Okay I got into an argument with someone the other night over the idea that it's our turn to cause an ecological disaster to benefit our time on the planet to make our lives better and easier and let someone else worry about cleaning up the mess later.
My argument was this, we should be allowed to do whatever we want with nuclear power generation and not care about the waste or byproducts of the power generation so that we can transition off fossil fuels.
Thier counter was we can't be reckless assholes with nuclear power generation and that it's not the same as oil extraction or fossil fuel power plants because of the radioactive stuff.
I thought this was an incredibly short sighted view on the impact of fossil fuel extraction and fossil fuel power generation has had and how destructive it has been.
While I do agree there are some really bad issues with nuclear. Do we create a big waste problem for people after us? sure. Is it probably going to kill people in the future? sure. Could it cause ecological disasters? sure.
I dunno I get that power generation is only a part of the issue with climate but feels like we are just being bullied by old boomer hippies to not use all the things we have available to us.
Perhaps I have in my mind already convinced myself that we are bleeding out and that while nuclear power won't save our leg it could be the tourniquet to push us over the hump into cleaner power generation from wind/solar/water etc.
So shouldn't we be allowed to kick the can down the road like the last generations did?
Nuclear energy will not save us from the climate catastrophe. That has many reasons, the country which incorporates it in a sensible manner is China. France on the other hand is not able to keep its nuclear power plants going in summer, as they don't have enough water to cool them and neither the state nor the companies are willing to switch to more expensive cooling techniques. Which do exist, would mean quite costly re drafts and make nuclear energy more expensive than solar or wind including battery storage.
The LCOE aren't making a clear case anymore for nuclear fission energy. Nuclear fusion on the other hand has not even got a commercial viable facility. While there are some projects that might be neat, they will kick in at earliest when significant climate crisis tipping points are already past us. So we can keep current research going, but lets not think ITER or alike will be a hail marry.
Instead of Nuclear we need to say Niet more. Niet to cars, niet to sub urbs, niet to low density urban areas, niet to single family homes, niet to animal agriculture, niet to plane travel (air ships/sea vessels might make a come back), niet to fossil focused sea container ships. Most importantly niet, to bosses, niet to capitalists and reactionaries.
France was the victim of its own success. They created a model of reactor that was relatively cheap and easy to replicate, so they built out everywhere. Now they've got a ton of nuclear reactors all based on one design and - after looking at how the Americans are physically incapable of designing a next-gen design - are effectively frozen in time for fear of being stuck with another Vogtle 3/4 boondoggle.
Very difficult to say Niet to municipal infrastructure. Its not like I can just take a train that doesn't exist in place of a highway that does. I can't buy a house outside the suburbs when anything near my office is well outside my budget. Etc. Etc.
Yeah I for sure don't expect ITER or other tokamak designs to save us but I didn't realize the French plants were like that, that's nuts.
Yes at ITER development rates, commercial fusion will be a thing around 2100.
Regarding France's nuclear reactor cooling issue, I believe China purposefully held off on inland reactors until they developed reactors that don't use water as a coolant. China clearly sees a reason to develop them, but their end-goal electrical mix is still to be dominated with renewables. Just less so than like, Germany.