I'm midway through @Dr_Keefer's debate with Dr. Gordon Edwards, and this is a fascinating look into the intricacies of the anti-nuclear energy austerity mindset.
First, of course, he talks about cost and waste. The cost of nuclear isn't bad when you consider how much sufficient storage for 100% VRE would cost, and we safely store waste on site with potential for reprocessing or deep geological storage in future.
He talks about the proliferation risks. But how many countries currently operate reactors and don't have nuclear weapons? Quite a few. Including Canada, most of Europe, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Argentina, etc.
He also talks about electrifying everything without needing more power thanks to efficiency. Solar heating in Quebec, stuff like that. But anywhere with gas heat (lots of North America and Europe), switching over to electric, even with heat pumps, uses a shitload of power.
There's only so much power that efficiency can save. Canadian (& US) society is a tad wasteful, sure, but is it wasteful to have AC so you don't die of heat stroke? Is it wasteful to have a heater so you don't freeze or have to huddle up with blankets 24/7? Energy improves lives.
He was talking about the risks of "unlimited excesses." Yes, uranium and fossil fuels are finite. But we've got a lot of it, and it's worth continuing to use them in order to improve quality of life.
Also, he mentions nuclear as a transition to renewables. I think this is false. Renewables are cheap and fast to build, but can't replace traditional gen. Nuclear is slow and expensive, but it's a perfect replacement for coal and gas. We should be doing renewables -> nuclear.
Oh my God he's against reactor-produced medical isotopes. You know, the things that save millions of lives through sterilizing tools and radiation therapy and things.
Something tells me I shouldn't take this antinuclear dude seriously...
He talks about natural isotopes being used "decades after the last reactor is shut down." How insanely presumptuous of him to assume that nuclear power will ever go away. At the very least, good luck powering your long range attack submarine or aircraft carrier with wind&solar
"The energy crisis started because we started using energy" is definitely a take.
Dr. Keefer and Dr. Gordon's discussion is pretty good, but God the questions asked by some of these audience members just make me sigh.
Yes, it takes resources to build nuclear. It takes a lot more resources to build enough solar, wind, and batteries to provide the same power.
Yeah, it seems they just had a bunch of antinuclear activists line up for audience questions.
Y'all hate nuclear waste, but you don't want a proposed long term burial solution? What's up with that?
One of the audience members asked "If renewables can't supply the energy we need, why don't we just use less energy?"
If I use less energy, I freeze. I can't take hot showers. I can't drive to work.
You can't austerity your way to clean energy without hurting people.
Dr. Edwards' antinuclearism seems to be mostly down to conflating nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. Which is a completely false outlook. We can take advantage of clean nuclear power without having nuclear weapons. The dudes lives in Canada. Does Canada have nukes? Nope.
Okay, that was interesting. I think Dr. Keefer did a much better job than Dr. Edwards, but I am biased. Edwards uses mostly debunked ideas, with a good dash of fear sprinkled in. Keefer says it how it is.
Also, the focus on reducing consumption to be able to go without nuclear is bad. Energy keeps society going. It keeps our houses warm, it keeps our food cold, & allows us a better quality of life than was possible for much of human history. Energy is good, clean energy is better.
Nuclear power will never go away. There are places wind and solar don't work and will never work, but still need energy. At the very minimum, these places will use nuclear, and I hope we end up with it much more widespread in the future.
So yeah, go listen to Decouple. If I haven't sold you on it already. Such a good podcast.