Unfortunately nuclear power plants would lead to higher bills for electricity as it would be up to the people to recoup the cost for building them.
Renewables are better.
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
42 points (80.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6879 readers
438 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Today, 700 million people live in extreme poverty (defined as living on less than $2.15 per day). They won’t climb out of it without access to more energy. Making as much energy as possible available to as many people as possible ought to be a defining goal of the 21st century.
And what energy sources can be safely and cheaply deployed in Burundi, Somalia, Liberia etc? Nuclear or solar?
Tim Gregory is a nuclear chemist at the UK National Nuclear Laboratory
I see.
We certainly cannot afford not to go full renewables, like yesterday.
No, but that won't stop people from acting like idiots and giving in to FUD. Look at how many millions are on Xitter, Facebook, and Reddit.
Whenever people try to sell nuclear power, they simply "forget" to tell us...
- How much co2 is produced by mining and enriching uranium and how much water is used so it can be used for reactors
- How expensive it is to build a plant, and how much building them will go over budget (see UK)
- That nuclear plants are uninsurable
- Because of the above, tax payers are responsible for the costs of clean up and dismantling because that is not factored it
- That nuclear plants have to shut down when it's too hot
- Transport of used nuclear pellets is expensive
- Most countries struggle with final storage of nuclear waste
- That nuclear plants are often more contaminated and more expensive to dismantle than anticipated
I hope thorium reactors become a reality soon, they'll probably fix or lower most of your concerns with current uranium reactors.
People should stop trying to manifest new reactor types. Especially in the face of climate change which really doesn't leave us much time before shit hits fans even harder. Usually, the lead time on new reactor designs is even longer than on other reactor designs and half the promised features don't materialize, and you'll likely learn that the private company building the plant has accidentally forgotten one crucial element on the spec-sheet.
Every nuclear power plant in the United States carries no fault insurance by law. They literally are all insured every single one
The rest of these are all just Big Oil talking points because they don't want competition
Some early Fords around the Model T era had a switch on them to flip between running on ethanol or gas. The idea being that farmers would brew their own fuel as needed. Big Oil didn't like that, and so it went away. Where we are now isn't thanks to science and technology, just pure greed off the backs of everyone.
It's about independence from any monopoly. Energy companies own the field, equipment, transportation, electricity generation, and distribution. I'd like my own generator and storage to lower costs.
Nuclear perpetuates the same system where safety is cut as a cost saving measure. You know they would be less safe if they legally could. Also the infrastructure is in bad shape to move radioactive waste by rail- ask Ohio.
Also you are directly dependent on the country where you get your uranium from. Which for Europe was/is mostly Russia. That also does not seem a good idea.
Akchually, Czechoslovakia used to export uranium to the USSR because it had the greatest, most accessible reserves of the Eastern Bloc.
That may be correct, but recently it looked like this:
The Czech reserves (which are still more than US's) were probably just more readily available or easier to purify.
Anyway, I'd prefer this list because your chart is EU supply only.
Interesting, but you just have to keep in mind the definition of reserve, where profitability is part of the calculation. Also reserve does not tell much about extraction.
East Germany, the GDR, was the 4th largest producer of uranium ore in the world. The uranium was mined in the Soviet run Wismuth (later Soviet-German) facilities on the German side of the Ore Mountains.
Can we afford not to be?
So… to summarize the argument: we have to build nuclear plants, even though they are the most expensive renewable per kWh and they take the longest amount of time to build (even by the author’s “fast” timeline standards) because we don’t have batteries that can store wind and solar energy, even though there are multiple emerging potential solutions that could result in days-long storage capacity.
Not buying it. I don’t buy the “unsafe” argument but I also don’t buy this argument
Edit: this same publication that published this op-ed published a pretty negative review of this book, funny enough: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/jun/02/going-nuclear-by-tim-gregory-review-a-boosterish-case-for-atomic-energy
the most expensive renewable
Ftr, Uranium is not renewable.
I don’t buy the “unsafe” argument
The thing is that the well-known nuclear catastrophes, at a minimum all resulted in fairly large areas right in the middle of civilized land being lost to humanity for the foreseeable future. So, even if overall death rate is only somewhat higher than for e.g. wind energy — wind energy does not lead to such devastating local effects. The other thing is, nuclear needs skilled teams to manage plants at all times, even when they're shut off. As soon as your country goes off its routine because military coup!, nuclear plants become a massive danger. Also, nuclear plants can make for devastating attack targets during a war (obviously the attacker would need to value mayhem and defeat above colonizability).
And finally, nuclear danger is (within human time frames:) eternal because you need to store some materials safely for a very long time; "nuclear semiotics" is an actual thing studied by scientists somehow — yet I've never heard of "oil semiotics" or "solar semiotics".
The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.
Super-briefly, time and money related to: planning, maintenance, decommissioning, and last but not least, nuclear waste.
Imo and due to climate emergency, we'd be better putting the money that would go for nuclear towards renewables. Let's keep in mind that numerous nuclear projects were funded with enormous amounts of money for 10-20 years, to be abandoned before producing any electricity.
Just a few relevant links:
The way I see things, the unsafe part is more related to how capitalism works, more than anything else. Capitalism is not a safe system.
In that regard, the socialist system, at least how it was implemented in Eastern Europe and the USSR, wasn't any better.
For socialism in the context of the so-called communist countries, I agree with you.
For socialism in the context of the nordic model, I am not sure because I am not well informed about how they have handled nuclear power.
Edit: Regardless of the past, it's capitalism that has prevailed globally for now, so currently this is what we have to deal with.
Days long doesn’t work if there’s not enough wind and sun, for example in the winter in the north (here in finland we have exhausted our hydro potential already btw)
“Emerging”- what does that mean? Whats the timeline on them? The failure rate? The cost at the scale needed? I mean if you’re gonna complain about nuclear being more expensive then the batteries need to be cheaper necessarily. Also what materials are they made out of?
I suppose you know don't about the superbattery projects already implemented, e.g. the one in Australia and its huge benefits to their grid?
About sodium based batteries which have become commercially viable in recent years?
And because of the implication also that nuclear reactors produce extreme waste of building materials (e.g. Greifswald, ran for 26 years, dismantling in operation since 35 years and projected to last till 2040 at least, because higher contamination than estimated) and mining for them is at least as bad as for Lithium?
If not ask the search engine/ai of your choice.
And because of the implication also that nuclear reactors produce extreme waste of building materials (e.g. Greifswald, ran for 26 years, dismantling in operation since 35 years and projected to last till 2040 at least
Ah, yes, the good ol' "force plants to close way before the end of their design lifetime due to anti-nuclear hysteria, and then use that truncated amortization as an excuse to dishonestly claim they were too expensive" argument. Works every time!
Maybe you should look the mentioned case up before making your argument.
Greifswald had 6 blocks in 1990: 4 blocks which were in very bad state, cracks in the pressure chamber with a high probability to release nuclear material into the environment. Due to these faults they were already shut down since 1987, except block 1 which was run against the recommendations of the security agency. To continue running them they would have to be rebuilt, completely. This includes dismantling them which as we now know would have taken many decades! Block 5 and 6 were under construction. (Started in 1970, planned for 1980) But mistakes were made during the construction, postponing it till 1990, when finally no energy company at all wanted to take over the risk of running it.
So Greifswald was shut down. Not to spite you, but because both security of the general population and financial aspects didn't allow running it anymore. (It had already two near disasters which where kept hidden and only became known because of the fall of the DDR)
I don't agree with @grue's at all, but I think we can still agree that Greifswald appears to be an outlier in that it was especially badly built and managed. This fuckup of a plant is probably not indicative of every other plant.
On the one hand, yes it is. On the other hand the general average also does not seem good.
There are many reactors which had similar, but not as bad histories. Kozloduy NPP (BG), Zion Nuclear Power Station (US), Ignalina (LI), Shoreham, Bohunice, Superphénix, ... While reactors which have run without noteworthy problems make up not even half of the total, which is far below anything which should be the norm for public infrastructure.
Lets take Germany as example, which fits quite well due to half of the countries having very lax requirements (DDR) and half having strict ones (West-Germany)
- We have 7 Reactors which where built but never operated due to safety concerns (3 in Greifswald)
- We have at least 4 sites (with at least 8 reactor blocks) with major issues, besides Greifswald we have e.g. hydrogen explosions (Brunsbüttel), turbine fires (Gundremmingen A), transformer fires (Krümmel). These are just the ones I found with a quick search.
- We have another 9 reactor blocks with minor issues like Grundmemmingen B (Bavaria), lets pick this one at random and name the minor incidents: 2 Workers killed by boiling steam explosion (1975), short circuit leading to 3m of contaminated water at 80°C in the building (1977), failed sealing leading to automatic shutdown and repair (2008), failed rods emitting 500-fold the allowed amount of radioactive gases into the atmosphere (2011), another 4 incidents which have not yet been made public and really minor issues like value issues.
- We have about 10 with only minor issues. Stretching from Emsland with only 2 known small leaks to Grafenrheinfeld where there were sudden shutdowns and a fire which nearly reached the main reactor but was extinguished in time.
In fact during looking this up I haven't found a single reactor which ran a significant time without any incident, even if I do not count construction issues which were caught and fixed in time before they resulted in incidents.
Tbf, steam explosions, turbine and transformator fires aren't exclusive to NPPs. Just nobody cares if these events happen in any other thermal power plant.
The incidents exclusive to NPPs are those where (potentially) radioactive substances are emitted into the environment.
If so it would supply just New South Wales for only 20 minutes. Hardly seems to be on the verge of solving grid scale storage.
How often do you think it would need to supply a whole state? Australian states are massive.
I'm in NSW, and from memory, I can think of a few power outages that took down a few tens of thousands of homes for a few days. Most are much smaller. That's in a state with a couple of million homes. So at most a few percent of the state. So even in a worst case scenario maybe you still get a day at full power. If you ration it out to essential services, then a lot longer.
This is all ignoring the fact that most outages are grid related, not generation related, which means that nuclear would be of no help, but a somewhat distributed battery backup system could be massively useful.
Now to the word "emerging"
This was built entirely in 16 months, from groundbreaking to connection to the grid. For the cost of a single nuclear reactor you can build 30 of these. And opposed to nuclear technology batteries are still making remarkable progress in their affordability.
Edit: Btw the battery also uses below 0,5% of the area of a usual nuclear plant.
Never understood the freakout over nuclear ..... when you measure up the long term statistics
Gas/Oil/Coal have killed more people over the past 100 years than nuclear ever did (even if you threw in the bombing deaths in Japan in WWII)
The deaths caused by gas/oil/coal are just not as dramatic ... all those people died from global pollution, poisoning, early death, shortened lives, lung problems, bad health ... and all by the millions
I think all of us here agree that fossil energy sucks. Please instead compare against wind/solar/batteries, not fossil energy.
The problem is that the world needs a giant energy source as we transition in between .... before we get to the point of using fully or primarily wind/solar/batteries, the world has to use several decades or a century or more of some big source of energy and most governments and industries are just banking on forcing everyone to stay on fossil fuels
It makes no sense at all to use this argument to reason in favor of building out energy generation that needs a decade+ to come online and which only ever works with massive corporate and state support.
Solar starts to work at the scale where a random dude in Pakistan screws a couple of panels on their roof without any permits. Nuclear starts to work at the scale where either a corporate behemoth (like GE or Siemens or Hitachi) or a multi-billionaire-financed startup sells a concept to a state-subsidized utility and then they collectively go through years of permits and construction.
Even if solar were a little more expensive per kWh at scale (which is mostly a matter of tuning the calculations the way you prefer), it's just so! much! easier! to roll out.
And no, we don't need an ever-increasing supply of power. What we actually need is for people to have a standard of life that they're happy with. Which has some relation to use of energy but unlike what the article suggests, that correlation is nowhere near linear. People in the US don't have proper healthcare, they live in sad places cut apart by vast car infrastructure, their cities are still suffering from the aftermath of redlining, etc. — their energy consumption is higher than in many parts of the EU, yet their standard of living is, on average, a lot lower.
The general populace isn’t looking at statistics, they’re looking at scary news stories
And the article image of a screaming person.
The public is never good at stats, or complex ideas that cannot be converted into a good old fashioned sound bite.
Maths hardly ever change major policy by themselves. Often it’s only an accident of political necessity when policy is backed by statistics or science
The general public is one thing, but that doesn't excuse the positions of activist organizations like Greenpeace that should've been better-informed.
Often, but not as a rule, progressive organizations age badly