Macromegas #50 - The Future is Nuclear
The future of mankind is neither wind nor solar - it is nuclear
The future of mankind is neither wind nor solar - it is nuclear.
I do not know anyone with a serious scientific background who disagrees with this statement.
Not one.
Nuclear is by far the safest energy out there:
But… Chernobyl! Fukushima!
Chernobyl was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel in falling-USSR Ukraine.
And it still only lead to a few thousands deaths:
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that, apart from some 5000 thyroid cancers (resulting in 15 fatalities), "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."
Focusing on Chernobyl is neither relevant nor intellectually honest.
For example, why is no one aware of the 1963 Vajont dam disaster in Italy?
Government incompetence and irresponsibility lead to the death of 1,900-2,500 people.
The impact of the artificial tsunami left a crater 80m wide and 60m deep.
“Responsible” officials attributed the catastrophe only to “natural causes and God's will”!
Or the 1959 Malpasset dam disaster in France, which drowned 453 people?
Don’t get me wrong: hydropower is amazing. It is the only renewable energy that is truly safe in the long-run, and does not require too much fossil fuel to mitigate output volatility.
Why do people base their fear of nuclear energy over Fukushima and its 1 radiation-exposure death?
Because most people are biased towards the sensational…
… and the media is only reinforcing this bias:
If people were rational, they would obsess over the fact that an estimated 21.5% of all deaths globally are caused by air pollution.
21.5% of all human deaths. You read that right.
And that’s not even counting indirect deaths caused by climate change: 3 Overlooked Consequences of Climate Change that will happen in Our Lifetime.
Source: Vohra et al., Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion
Further deep-dives:
Nuclear power may have already saved 2 million lives otherwise lost to fossil fuels.
It may save up to 7 million more.
Meanwhile, “renewables” are an ecological nonsense:
1. They require insane amounts of limited (& often green-gas-emitting) raw materials:
2. No one knows how the lead and cadmium used in solar panels will be recycled come their end-of-life:
Whose waters will be polluted by those toxic heavy metals?
They can’t easily be isolated like ultra-compact nuclear waste.
And unlike nuclear waste, they never stop being toxic.
3. Nuclear is energy-dense - wind and solar are enery-diffuse.
This is not somethign technology can solve: it is a physical limitation.
Wind and solar destroy thousands of hectars of wildlife-inhabited soil (solar) or seafloor (offshore wind) while nuclear plants require an infinitesimal fraction of the ecological footprint.
4 . People and industries need consistant, reliable energy:
Wind and solar output are volatile and need to be combined with… gas turbines!
This is why oil & gas companies lobby for renewables:
as a full, perfect replacement, nuclear is a true threat to them…
… while wind and solar ensures they keep selling for at least a few more decades
5. They are not a path to geopolitical independence:
100% renewables is not achievable (see point 4 above)
This means that countries who go for renewables will always remain dependent on gas imports… the past few weeks should have been a memorable lesson
100% nuclear is perfectly realistic, and it means 100% gas-independence
If you are still not convinced, you may be persuaded by previous renewable-advocates who realised renewables could never be the solution:
Beyond the obvious benefit of keeping our planet habitable, this should be part of every reasonable long-term investment thesis.
Economies that invest in the right energy sources will be the great winners of this deglobalising century.
Economies that miss that critical turn will pay the price later… with heavy interests.