If we want to incentivize "clean" tech, we should go by an objective metric, such as co2 emissions per kilowatt-hour (where nuclear power is even less emitting than PV/Wind over its total lifecycle)
Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2. Handling of this waste is often overlooked when looking at the costs or CO2 footprint.
And that does not even touch the associated risks.
Blocking other countries tends to make member states hate each other, which isn't good for the EU.
> Secondly, the waste products of nuclear reactors are much more problematic than CO2
You literally just put them inside steel concrete casks [1] after they were in a pool for a few years. You can even hug those casks safely. Whereas the CO2 is in the air we breathe and in the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming.
How is this "more problematic"?
Just like more people are afraid of airplane accidents in spite of them being much more likely to die in their own car.
This doesn't compute: avoiding being a victim of a plane accident is rather simple: don't hop on any plane and your are something along the .99999 covered.
Avoiding being threatened (and many generations after you) by a nuclear major accident or erring 'hot' nuclear waste is way (WAY!) more difficult.
Car or plane, the people most exposed to the risk have some choice in the matter - to fly, drive, or be around vehicles.
New considerations are introduced when those exposed to the risks of your choice maybe hundreds of miles away with no say, or even yet to be born.
You set the bar too high. Radiation isn't an all-or-nothing phenomenon; we are exposed to background radiation all the time, so expecting perfection is unjustified. Also a large portion of radioactivity that might escape comes from short-lived isotopes, making short term evacuation a possibility.
The LNT debate isn't settled, effects of added background radiation is difficult to assess. Moreover the dust escaping from a nuclear plant may be inhaled, ingested... ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committed_dose ).
A "large portion" isn't all, and at Fukushima the nuclear accident-triggered evacuation officially made around 2200 victims.
> A "large portion" isn't all
Setting the bar too high.
> The LNT debate isn't settled
Indeed the evidence for effects at smaller and longer term doses is at best weak. We also have a good idea of how DNA repair works. But LNT seems like the least unreasonable conservative way to treat radiation, which may be replaced by something in the up-coming ICRP modernisation.
> Moreover the dust escaping
What sort of dust is this?
> nuclear accident-triggered evacuation officially made around 2200 victims
In hindsight how many of these people needed to be evacuated? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171120085453.h... How many people died from overheating due to a lack of electricity in the years after Fukushima?
> Setting the bar too high.
The major underlying point is a comparison: renewables vs. nuclear. And on those accounts (effect of a major accident, waste...) renewables are clear winners.
>> The LNT debate isn't settled > up-coming ICRP modernisation
Not sure about this. This "modernisation" is, AFAIK, stagnant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Commission_on_Ra... ). Moreover quite different hypothesis are more and more widespread ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gofman ).
>> Moreover the dust escaping
> What sort of dust is this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide
Some escape during a nuclear major accident, and very few want it in the air they breath, the food they eat, the water they drink... Even most of those believing this will cause no harm may prefer clean air, food, water...
>> Fukushima nuclear accident
> In hindsight how many of these people needed to be evacuated?
Nobody knew at the time, and they even considered that evacuating the entire region may be necessary! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naoto_Kan#Fukushima_nuclear_ac... ).
Moreover even obedient Japaneses may, during a major nuclear accident, not be willing to obey to "please stay and wait!", especially from those who previously said "the nuclear plant is safe, there will be no problem.'.
In any case even magnificent armchairs' experts babbling 'they could and should stay and wait" years after the event cannot change History.
> How many people died from overheating due to a lack of electricity in the years after Fukushima?
This perspective also leads to preferring renewables as the will to shut down nuclear reactors during such accident, for the lack of an immediate full explanation, and also the imperative to do so after discovering some generic defect), all play for renewables.
The pressing (financial) necessity of building reactors in series (of units as identical as possible, in order to reduce unit costs) reduces their heterogeneity and thus the robustness of the fleet, to the point of making a "generic defect" one of the industry's fears, as the discovery of a defect can coerce int shutting down all reactors of the model concerned.
This is what happened in France at the end of 2021 with the shutdowns of N4 reactors due to as recently in France after discovering stress corrosion cracking ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis... ) is specific to nuclear. If all the reactors in the fleet were N4, they would all have been shut down!
During and shortly after the major nuclear accident at Fukushima, all other nuclear reactors in Japan were shut down as a precaution and remained so for years. Most of them are still down in 2025, some claim that they are restarting but, 14 years after the accident, the hard facts are clear: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-nuclear... , reflecting the lack of enthusiasm of the population.
Let's check the trend. Share of produced electricity in Japan:
2011: 75% fossil fuels, 15% nuclear, 10% renewables
2024: 68% , 8.3% , 23%
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?time=2011&co...
Wind, solar... sources do not pose such a threat because they cannot trigger a catastrophe, so discovering a problem does not mean shutting down all units of the type in question. The heterogeneity of renewable source types (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.), that of equipment manufacturers and models (wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, etc.), as well as the unit sizes of the latter, which are smaller than those of a nuclear reactor, and their geographical dispersion, increase the robustness of the renewable energy fleet: the probability that a large part of the fleet will break down, develop a fault, produce nothing, etc., is minimal.
No lack of electricity => nobody dies due to the lack of electricity.
So this not dust escaping during normal operation. This is an important qualification to your original statement.
> Moreover quite different hypothesis are more and more widespread
I would expect the presence of strong data to reduce the number of viable hypotheses. Chris Busby was very creative coming up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby#Second_event... but it looks like overfitting to scant data.
> If all the reactors in the fleet were N4, they would all have been shut down!
If they were all N4 they would have been kept running and had a rolling program of repairs. So I do not agree with your desire to have a heterogeneous fleet of reactors.
> nobody dies due to the lack of electricity
we estimate that the energy-saving campaigns could have led to nearly 7,710https://epic.uchicago.cn/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/01/...
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackou...
Indeed, however past accidents now forbid to claim that "this dust will never wander around, everything is under control".
> If they were all N4 they would have been kept running and had a rolling program of repairs.
Nope, as the defect was considered (by EDF itself, the company owning and operating it, chief of the nuclear industry in France, and AFAIK experts agreed) as too dangerous for the reactor to continue to operate.
> your desire to have a heterogeneous fleet of reactors
I don't desire any reactor. I'm only pointing out a major dilemma intrinsic to the "nuclear" approach.
> nobody dies due to the lack of electricity
I explained why a mix of renewables cannot lead to such ordeal, which was induced in Japan by the decision to produce electricity thanks to nuclear reactors and the decision to shut them off after the Fukushima accident.
Iberian blackout: nobody knows the cause for sure, experts are analyzing the event.
Who pays decide (Germany is the first financial contributor), that's business as usual.
> Whereas the CO2 is in the air
In the UE the question is how much renewables and how much nuclear will be built, and their (dubious) compatibility. Very few want to see more fossil fuel.
The "nuclear waste is a solved challenge" is funny, as experts explicitly state that there is no safe solution (due to risks induced by seismotectonics, intrusions, casks imperfections...).
It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again: "there will be no problem" followed by "Ouch! Err...". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#History
What is their definition of safe?
> It's the "Asse II mine" joke all over again
It would be good to see the cost/benefit analysis of the proposal to remove everything from the mine
https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/meetings/2018/marc... page 17 has backfilling as the preferred option in 4 out of the 5 assessment categories.
Some claim that nuclear waste repositories are perfect (0 risk), and experts disagree.
> backfilling
Yay, such a superb gift to our children, their children, their children...!
The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
Disagreement is natural in science as well as engineering. And absolutes are not. Framing nuclear waste disposal, or in fact any enterprise, in terms of finding total agreement on total safety is not useful.
> one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down
In what terms are we to assess the waste? By volume, likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste, maximum number killed? Do we count the waste from manufacturing as well?
Indeed, my point was about a form of propaganda quite common in France, which states that long-term waste repositories (now work-in-progress) will be perfectly safe. They won't.
> assess the waste?
Most of renewables' waste is recyclable, and more and more is recycled, even wind turbine blades.
> likely number of people killed over the lifetime of the waste
The more types of waste and the longer the lifetime (nuclear...), the more difficult it is.
> count the waste from manufacturing
As far as I understand yes, an adequate life-cycle assessment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment ) has to do so, however this is a good point: it may somewhat be neglected.
https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/DE/2016/20...
It was a political decision by the greens to waste money.
In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
AFAIK few experts now judge adequate to use such mines, and many nations build dedicated repositories.
Flat earthers exist too.
> In not-so-ancient times "experts" were also OK with ocean disposal.
The link you gave did not list the effects of ocean disposal; elevated and measurable are not the same as significant or harmful unless you are a firm believer in LNT, although at the bottom of the ocean the background radiation dose from cosmic rays will be less.
Whatever they believe or not isn't impeding others' lifes.
The underlying point is about how much renewables and how much nuclear may we build in order to tackle current challenges (climate, pollution...), one of the criteria is waste and renewables win hands down.
> ocean disposal
AFAIK no expert now states that ocean disposal is OK, this is a settled matter since at least 1972 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), therefore a bunch of assessments of the current situation for stuff dangerous for at least hundred years doesn't seem pertinent to me.
The principle is that we don't seek unanimity before proceeding with something.
> this is a settled matter since at least 1972
Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens (e.g. reprocessing plant water releases, power station tritiated water releases).
An international convention does not settle the science behind ocean disposal. The lack of supporters perhaps reflects the difficulty in carrying out such research, and the problems of trying to change international agreements.
> this is a settled matter since at least 1972
This is an opinion. My (dissenting) one is that the more someone is or could be impacted, the more we have to take his/her opinion into account.
> Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens
It doesn't imply that it is an adequate way to dispose of it.
> An international convention does not settle the science behind ocean disposal
"The main objective of the London Convention is to prevent indiscriminate disposal at sea of wastes that could be liable for creating hazards to human health; harming living resources and marine life; damaging amenities; or interfering with other legitimate uses of the sea." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... )
> The lack of supporters perhaps reflects the difficulty in carrying out such research, and the problems of trying to change international agreements.
Nuclear-waste long-term repositories projects are very expensive and difficult (to the point of many attempts failing flat) everywhere, therefore attempting to convince that ocean-dumping is OK would be useful.
> > Disposal of small amounts of radioactive material at sea and into the air happens
> It doesn't imply that it is an adequate way to dispose of it.
My point is that ocean disposal of radioactive material still happens, and experts are OK with this legal activity happening.
> the more someone is or could be impacted, the more we have to take his/her opinion into account
How do we take into account the unborn generations? Or the unemployed created by high energy prices?
As far as I know ''certain Annex I materials dumping may be permissible if present only as "trace contaminants" or "rapidly rendered harmless"'' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Convention_on_the_Preve... ), that is to say we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... ).
> take into account the unborn generations?
This is by definition impossible. We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations.
> Or the unemployed created by high energy prices?
It could be an argument in presence of a consensus promoting a single way to establish the total cost of a given type of energy source. There isn't, and it doesn't come as a surprise as some unpredictable event (nuclear major accident, nuclear waste wandering in some populated area...) may hugely raise the total cost.
Moreover the total production cost (LCOE) of renewables is already way (and more and more) below nuclear's, and there is no consensual way to assess the cost of firming those sources (cancelling the effects of 'intermittency' on production). Add the general movement towards decentralization...
Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor.
Mass of material dumped is not the same as radioactivity or potential harm caused. It looks as if "de minimis" is the key phrase in the convention, in Annex 1.3 . However the IAEA defines "de minimis" in terms of effective dose to people (10 microSieverts/year) per [1] page 14. So point still stands, some level of radioactivity being discharged to the sea is deemed acceptable by experts. If it can be shown that radioactive materials will leach out of the containers very slowly, can this "de minimis" still be met.
> We may consider opinions of the current generation as reasonable approximations.
So we should be able to vote on it?
> Nowadays the low-and-ever-lowering-LCOE of renewables more and more threatens the very business model underlying the nuclear industry which finds its foundation in a high load factor.
Intermittent generators also suffer from cannibalisation (duck curve and all of that), hence the need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices.
[1] https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_244_web.pd...
Doses now tolerated are way below those of ancient dumps. This is a classic ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison )
I wrote "we are far, far away from the massive (hundred of tons) dumps from the previous era" to subsume it.
Moreover the whole Linear No-Threshold and bioaccumulation of radioisotopes debate is far from settled, therefore some experts judge even low doses too dangerous.
> we should be able to vote on it?
IMHO yes. At the very least every citizen paying for it or exposed to some risk has a vote. Direct democracy and referendums let any of them take part, and experts have to convince a majority.
> need for subsidies and/or guaranteed prices
It mainly is an effect of (past and current) massive subsidies granted to other types of energy sources (nuclear, fossil fuels...), the difficult struggle of incoming quickly evolving tech (photovoltaic, wind turbines...) versus amortized plants, and the insufficient amount of energy-storage deployed equipment.
All those burdens are (slowly, this is heavy industry stuff) vanishing and it (more and more quickly) becomes perceptible: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
Do those old dumps generate high doses? Is there evidence of the high doses generated, and if so why isn't this on the wikipedia page? I'm not able to tell whether the dose from an old dump is higher than that from a fuel fabrication, reprocessing plant or nuclear power station.
> therefore some experts judge even low doses too dangerous
One wonders how they get to conferences. Also whether they think about the difference between timber framed and brick buildings, or the background radiation when deciding where to move to.
Nobody knows. A new exploration campaign is running (named 'Nodssum' https://www.myscience.org/news/2025/dechets_radioactifs_une_... ), targeting North-Atlantic zones.
> Is there evidence of the high doses generated, and if so why isn't this on the wikipedia page?
AFAIK it now is forbidden to dump highly dangerous waste in non-negligible amounts in the ocean not because there was some accident, but because experts judged that it may trigger one. An approach is to advocate the "let's do whatever please until something breaks", another one is to think about potential consequences THEN to decide.
> dose from an old dump is higher than that from a fuel fabrication, reprocessing plant or nuclear power station.
Those contexts are way more under human-control than an ocean floor.
> One wonders how they get to conferences.
This is a weird way to describe a real, ancient (and IMHO growing, since Fukushima) controversy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Cont...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis#Proposed_me...
Would have thought a long-term study of these sites would have already been underway, given their apparent potential hazard. Surely Greenpeace would want such a study to back up their perspective (or does the position not require such evidence). Anyhow, disposing of the waste ten+ metres under the sea floor would have been much better.
> another one is to think about potential consequences THEN to decide
It is not there was an absence of research into this subject. For instance, the work done by Charles D. Hollister ... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-aug-28-mn-4440-... & https://www.jstor.org/stable/26057623 .
> This is a weird way to describe a real, ancient (and IMHO growing, since Fukushima) controversy.
You mistake my sense of humour; I was referring to the increased radiation dose from flying to/from conferences.
As far as I know those studies are far from extensive and there is no permanent effort.
> given their apparent potential hazard
The good'ole "who is in charge, who pays?" is at play.
In many nations the nuclear industry just doesn't care (they dumped their waste, and good bye!) or disappeared after a phase-out.
A fair part of those who can pay those studies prefer to pursue their own endeavors (why would they have to work in order to cope with other's boo-boos?), for example the lack of resources available for oceanographers' core missions is well-known.
> Surely Greenpeace
AFAIK obtaining and maintaining a boat isn't easy for them. Doing so for some bathyscaphe (or similar equipment) and all the associated infrastructure and expertise for what nowadays is a mission (showing the bad effects of civilian nuclear) which is vanishing just as its mere subject is, while others (pollution, overfishing...) are more and more difficult, seems 'ambitious' without any very generous dedicated donation (are you interested in giving?).
> does the position not require such evidence
As already stated experts decided nearly 60 years ago to quit dumping waste in the ocean floor (London Convention), this seems sufficient to me.
> disposing of the waste ten+ metres under the sea floor would have been much better.
Maybe, maybe not. It would have been way more expensive.
> work done by Charles D. Hollister
IMHO the nuclear folks liked to be able to dump waste from a barge. Asking them to dig the seabed...
> You mistake my sense of humour;
Indeed, sorry.
> I was referring to the increased radiation dose from flying to/from conferences.
The point is: anyone decides upon hoping in any jetliner, or abstaining from doing so. A nuclear reactor can trigger a major accident which lets no such choice in a huge area, and for quite a while.
If someone lacerates the tattooed arm of someone else and says "hey, you already hurt yourself with this tattoo" I'm ready to bet that most, including any judge, will not support him.
There was plenty of anti-nuclear money floating about years ago; https://www.influencewatch.org/movement/opposition-to-nuclea... lists quite a few organisations interested in opposing nuclear power in the USA. As for the cost, surely a few weeks of boat/submersible time every few years would suffice.
> Maybe, maybe not. It would have been way more expensive.
I was coming from the radiation protection perspective; less liable to dose the denizens of the deep were they to swim next to the waste. Also in the mud is better from an immobilisation perspective.
> IMHO the nuclear folks liked to be able to dump waste from a barge. Asking them to dig the seabed...
Perhaps we are speaking cross-purposes; the digging would be for spent nuclear fuel (or the vitrified waste) where the vast majority of activity is. As for contaminated suits and the like, disposal on land is a good enough option.
> If someone lacerates the tattooed arm of someone else
It is more helpful to study what happens in industry as a whole. Industrial accidents do happen, after which investigations are performed. An intolerance of accidents isn't a viable approach, but reasonable steps must be taken to keep risk to workers low.
They had much more efficient targets than old waste dumped in the ocean, especially after Tchernobyl and Fukushima!
>> It would have been way more expensive.
> I was coming from the radiation protection perspective
It seems indeed less risky from this perspective, however my point was about the total cost for the nuclear industry: dumping from barges is a breeze, digging the ocean floor is way less easy (and therefore cheap).
Many in the nuclear industry maintain the (quite old and until now vain) hope of obtaining a model of industrial breeder reactor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor ), and therefore are opposed to any waste-disposal option which makes waste-recovery more difficult.
> Industrial accidents do happen
AFAIK in every industrialized nation each and every sector of the industry HAS buy an adequately insurance (civil liability). Nuclear power is the sole exception: it is insured mainly at the taxpayer's expense and the reimbursement limit is ridiculously low. In France a study published by the official nuclear institute (IRSN) showed that a major accident on a single reactor may cost more than 400 billions euros (French ahead: https://www.irsn.fr/savoir-comprendre/crise/cout-economique-... ) , and the limit is about 700 million €. 3 orders of magnitude... The local Cour of Audit periodically yells about this. In the USA the limit is set at 16.1 billion USD ( https://environmentamerica.org/media-center/statement-federa... ).