Memes

Terrible waste that we store in our lungs

Because, it does not destroy all waste, despite a cartoon claiming as such and gullible people falling for it? Even "short-term" waste needs to be stored somewhere for about 500 years. Sure, it ain't like the others in terms of length of time but anyone who thinks that is a cheap fact or trivial is an idealogue. Since they can exist at both extremes.

So the issue of the water table or general environmental contamination is not addressed the way OP claims. There are also higher costs and higher grade fuel is required. Not to say that there are not some advantages but the cartoon is just plain incorrect and taking a toodler's view on some serious concerns. The Wikipedia article has a list of disavantages for anyone to look into.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor

They're politically unpopular, more expensive than fossil fuels, and most of them are prototypes.

India and China each have one. Russia has 3.

I blame Nixon for why nuclear power in the US sucks. He axed research on any reactor types that didn't produce plutonium for weapons, including thorium reactors. Hope he's rotting in hell.

According to Wikipedia there are a few, with more planned. But not nearly enough. IMO, we should switch over to Fast Reactors as standard.

Canada has CANDU breeder reactors, still in use. They also produce the majority of medical isotopes.

Since there are economic, ecological, conceptual and engineering problems, only five Fast-neutron reactors are operational at the moment. Three in Russia, one in India and one in China. Not surprisingly these are countries that also have an interest in producing weapons grade Plutonium, which FNRs are capable of.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2968/066003007
https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-breeder-reactor
https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs15glaser.pdf
https://energypost.eu/slow-death-fast-reactors/
https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/report/

And while nuclear energy production peaked 1996 at 17% and was nowhere near overtaking fossil energy production in it's 70(!) year long existence, Renewables will overtake fossil fuel power production in 2025, with only minute risks for the biosphere.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-power-set-to-surpass-coal-globally-by-2025/
https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_NuclearReport_201902_EN.pdf

So why cling to an outdated technology when there are viable solutions at hand, which are nowhere as complicated and dangerous as nuclear fission? It's the monetary interest of a dying nuclear industry and its lobbyists.

It's not really needed. Waste is a boogeyman, but not really a problem. It takes an incredibly small volume to store the waste, and it can be reduced with reprocessing to run in the exact same reactors.

At some point in the future when there actually is a huge amount of waste causing issues, then it might make sense to build a reactor to use it.

I hear the argument being made that companies shouldn't be allowed to run a nuclear power plant, or any infrastructure for that matter.

I mean that's how things work in China with state owned companies. I don't see why everybody shouldn't be doing that.

Only when you don't include grid storage

This is the thing a lot of people don't understand. The vast majority of radioactive waste isn't fuel. It's cladding, PPE, etc

in China of course

• https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx
• https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/05/14/china-s-choice-for-nuclear-power-and-closed-nuclear-fuel-cycle-pub-76313

Sure, we could save ourselves from extinction, but what about shareholder value?

It is not.

And there is no large margin.

Referencing several sources that consider a vast array of power generation technologies, from offshore wind to biomass, terrestrial wind, solar, gas, coal and nuclear, and nuclear energy has high start up costs and it's also not the cheapest per megawatt of power. It's basically middle of the road on most of the stats I've seen.

Solar, by comparison, has had a much higher LCOE as recently as 5-10 years ago. Most power construction projects take longer than that to plan and build, then operate for decades. Until the last few years, solar hasn't even be a competitor compared to other options.

Beyond direct cost nuclear has been one of very few green energy sources, the nuclear materials are contained and safely disposed of. Unless there's a serious disaster, it's one of the most ecologically friendly forms of energy. The only sources better are hydroelectric, and geothermal. The only "waste" from nuclear is literal steam, and some limited nuclear waste product. A miniscule amount compared to the energy produced.

Last time I checked, all of the nuclear waste that's ever been produced can fit in an area the size of a football field, with room to spare. For all the energy produced, it's very small.

Yet, because of stuff like Chernobyl and Fukushima, everyone seems to hate it.

I live in Ontario, Canada, our entire power infrastructure is hydroelectric and nuclear. I'm proud of that.

Nuclear isn't the demon that people believe it is.