“Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, and too sluggishly deploy­able to play a significant role in mitigating the climate crisis.” – Scientific study. (German paper, English summary in the comments)

37 comments

  1. >In light of the accelerating climate crisis, nuclear energy and its place in the future energy mix is being debated once again. Currently its share of global electricity ge­n­eration is about 10 percent. Some countries, international organizations, private businesses and scientists accord nuclear energy some kind of role in the pursuit of climate neutrality and in ending the era of fossil fuels. The IPCC, too, includes nuclear energy in its scenarios. On the other hand, the experience with commercial nuclear energy generation acquired over the past seven decades points to the significant technical, economic, and social risks involved. This paper reviews arguments in the areas of “technology and risks,” “economic viability,” ’timely availability,” and “com­patibility with social-ecological transformation processes.”

    >__Technology and risks__: Catastro­phes involving the release of radioactive material are always a real possibility, as il­lustrated by the major accidents in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Also, since 1945, countless accidents have occurred wherever nuclear energy has been deployed. No significantly higher reliability is to be expected from the SMRs (“small modular reactors”) that are currently at the plan­ning stage. Even modern ma­thematical techniques, such as probabilistic security analyses (PSAs), do not adequa­tely reflect important factors, such as deficient secu­rity arrangements or rare natural disasters and thereby systematically underestimate the risks. Moreover, there is the ever-present proliferation risk of weapon-grade, highly enriched uranium, and plutonium. Most spent fuel rods are stored in scarcely protected surface containers or other interim solutions, often outside proper con­tainment structures. The safe storage of highly radioactive material, owing to a half-live of individual isotopes of over a million years, must be guaranteed for eons. Even if the risks involved for future generations cannot be authoritatively determined to­day, heavy burdens are undoubtedly externalized to the future.

    >__Nuclear energy and economic efficiency__: The commercial use of nuclear energy was, in the 1950s, the by-product of military programmes. Not then, and not since, has nuclear energy been a competitive energy source. Even the continued use of existing plants is not economical, while investments into third generation reactors are pro­jected to require subsidies to the tune of billions of $ or €. The experience with the development of SMR con­cepts suggests that these are prone to lead to even higher electricity costs. Lastly, there are the considerable, currently largely unknown costs involved in dismant­ling nuclear power plants and in the safe storage of radioactive waste. Detailed ana­lyses confirm that meeting ambitious climate goals (i. e. global heating of between 1.5° and below 2° Celsius) is well possible with renewables which, if system costs are consi­dered, are also considerably cheaper than nuclear energy. Given, too, that nuclear power plants are not commercially insurable, the risks inherent in their operation must be borne by society at large. The currently hyped SMRs and the so-called Generation IV concepts (not light-water cooled) are techno­logically immature and far from commercially viable.

    >__Timely availability__: Given the stagnating or – with the exception of China – slowing pace of nuclear power plant construction, and considering furthermore the limited innovation potential as well as the timeframe of two decades for planning and con­struction, nuclear power is not a viable tool to mitigate global heating. Since 1976, the number of nuclear power plants construction starts is declining. Currently, only 52 nuclear power plants are being built. Very few countries are pursuing respective plans. Traditional nuclear producers, such as Westinghouse (USA) and Framatome (France) are in dire straits financially and are not able to launch a significant num­ber of new construction projects in the coming decade. It can be doubted whether Russia or China have the capacity to meet a hypothetically surging demand for nuclear en­ergy but, in any event, relying on them would be neither safe nor geopolitically de­sirable.

    >__Nuclear energy in the social-ecological transformation__: The ultimate challenge of the great transformation, i. e. kicking off the socio-ecological reforms that will lead to a broadly supported, viable, climate-neutral energy system, lies in overcoming the drag (“lock-in”) of the old system that is dominated by fossil fuel interests. Yet, make no mistake, nuclear energy is of no use to support this process. In fact, it blocks it. The massive R&D investment required for a dead-end technology crowds out the devel­opment of sustainable technologies, such as those in the areas of renewables, energy storage and efficiency. Nuclear energy producers, given the competitive en­viron­ment they operate in, are incentivized to prevent – or minimize – investments in renewables. For obvious technical as well as economic reasons, nuclear hydrogen
    – the often-proclaimed deus ex machina – cannot enhance the viability of nuclear power plants. Japan is an exhibit A of transformation resistance. In Germany the end of the atomic era proceeds, and the last six nuclear power stations will be switched off in 2021 and 2022, but further steps are still needed, most importantly the search for a safe storage facility for radioactive waste.

    >__By way of conclusion__: The present analysis reviews a whole range of arguments based on the most recent and authoritative scientific literature. It confirms the assessment of the paper Climate-friendly energy supply for Germany – 16 points of orien­tation, pub­li­shed on 22 April 2021 by Scientists for Future (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4409334) that nuclear energy can­not, in the short time re­maining before the climate tips, meaningfully contribute to a climate-neutral energy system. Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, and too sluggishly deploy­able to play a significant role in mitigating the climate crisis. In addition, nuclear en­ergy is an obstacle to achieving the social-ecological transfor­mation, without which ambitious climate goals are elusive.

    The whole paper (German, 100 pages) can be found on the bottom of the page linked by this post.

  5. Wait… we needed a formal study to conclude it’s too expensive *and* would not be available on time .

    I’m shocked people need someone with a lab coat to tell them water wets, and the sky is blue.

  6. Molten salt reactors need tons of room for radionuclide refining and for piping and industrial space.

    Probably the best place in all of Europe for molten salt reactors would be some place very dry and very flat.

  10. If they published it in german, it’s cause no english conference or journal accepted their survey.

    ​

    National conferences, not in english, have two purposes. Re-publish what was already published in an international conference, so you can meet your peers not far from home and present them your works.

    Or publish what no one accepted.

  11. The problem with this paper from my point of view is that it :

    1. Looks at the comparative deaths figures for all power sources
    2. Then exhaustively goes through every near-miss in the nuclear industry while tutting loudly
    3. Then concludes that *despite* actual real-world numbers, that nuclear is too dangerous.

    Where’s the comparative analysis of near misses on dam failures, coal mine sludge landslides, coal pile fires, explosions, exhaust cleaner failures, etc. for all other power types?

    *That* would be a fair comparison. *This* is a smear job.

  13. I’d like to ask the Nuka-Cola savers of the Earth to stop eating beef. It causes a lot of globalwarming and it is a waste of energy resources.

    Thank you.

    P.S. You can do it right now, unlike any future savings of massively delayed megaprojects.

  16. The main argument “too slow” is true. We should have been building nuclear since 1986 like we did before it, now it’s a bit too late for it – also the industry is almost gone. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t use nuclear if it fits your energy palette. For some countries it sure is a better option than for others.

    Also, yet again there’s a claim that waste is dangerous for eons although the activity reduces to mere 100x natural uranium in 1000 years, and that’s not very active at all. Might be tthat the most active natural sources are close to that. Most of the “heat” is gone in days and when it’s hot its about million times hotter than natural uranium.

    Nuclear hydrogen could be great especially in steel making. Hydrogen could replace coal (something is needed to bind oxygen) and heat could also be utilized in processes – also electricity if there was a generator.

    Of course the article is written from German perspective, elsewhere options look different. Germany is a densely populated country with a relatively nice climate which is well suited for wind energy and sometimes even solar, perhaps geothermal too.

  17. Germany trying to pretend killing all its nuclear wasn’t the smooth brain play of the century, nothing new to see here

  18. tbh i dont really understand why all the reactionaries on reddit are against developing renewables (which are becoming more efficient and cheaper to produce by the year) and instead opting for the nuclear solution

  19. I remember antinuclear protests in Germany led by Die Grüne. Dangerous nuclear energy was later replaced with coal. Then came dependence on Russian gas. Everyone’s happy now. Especially Schröder.

  21. > Scientists for Future

    What kind of scientific paper is this? What’s its h-index?

    Just because 3 scientists made their own little paper on their off time doesn’t make it valid scientific research.

  23. *Technology and risks: Catastrophes involving the release of radioactive material are always a real possibility, as illustrated by the major accidents in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Also, since 1945, countless accidents have occurred wherever nuclear energy has been deployed.* **No significantly higher reliability is to be expected from the SMRs (“small modular reactors”) that are currently at the planning stage.**

    And with that one sentence, you can completely dismiss this unscientific nonsense. They are saying that small modular reactor designs (no idea why they singled those out) are expected no more reliable than RBMKs (Chernobyl design), which have a positive void coefficient. Heck, void coefficient isnt even mentioned in a paper that pretends to discuss, at least in part, reactor safety. Man, this is some antivax level science.

  24. Don’t trust the Germans. Especially not right now. They aren’t thinking straight. Not the first time its happening to them. Knee deep in ideology.

  25. EU’s Joint Research Center concluded this spring, that:

    *”These latest technology developments are reflected in the very low fatality rate for the Gen III EPR design (≈8⋅10-10 fatalities/GWh, see Figure 3.5-1 of Part A).* ***The fatality rates characterizing state-of-the art Gen III NPPs are the lowest of all the electricity generation technologies.****”*

    [*https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf*](https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf) (page 10).

    So there you have it. **The safest source of energy** available to mankind – and still the germans call it dangerous!

    I hope they enjoy their air pollution, which now **kills 1,100 extra people every year**, because of the nuclear shutdown hysteria.

    [https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-phaseout-causing-1-100-additional-deaths-a-year-1-5-2020](https://www.nucnet.org/news/nuclear-phaseout-causing-1-100-additional-deaths-a-year-1-5-2020)

  30. “but our main argument is that nuclear is a french specialty, so we will say whatever is detrimental to France, even if it requires selling Europe and our very souls to russian gas”

  31. it is pretty obvious we need a mix of solutions.

    But one thing remains… a significant part of the sudden push to nuclear is the older corporate entities who refused to do anything to reduce emissions, want to continue to have centralize power production where they control the pricing, distribution and production exclusively, as oppose to a somewhat more democratized renewable solutions. (same for hydrogen vehicles).

    So no… I am not going to willingly replace and perpetuate their business model while other options are available… while they could have been patenting and owning the tech we need for renewables.. and gradually shifting. Even a first year student in business knows 100% when you have a business threat you need to acknowledge it and either turn it into a strength or offer better solutions… shareholders should be outraged at the lack of basic business acumen, spending more to smear and obfuscate than in R&D to own the best solar tech etc

    also, being in a Uranium rich country and having seen what is involved in mining it, I am not so sure it is as ‘clean’ as people think, when the entire process is allowed for. Is this not another case of feeling good about ourselves while causing even more damage in the countries we source from? eg much like the west blame China for high emissions, but they also exported the dirtiest manufacturing to China in the first place

    and just another aside… as we sit on a huge stockpile of uranium ore.. **much of that also happens to be on Indegenous land**. You got a plan for sourcing your raw ore, or just gonna turn a blind eye and let the Australian gov be your bad guy? (which we are doing well enough on our own, thank you very much).

    ie Uranium is the new oil and coal…. how about no

  33. Most of the authors is this paper are economists FROM German economics institute. Maybe I can buy their expensive argument but they have no authority to comment scientifically on the safety and reliability of modern nuclear reactors.

  34. Man, my dear countrymen reject nuclear energy with a passion you wouldn’t believe if you didn’t grew up there (i did). I would take a lot of assessments from them, but not about nuclear energy.

  35. Okay Germany, too bad Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania don’t give a fuck about what you think about nuclear.

  36. Figures it was germans

    we’re facing an energy crisis that hasn’t been seen for a long time and it will be even worse in the future as electrical consumption by businesses and private citizens increases

    There’s lots of arguments agaisnt nuclear, yes, sure. But what happens when our energy needs outweigh your concerns? What happens when battery tech reaches new heights and a phone charge can last for months in a row? that energy density is dangerous too, will the germans be like, we prefer lithium, this new battery tech will make bombs. in the next 1000 years our energy farming has to increase with our productions and needs, not cater to some peoples fears.

Leave a Reply