Fester,

If I list for you 17 ways in which nuclear energy is bad for the environment, and you (erroneously) find fault with two of them, it is dishonest to then pretend that I haven't answered your question. Let alone act as if not answering your questions was a habit of mine.

Yes, nuclear power plants release small amounts of radiation during normal operations, which can affect nearby communities over time. Cumulative radiation exposure, even at low levels, can increase health risks, particularly cancer and leukaemia, as indicated by studies like the KiKK study in Germany (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2696975/).

Radioactive materials can also contaminate the environment, entering the food chain and potentially causing long-term biological effects (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/environmental-radiation-protection-standards-nuclear-power-operations-40-cfr-part-190). Radiation exposure can lead to genetic and teratogenic effects, impacting fetal development and increasing the risk of congenital abnormalities. Additionally, the presence of a nuclear power plant can cause psychological stress and anxiety among residents.

As for uranium depletion, this is still an environmental concern regardless of how far off it is.

Nevertheless, while waste reprocessing and breeder reactors hold promise, they are expensive and not widely implemented due to technical and safety issues. Economically, extracting uranium from unconventional sources like granite or seawater is costly and often not feasible without significant subsidies, and fluctuating uranium prices can deter investment.

Environmental impacts are significant. Increased mining for lower-grade ores leads to habitat destruction, pollution, and higher energy use. Reprocessing and breeder reactors produce radioactive waste, posing long-term safety challenges. Moreover, developing new technologies takes time, prolonging reliance on traditional mining with its environmental harms.

Given the urgency of climate change, immediate and sustainable solutions are crucial. Investing in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, which are advancing rapidly and becoming more cost-effective, offers a more sustainable path. Improving energy efficiency and reducing consumption can also lower the demand for nuclear power and uranium. Immediate action is essential to tackle current environmental challenges and ensure a stable energy future.

Was there anything else you’d like me to expand on?

Mr Daysh like all other believers in the immaculate holiness of weather dependent intermittents, refuses to accept the real limitations. These limitations conflict with their predetermined, quasi-religious, clean, green, "cheapest form of energy" ideology, which has no foundation.

Chuckles,

I have addressed the weather-dependency and intermittency limitations of renewables here more times than I care to count. So, your claim that my position is quasi-religious and has no foundation and is out of line.

Yes, weather-dependency and intermittency are challenges for solar and wind power, but significant progress is being made with technologies like energy storage systems, smart grids, and diversified energy portfolios to address these issues. Advances in battery storage technology allow excess energy generated during peak production times to be stored and used when production is low, smoothing out supply fluctuations (http://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/full-speed-ahead-modeling-faster-future-lithium-ion-batteries.html). Smart grids, using advanced digital technology, manage and distribute energy more efficiently, balancing supply and demand in real-time (http://www.energy.gov/oe/activities/technology-development/grid-modernization-and-smart-grid).

Studies and market analyses show that the cost of renewable energy has dropped significantly over the past decade. For example, the IRENA reports that the cost of electricity from solar photovoltaics fell by 82% between 2010 and 2019 (http://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019). In many areas, solar and wind power are now among the most cost-effective energy sources. A study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in the U.S., the cost of wind energy has decreased by 70% over the past decade (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421509004133).

My support for renewables is based on empirical evidence and scientific research, not ideology. A balanced energy strategy that includes a mix of renewable sources, energy efficiency measures, and technological innovations is essential. This approach addresses the limitations of any single energy source and enhances energy security and resilience. For example, integrating geothermal energy, which provides a stable and continuous energy supply, can complement the intermittent nature of solar and wind (http://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-basics). Further to this, hydropower, which can be adjusted to meet demand, further strengthens the reliability of a renewable energy grid (http://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/hydroelectric-power-how-it-works).

On another note, if you're Charles Hemmings, then that would make you the second author on this forum who felt compelled to join the Comments section in order to hurl mud when their claims were challenged. What kind of place is this? Apparently I have found my way into an echo chamber of sorts and it's rubbing some the wrong way.

Yes you have addressed the issue of intermittency by saying dismissively that it will be solved, unbounded optimism, close, possibly to fantasyland. So you haven't really accepted it as a very major limitation. You have just made light of it. Saying you seem led by ideology rather than technology and economics is hardly slinging mud. You are just annoyed that your point of view is questioned.
The same unbounded optimism applies to battery storage. No problem, we will solve it eventually you believe. We can only employ current technology in the here and now. Looking at the issues with rose coloured glasses is not helpful.
El fin.

Chuckles,

No, I have not said that the issue of intermittency will be resolved; let alone “dismissively”.

What I have done is given real-world examples of how the issue of intermittency has greatly improved, and why we can expect it to continue to improve. But perhaps you can tell me why all technological advancement in this particular area will suddenly stop for good, despite the investment in it and the need for it? No?

I agree that it would not be mud-slinging if you were to say that I “seem led by ideology rather than technology and economics is hardly slinging mud,” but that’s not quite what you said. What you had actually said left a lot more room for insinuation.

I can assure you that I never get annoyed with someone questioning my point of view. In fact, earlier in this very discussion thread I invited it.

As for your take on my comments regarding advancements in battery storage, my second paragraph above also applies. No rose-coloured classes required; just a basic understanding of needs, technology, and a bit of economics.

Dear John

The intermittency is the critical weakness of 'renewables', it is not a trivial matter that can be dealt with in the future. I have seen nothing that suggests we have ameliorated this enormous limitation in any cost-effective way. Intermittency means redundancy or reduced capacity utilisation factor (costs), battery storage (costs) and the costs of incorporating said 'renewables' into an electricity utility. Also reduced reliability of electricity 24/7. In other words, perhaps unafforable in the here and now.

Just saying these problems will be resolved in the future is just pie in the sky. We have to deal with the present.

And yes, what I said about Ideology can be interpreted in a few ways I suppose. Ideology tends to make you ignore real facts, though, in general.

I am pleased that you do read what others write, as I do. When you use the writings of others to support your position, you have to consider what their vested interests are, though.

Believing what anyone who works in a gov. dependent organization says is dodgy. The best diplomat I have seen in all this is Westerman of AEMO. He and his people know the reality, in detail, better than you or me, perhaps. He is a consumate diplomat. AEMO do a wonderful job to keep the lights on, but, for those of us who have background, the picture needs more than that to convince us that we are on the right track.

Maybe I am naive, but I find world experience more convincing than the ravings of any academic or other creature with a vested interest