https://i.imgur.com/ZHfgryw.jpg
<sup>[source](https://pixabay.com/en/chimney-concrete-nuclear-cooling-1735/)</sup>   

I guess I just feel like stepping on toes today. That, and I spectated an argument on Reddit earlier about whether nuclear power is a valid part of a zero GHG emissions grid roadmap. I was surprised to see that the popular opposition to nuclear power started in the 1970s is still going strong.

This distresses me, because every one of their arguments against it is rooted in misinformation. Nuclear power is astonishingly powerful, and miraculous in that it emits only water vapor. The solid waste is a problem, but that will be addressed below: 

---
#1. What about the waste? 

---

This is one of the first objections one hears in discussions about nuclear power, as if it's some unsolvable problem. In the US, Yucca Mountain was set up as a central repository for nuclear waste which would have been a responsible, long-term solution. The anti-nuclear lobby shut it down. This is a case where the same people pointing out a problem are the ones who created it. 

---
#2. What about safety?

---

Although failure states for nuclear power plants are scary and spectacular, making news for months or years, the fact of the matter is that they're exceedingly rare and extremely few people have ever died as a result of a meltdown. There have actually been [more deaths attributable to solar power](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/) from panel installers falling off the roof.

[Chernobyl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl) resulted from Soviet nuclear technicians deliberately pushing an aging reactor as far as they could as part of a test. They were *trying* to induce failure, they just believed they have a means of shutting it down before it got out of hand. As we now know, that wasn't the case.

[Three Mile Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident) has been attributed to inadequate training of personnel who did not recognize the situation as a lack of coolant accident, instead mistaking it for a coolant excess. It is by no means impossible to prevent this, it's just a matter of hiring qualified professionals and paying them enough.

[Fukushima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster) was situated on a seismic fault. It should require no elaboration as to why that's a bad idea. Just don't build nuclear reactors in places where earthquakes would endanger their safe operation.

A whopping 40% of electricity in France [is generated by nuclear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France).  While France has had some [minor nuclear accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country#France), they were all shut down or otherwise mitigated, and none resulted in meltdown. This proves that widespread nuclear power is not inherently unsafe, and that the risks *can* be successfully managed. 

---
#3. What about cost?

---

The principle expense in setting up a nuclear power plant today results from the miles of red tape put in place during the 70s in order to prevent new nuclear reactors from being built. To whit, when former president Obama [rolled back much of this regulation](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/16/barack-obama-nuclear-reactors) and provided 8 billion in subsidies for new reactors, the first two brand new nuclear reactors in many decades began construction. 

There is also the cost of waste disposal which was to be greatly mitigated by [Yucca Mountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository) but as discussed earlier, this was shut down by the anti-nuclear lobby. Their goal is not to help nuclear to become safer and cheaper, but to prevent it altogether.

---
#4. What about renewables?

---

I have much love for renewables. Certainly they have their place. But they are no replacement for baseload generation, and nuclear is. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that a nuclear power plant will generate reliable, 24/7 electricity for a small fraction the cost of a solar farm and battery bank the size needed to meet the same performance metrics. 

Use solar only where nothing else will do the job: On the roofs of buildings. Can't put a nuclear power plant up there. Use wind where nothing else will do the job, namely places with a lot of wind but not a lot of sunshine. Use hydro and geothermal wherever suitable. In all other cases, use nuclear. 

Nuclear technology has come a long way since the 70s. There is every reason to believe we can do it safer and cheaper than before. There's literally no good reason not to. The opposition is rooted in unscientific hysteria. 

Like being terrified of dying in a plane crash when you're vastly more likely to die in a traffic accident. Or being terrified of mass shootings when they're a tiny slice of overall gun deaths, and [a grand total of 1,091 people have died](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.284c874e7a49) as a result of mass shootings in *the entire history of the United States*. 

You're more likely to die by slipping in the shower than in a mass shooting. However, just like a lie gets around the world seven times before the truth can get its pants on, fear moves people much more readily than reason. 

I want to live in the future I was promised as a young boy. That can't happen while people organize to hold it back. Opposition to nuclear power is every bit as misguided as opposition to, say, electric cars. We need a nation that is *excited* about advanced technologies, not terrified, if our future is going to be brighter than the present. 

---
*<sup>Stay Cozy!</sup>*