuclear power station is a strategic decision. They are not influenced by gas/ coal/ oil prices or weather. And that's worth paying for. They are also "energy dense," taking up fairly little space given the output. The fuel is energy dense, you can have a large stock of energy.

[vertigo]

Others have already covered the arguments against cost and waste storage pretty well, but I'll just add a couple points:

As far as cost, when dealing with energy, there's not only the financial cost of building and running a plant, but the environmental cost and the financial cost of dealing with that. While nuclear plants are more expensive to build monetarily, they don't contribute to global warming, which means less negative effects from that, which is both a lower cost environmentally and financially since the estimated monetary cost of global warming is massive.

As for waste, as has been pointed out, not only can it simply be stored in underground pools which, even with large amounts of waste fuel, is nothing compared to the pollution from other energy production methods (even the supposed wonderful EVs have massive batteries that are potentially very toxic, have to be disposed of properly, and result in massive water waste and possible environmental damage when they catch fire), but breeder reactors can use the waste and reduce it to a very tiny fraction.

If we'd gotten on board with nuclear power half a century ago, the world would likely be a very different, much better place. Energy would be cheaper, there would almost certainly be less conflict as a result, the environment would be cleaner/healthier, EVs (and battery technology) would likely be several years or more farther along, and so on. But people resist it due to ignorance and NIMBYism, so here we are. Even now, with all the talk and concern about global warming, after multiple wars in the Middle East, with everything going on with Russia, we're still moving *away* from it. People get all worked up about Fukushima and the radiation contamination of the ocean, when realistically it was very minimal, whereas far more contamination has happened from oil tankers, not to mention all the tons of exhaust particulate that land in the ocean and enter the rivers, lakes, and roadsides, etc from ships and vehicles burning petroleum. People tend to be very short-sighted and focus on the big events while ignoring the constant, ongoing, small-scale stuff that adds up to much more.