None of those questions are new, nor show stoppers for existing plants. Why do you think the existing procedures may not be satisfactory? (I'm assuming you think so based on the way you ask the question)
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not asking this as a backhanded question. I'm genuinely curious why this is not seen as a "solved problem", at least in a country with relatively strong government institutions
Well, the way previous generations fizzled suggests these problems aren’t that solved after all.
Just 1 long term waste storage has ever been built in the world, plant productivity has always been relatively low (initial manufacturing delays, refueling, minor accidents, refurbishments), many anti-proliferation techniques just over-produce rad-waste.
Oh, and if we were to buildout nuclear globally how long would the ore reserves last?
It fizzled due to FUD. Existing plants work and are defensible. The waste can be stored safely.
In emerging economies new designs can be used, but they'll probably have to be trialed in a developed economy. You could also pursue economic policy that has developing economies fund the research instead of letting them expect handouts.
You're saying there were no actual, serious problems with nuclear plants?
> Existing plants work and are defensible.
That's survivorship bias to a degree: Te plants that work and are defensible are the plants you see. It's also a bias of sunk costs: The surviving plants could have been way over-budget and late, but it's still worth operating them.
> You're saying there were no actual, serious problems with nuclear plants?
Compared to other forms of energy generation, measured in illnesses, injuries, maimings, and deaths, past and plausibly attributed to the future, per KWH? Not really, no.
I tire of the 'say something bold and prove me wrong' rhetoric, when people know exactly what's wrong with what they are saying. It doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding, and wastes my time. Hope the rest of your day goes well.
The realization that industrial processes are dangerous, that power generation is an industrial process, and therefore dangerous, and that the only meaningful way to measure the danger of an industrial process is by comparing it to that of another industrial process should contribute to the understanding of some.
Is nuclear power generation dangerous? Yes. Is all power generation dangerous? Yes. How dangerous is nuclear power generation compared to alternatives? Not very.
It's pretty accurate to say that nuclear fizzled due to FUD. The conversation ended after the answer to the first question was 'yes'.
I’d appreciate if you could clarify what’s wrong. Even if both you and your interlocutor understand it, the point has unfortunately gone over my head (and possibly the same for others reading).
Not OP, but one problem that they mentioned which is "wrong" from an economic point of view is that afaik, there is no way to calculate the total cost of ownership of a nuclear plant.
This is due to that fact that there are no viable plans for long term nuclear storage to calculate the cost of.
You're partaking in the "say something bold and prove me wrong" rhetoric, you just like the assumption that nuclear is unsafe more. When acting with imperfect information you should not go to such methods.
Ah that’s breeders, it’s a different game. They’re technically more challenging (the French spent billions on their plants which didn't quite deliver) and have a significant nuclear weapons proliferation risk.
Somewhere I read (sorry for the lack of sources) that with single-pass fuel use, known reserves would only last a couple decades, a century at best.
A global buildout of breeders is the issue. The rich countries telling the poor countries they can’t have nice things because of “our” security concerns. Big talking point in the 1960s. Tom Lehrer even wrote a cute song about nuclear proliferation in 1964, “Who’s Next?”.
If you get any expansive policy and process wrong, the negative global consequences are dramatic and long-lasting. So, first, do no harm.
EDIT: to be clear, I'm not asking this as a backhanded question. I'm genuinely curious why this is not seen as a "solved problem", at least in a country with relatively strong government institutions