Japan has opened its first osmotic power plant

I notice the 'some' here, and the absence of the word 'nuclear' from the article, which of course is also available around the clock. Most readers will know something about Japan's troubled relationship with nuclear power and can fill in that context themselves, but to my eyes, it's a startling omission.

1) It's expensive. Very very expensive.

2) It's dangerous when not operated properly, and I don't trust commercial interests operating hundreds of these due to this reason.

3) It's bad for the environment, both the mining to get the uranium and all of the processes to turn it into fuel.

4) There is no answer for spent fuel.

Whereas with solar or wind you can basically remove #1, #2, and #4, however you still have to mine and process the materials.

Anyways, nuclear will be great for some niche uses, I am sure, but it isn't the answer to our green energy prayers.

There was some rule, that the cost of safety (like how thick concrete should be in some places), could be so high, that the usually cheaper fission energy would be equal in cost with the other sources (like burning oil). Then came the oil crisis of the 70's in USA. The safety margins got boosted to crazy levels, without any realistic gains. Moving from 99.999% to 99.9999% safety (just an example).

When the oil prices dropped, safety standards stayed and now fission energy is expensive. At least in USA and EU. Not in France or South Korea, which streamlined the regulations.

2) not with the modern technology, it isn't. And there are even safer alternatives like marble balls reactors that can't meltdown even if cooling is shut down.

3) not using it is bad for the environment. Fuel requirements are minimal compared to other plants. Even some types of renewables pollute more per W of energy produced. Like wind turbines that will fill up landfills at some point.

4) Thorium reactors. If we just give the fission energy some research & development, we can burn all the spent fuel up in thorium reactors.

It’s not economically viable. No amount of (ugh) Jordan Peterson whining will change that.

You add tariffs and you make steel production profitable in US. China subsidizes it's electric cars industry and they can sell EVs in Europe for half the price of European cars, literally killing the market.

You subsidize renewables heavily and you get windfarms that are unprofitable once subsidizing ends.

I'm sure that in a free market situation, your comment would make lot of sense. But this is not the case and you should read up a little.

I believe that one should aim to, in spite of their political views, try to see the big picture. Like why there's so little nuclear vs sun or wind.

Let me know, specifically, which of the safety measures you think we can skip, with your extensive knowledge.

Bag in/bag out was developed for labs handling infectious micro-organisms. It involves a complicated bagging system, which, if done properly, isolates a contaminated filter from the environment during filter change outs.

But for nuclear the bag only protects from alpha particles and electrons. It has zero impact on photon dose. If workers are wearing bunny suits and respirators they are already protected from alphas and electrons. The extra change out time required by Bag In/Bag Out increased the worker photon dose.

This regulation actually increases workers’ exposure to radiation.