Nukes equal dependency on a 'priesthood' of specialists who can run them safely. If they fail to show up (or make some kinds of demands), there is no alternative to capitulation or disaster. That alone makes them unacceptable. There are numerous other totally overwhelming reasons to reject them and go for safe renewables.
By 'nukes' I'm assuming you mean nuclear reactors.
That actually isn't entirely true. The newest working reactor designs, using molten salt, are actually self-regulating. You likely know this, but I'll just recap, that nearly all materials expand and contract based on temperature.
So equally I assume you know that nuclear reactions only exist when you can achieve critical mass, which of course is when you have enough fissile material close enough together.
With molten salt reactors, you have a self limiting dynamic, where as the core gets hotter, it expands, thus reducing the mass, thus reducing the nuclear reaction.
It is nearly impossible to have a run away nuclear reaction.
Further, the second problem is decay heat, which is the heat generated after the nuclear reaction has shut down. This is what caused the problem at Three Mile Island. The nuclear reaction was well over and finished, before they had an issue with over heating.
Well, there's a simple way to deal with this. Passive cooling. You just have cold water in tanks, connected to a cooling tower. Hot water rises, flows into the tanks, which flow through the cooling tower. Cold water falls, which goes down into the core again. The cycle flows non-stop without any interaction by anyone.
So might ask, if it is that easy, why didn't all nuclear reactors have passive cooling? Like why didn't Fukushima have that?
Because we didn't have the technology when these plants were built.
Again... why are we using 1950s designs? I'm a bit surprised the Japanese are using such old designs honestly. As high tech as Japan is, I don't really understand it. They can make that money losing bullet train, but are still using a 1955 power plant design? What logic is that?
And that was actually what the Fukushima plant was. A GE BWR-3, which is just the 3rd revision of the 1955 design. The BWR-3 came out 1965. So a very very old design. Like I said before, we should have all those plants replaced with far safer designs.
From what they have shown with self regulating molten salt reactors, and passive cooling, you could in theory switch on such a reactor and go home. The reactor would run itself, and cool itself, for months, until it shut itself off when the fuel became too poisoned to keep the reaction going, and then it would go into a dormant state, and go cold.
And if you really think about it, the only time you really have a disaster is when government causes it. Chernobyl, didn't blow itself up. It was actually government that blew up Chernobyl. Even that reactor was smart enough to shut itself down. It was the government stooges running Chernobyl that blew up that reactor.
Go read about it, if you are interested. Actually HBO's series Chernobyl is pretty good at showing what really happened. The reactor had shut itself off. The system had done exactly what it was supposed to, and gone into a cool down state. It was the idiots who wanted to please their Soviet masters to get promotions, that demanded they over ride all the safety features, and violate every safety protocol, which eventually caused the reactor to explode.
There are numerous other totally overwhelming reasons to reject them and go for safe renewables.
And one huge massive overwhelming reason not to..... because we can't.
At least not with the technology we have today. That's just a fact.
I'm all for it if you can do it. But you have to actually do it. Show me that renewables can even provide the majority of power we need? Because you can't. I know you can't, because I can see the numbers.
Here in Ohio:
The absolute smallest coal power plant : 600 Mega Watts. Largest is 2.6 Gig Watts.
The absolute smallest natural gas plant : 475 Mega Watts. Largest is 1.4 Gig Watts.
The absolute smallest nuclear plant : 900 Mega Watts. Largest 1.2 Gig Watts.
Largest Solar power plant, 20 Mega Watts.
Largest Wind Farm, 300 Mega Watts.
Renewables produce barely 3% of the entire states power. 3%.
The absolute biggest renewable power plant, is smaller than the smallest conventional power plant.
And here's the kicker. That 300 Mega Watt wind farm, cost almost as much as a natural gas, or coal power plant..... that produces nearly double that much power, and it operates 24/7, not just when the wind blows... or the sun shines.
Renewables are simply not a solution. Just flat out... as things stand today, you can talk about renewables for the rest of your life... and still going to use nuclear power. Because renewable are not a replacement for real power generation.
At this point even Japan has figure this out, and has started the process of restarting all of their nuclear reactors, because there simply isn't another option. It doesn't matter how much you want renewables to work, they don't. You either use coal, or natural gas, or nuclear. And of the three, only nuclear doesn't spew into the atmosphere. Natural gas is great, if you have it. Not everyone has it.
So, I'm all for you finding something that works... go for it. But what you have to offer today, isn't even close.
arstechnica.com
>>>
