However, 99% of fly ash is captured in electrostatic precipitators and filters. Calculations that include the radionuclides in the captured ash are not being honest.
But we can ask: if this is the important issue justifying nuclear, which is more cost effective: adding pollution control to coal plants, or building nuclear plants?
If it's not the important issue justifying nuclear over coal, why bring it up?
Nuclear was the only viable green option back then. It failed because of mass psychosis and because it was more expensive than coal and gas.
Of course it’s too late now. But had nuclear plant construction continued to grow at the same pace as in the 60s and 70s CO2 emissions from power generation would have be been solved by the 2000s.
> adding pollution control to coal plants
Even if it was 100% effective that would do nothing to slow down climate change.
The "mass psychosis" theory is comforting to the zealot, but not in accordance with the facts. Nuclear failed for economic reasons. In the US, these reasons included: cost escalation (even before TMI), moderation of what had seem inexorable growth in electricity demand that increased risk, and sudden introduction of new competition (non-utility generation unleashed by PURPA) that soaked up what demand growth there was.
Well yes, I did mention cost (of course only if we exclude most externalities) which was the primary longterm factor.
But the mass psychosis after Three Mile Island and then Chernobyl made nuclear expansion very expensive politically and financially (of course not saying that all of the additional safety regulations which inflated costs were not necessary). It would be rather silly to claim that it didn’t tip the scales at all.
I'm not sure it's fair to call it mass psychosis. But the connection to nuclear bombs was very clear to the public by then and the public backlash was also tainted by that association. Unfortunately, in the 70s/80s the problem of global warming was not obviously going to be a problem, if on the radar at all. Unfortunate timing.
You're spinning a comforting story to allow you to evade unpleasant realities. I would have thought "everyone is crazy but me" would have set off red flags for you, but apparently not.
I’m sorry but you are the one doing the spinning. You keep putting words into my mouth and then ignoring everything else I said..
I repeated that cost (of course only if externalities, that hardly anyone was fully aware of back in the 80s, are excluded) was the primary
reason why nuclear failed. Do you really think that public opinion had no impact and did not accelerate it, though?
I think public opinion had nothing to do with it. You observe that there was a segment of public against it, but you have not connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect.
We see plans for nuclear go up and down based on economic conditions. Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that. The nuclear renaissance was going great when natural gas seemed like it was running out. It collapsed when fracking made gas cheap again. Today there's concern for AI power demand and nuclear seems to be getting traction. Public opinion isn't driving any of that.
Like Carter deciding to not share his private opinion on Three Mile Island because it would had been very unpopular amongst his voter base?
There was a period when being a pro nuclear liberal/central-left politician was politically suicidal.
> connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect.
It’s not my job to put in significant amount of effort to try and change your opinion (which is worth exactly as much as mine is).
> The nuclear renaissance was going great
That’s an exaggeration. Even back then nuclear was hardly seen as cost effective without a lot of squinting. The number of new reactors was hardly significant.
> Public opinion isn't driving any of that
You mean currently? Perhaps. Don’t see how is that an argument when talking about the 80s.
> Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that
That obviously not true. Unless you ignore how, when and by whom the decisions to close the remaining nuclear reactors in e.g. Germany were made. Especially considering that then (before cheap renewables were available) we already knew that nuclear was cost competitive if negative externalities are accounted for (which was only partially the case back in the 80s).
It's your job to present a convincing argument for your position.
You cannot show any good evidence for it, though. You can merely assert correlation (if a bad one, given that nuclear was in trouble long before TMI or Chernobyl).
It's clear what's going on here: the actual situation, that nuclear has failed economically, is completely unacceptable to you, so you are confabulating a fantasy that something else caused nuclear's troubles. It's wishful denial of reality to preserve the illusion that your energy waifu has any chance.
