Chernobyl and Fukushima were different accidents and causes. Chernobyl was a systemic failure of the soviet system. Fukushima was a wild edge case that an earthquake and tsunami drained the coolant.
The truth is, all reactors ever built were considered safe at their time with whatever definition of safe. No one builds unsafe reactors. Yet they turned out not to be safe.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33232447/
But the bottom line is that renewable costs are trending down, hard and fast, battery tech is just getting started, and development time for wind and solar is comparatively fast.
Future nuke costs at this point are speculative, development time is very slow, and even if new reactors were commissioned tomorrow, by the time they came online it's very, very likely solar and wind + storage would make them uneconomic.
IMO the attachment to nukes is completely irrational. There are obvious economic downsides, no obvious economic benefits - and that's just the money side.
[1]: although since you're basing your claims on the speculative future state of solar technology 10 years in the future, I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to the speculative future state of nuclear power, but that's besides the point
Nuclear is up against against nat gas, diesel or coal (in the rare states that still have coal power plants) for the most part for "baseload" or "firm" power.
Nuclear is by far the most advanced technology that we have ever developped on the planet at this point. Fusion is just 10 years away (every ten years) ;)
If mining deaths are included, coal, oil, gas and uranium probably do not look favorable at all, but renewables aren't perfectly safe either: there was a bridge collapse at a copper/cobalt mine in Congo two months ago that killed 32. Solar and wind use more copper per energy unit than other technologies, and solar and wind indirectly require battery technology. Lithium batteries contain lithium and cobalt. (Lithium mining seems relative safe, but 70% of cobalt is mined in Congo, which is known for artisanal mining, and the above-mentioned accident indeed seemed to happen at such a mine.) Wind, especially off-shore wind uses more concrete and steel than other power generation technologies (hydro seems like it'd use a lot too?), which could be explored too. (Course, these metals are recyclable, so you only mine them once.)
Battery factories also produce deaths sometimes, e.g. recently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwaseong_battery_factory_fire, and batteries in operation as well as discarded batteries sometimes produce deaths too.
Constrained edge cases are fine. Particularly when contrasted with coal and natural gas, which are, in practice, what everyone is competing against in America.
We knew what to do but screwed up hard is a operational failure and we didn't plan for it is a design/planning failure.
The people who are hurt might not care, but understanding the root cause is important to address them.
I should add that I am not strictly anti-nuclear, and it is super interesting that some of the largest funders of anti-nuclear propaganda have been actors from the fossil fuel industry. [1]
[0] https://publicintegrity.org/environment/reactors-at-heart-of...
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
Not surprised at all that oil and gas is still trying to protect themselves from competition.
We can talk all day about how the system incentivized people playing CYA rather than actually trying to solve the problem (true and fair critiques), but when it comes down to it, this happened because the cheaper option was chosen and potential issues were overlooked. That transcends political systems.
You should really consider educating yourself on the Chernobyl reactor melt down (read a book or two) to understand the level of calamity inflicted by the communist system. Stop trying to make it sound like that could happen anywhere because the pressures of capitalism could cause the same results. Its pretty eye opening how insane the chernobyl situation was.
I am not defending the Soviet Union or any of the decisions made during Chernobyl. So you should redirect your indignation/condescension.
While I don't disagree that there is always a risk (albeit very small) that the bean counters come in while the regulators are sleeping and risk the actual product (see: Boeing) - to try and put in a fear that the Chernobyl situation is just as possible you are reaching there.
Your underlying argument is that we shouldn't use high tech energy and enjoy its benefits because there's a chance somewhere that someone might abuse it but also, that might not happen. Its a blanket safety argument - don't do anything because theres risk.
You are overly reducing what I said and missing the crux of my point.
> You really haven't read the details of how Chernobyl came about - its truly wild.
I told you I have. Nothing I’ve said above discounts that and you know nothing about me. I’m not going to rattle off what I’ve read. You are being incredibly disrespectful.
> Your underlying argument is that we shouldn't use high tech energy and enjoy its benefits because there's a chance somewhere that someone might abuse it
Never said anything remotely like that at any point. And I never would, because I am not against nuclear energy. It is vastly superior to fossil fuels from a humane standpoint and for the environment.
Have a good rest of your week man. This isn’t productive. Go grind your axe elsewhere.
Those are your words - they align exactly and I stand by what I said. No axe to grind here but will defend nuclear energy from weak arguments. Your line of reasoning is reductionist saying that what happened in Soviet Russia could simply happen anywhere because of corners cut in your words when in fact there have been no other nuclear meltdowns as terrible as Chernobyl since Chernobyl.
Whether you realize it or not you are making a safety argument by invoking Soviet mistakes and making them sound comparable and inevitable to the rest of the world which has had a pretty good spot record (less Fukushima and 3 mile, but those outcomes aren't comparable to Chernobyl).
You also have a great week - I hope my messaging sharpens what you are implying by your written argument.
One of the biggest arguments against nuclear is that reactors are insanely complex. Beyond a certain level of complexity, safety and predictability become impossible even with perfect management - which certainly doesn't exist in the nuclear industry.
This is especially true of any nuke system which needs external cooling, because stable water levels aren't a given any more because of climate change. Between floods, droughts, and storm surges, the environment is part of the system - something Fukushima discovered to its cost.