• ABCDE@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    “[Nuclear] is costly, potentially dangerous, that there are problems dealing with and siting waste, and that future generations are left with a legacy they will not appreciate. …uranium is itself a non-renewable resource, due to run out well before the end of this century. So even if it were to be cost-effective, safe, and harmless to future generations, nuclear energy is not a long-term solution to humanity’s energy problems.”

    Dobson, Andrew, (2000) GREEN POLITICAL THOUGHT, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis (Books) Limited, pp.56

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Standard green party retoric, they don’t see the forest for the trees.

      If we had built nuclear power plants and closed coal, oil and gas power plants back in 2000 we would have several nations with a carbon free grid these days.

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t think Dobson is out to mislead people from an academic point-of-view, so I take the uranium comment as being true. If it is the case, then I’m not sure how you had better insight into the future of nuclear power.

    • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Oh, if only the reactors worked exclusively on uranium. Of course, I can quote Rosatom’s articles, but unfortunately they are only in Russian. A closed fuel cycle was developed there back in 2015. If you want you can use Google translate: https://habr.com/ru/articles/388533/

      P.S. It is very specific to get scientific knowledge from a book called GREEN POLITICAL THOUGHT

      • ABCDE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Thanks, I’ll check it out, Google Translate usually works well on links.

        Edit: tried reading it, got about half of it. How long is this closed-loop supposed to last until it is all spent? I didn’t see mentions of that, just about uranium no longer being an issue.

        I quoted that as I’m currently reading through it as part of my master’s and it seemed particularly relevant. Dobson looks at different aspects from different perspectives, not taking particular sides. The quote above is from the ‘greens’ perspective; Dobson mentions the possibility of future technological advances.

        • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          At the beginning of the article, it is mentioned that only the use of uranium-238, which is now not used, will expand the reserves of nuclear fuel by about 200 times.

          UPD: also in another article I read that not all uranium is completely destroyed in the reactor cycle, the rest turns into radioactive waste, which in a few years can be cooled and recycled into new rods for the reactor. in France, for example, they have been doing this for a long time. Here: https://habr.com/ru/articles/588877/