Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ialsoagree t1_is5b7iu wrote

Nuclear isn't the magic bullet it's made out to be.

It will take years, even a decade or more to get plants built if we start today. Those plants must be built near water supplies. And all their waste will be stored on site because we have no where to put it. And the electricity produced will likely be more expensive than what you're used to, so expect rate hikes. Nuclear costs about double what solar or wind costs per kwh.


Southern-Exercise t1_is5gyvw wrote

And it's not walk away safe which is what it will take for me, personally, to support it.

If some natural disaster or massive pandemic takes out a large chunk of the population, I'd rather not have a bunch of nuclear power plants making large sections of the planet unsafe with no way for the average person to even be aware they are in danger.

You can safely walk/live near any solar/wind power plant without any need for a trained and qualified staff to safely shut it down in the event of some disaster.


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is70z7z wrote

This is a good point and should be thought about in newer reactor designs. I haven't done any research on how designs have changed since then, but i would like to think they thought about it concerning the past history with nuclear.


Southern-Exercise t1_is77hd1 wrote

As far as I'm aware, there are no systems online that are walk away safe. There are several that are in testing, etc, but nothing that is being deployed.

NuScale is one system that is working on setting up their first plant, but nothing is online as far as I know.

They can supposedly shut down and cool down without any people, computers, power or water which is not true for what's currently being used.


EtrnlPUNishment t1_is632ww wrote

There isn't really a magic bullet solution. Solar and Wind depend on environmental factors out of our control. Nuclear provides more stable power generation but has public safety concerns. As for nuclear waste, I have been wondering if the issue has been blown too far out of proportion. Kyle Hill made a video some time ago discussing it which does put things in another light. He's obviously pro nuclear and very optimistic about the technology but I think the points are still valid. Nuclear power seems remarkably safe when handled properly. Long term storage can be solved in safe ways as long as the people in charge treat it with the respect that it needs. Whether we can realistically expect that to happen is another story...


wgc123 t1_is6he9s wrote

It doesn’t even matter anymore whether you’re pro or anti nuclear: those projects take way too long to help us limit climate change. There’s really no longer any point in arguing the technical pros and cons.

By all means, let’s continue research, let’s roll out small modular reactors, let’s see if the utopia promised by fusion ever pans out. But we need to address climate change ASAP, and we have proven technologies in conservation, wind, solar, heat pumps and EVs that are already rolling out, are inexpensive, and will get us at least halfway there. We need to add urgency to these rollouts while still developing the next phases


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is70ixv wrote

Sure, it might take that time (10yrs for each plant), but at least we are doing something during that time which essentially guantees a respectable power output. Im not sure about the economics, because nuclear is expensive to build but cheap to run, so what timeline is being used to judge kwh cost? Id rather pay more for reliable energy generation.

Im not going into the waste thing because its been beat to death, and not to be as big of an issue people thought when properly stored, and we have breeder reactors that use waste too.


ialsoagree t1_is73wuu wrote

>Im not going into the waste thing

Of course not. Why would you deal with a problem that there's no good solution for? It kind of blows up your whole argument. Why acknowledge that.

Oh, there's good long term storage solutions? Where?

Oh, there's breeder reactors we can send it to? Where?

>Sure, it might take that time (10yrs for each plant)

10 years is about the minimum time, 40+ years is not an unreasonable length of time for it to take to complete a single nuclear power plant.

Watts Bar began construction in 1973, unit 1 was completed in 1996, unit 2 was completed in 2015. Combined, the plant can produce ~2.33GW of power and cost more than $23 billion to construct.

Meanwhile, offshore wind costs about $1.3 million per MW.

For $23 billion, you can build about 17.7GW of offshore wind, and it will be finished sooner than the 1 nuclear plant that produces about 1/10th the power.


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is7fyfk wrote

If you think the waste management problem of nuclear "brings down my whole arguement", I dont know if you realize just how small of a drop in the ocean it really is compared to the shit we are doing now.

>Oh, there's good long term storage solutions? Where?

Using vitrification? Anywhere. >Oh, there's breeder reactors we can send it to? Where?

I wonder why there are none after the big stink people made about nuclear. Putting the cart before the horse.


ialsoagree t1_is7kxmw wrote

>I dont know if you realize just how small of a drop in the ocean it really is compared to the shit we are doing now.

It's such a small problem, that beyond all the environmental regulations and monitoring we have to do, we also have an entire government program dedicated to the security of just nuclear waste:

It's literally described as "the most highly regulated and heavily guarded of all civilian infrastructure."

But tell me more about how small an issue it is.

>Using vitrification? Anywhere.

Which currently isn't being practiced in any substantial quantity in the US.

Even if it were, vitrified waste is still radioactive and must be carefully stored. While it does make the issue a little easier to manage, it is not a solution to the storage problem.

You cannot store vitrified nuclear waste "anywhere."

>I wonder why there are none after the big stink people made about nuclear. Putting the cart before the horse.

Actually it has nothing to do with that.

Breeder reactors were phased out primarily for two reasons:

We found more uranium fuel sources, so the need to get all the energy out of the uranium we had greatly diminished.

The navy needed pressurized water reactors because they were the only design that could be shrunk down to a size that would fit on ships - submarines in particular.

Because the navy poured so much money into the research and development of PWRs, the cost to build them commercially was highly subsidized. There was far less research completed on making reliable, safe breeder reactors, so the costs to pursue them were substantially higher.

I also appreciate that you didn't address the fact that per dollar, we can get almost ten times the power output from offshore wind, and we can do it faster.


MachineGoat t1_is5heug wrote

Get your facts straight on waste storage. More or less zero effort is spent containing the waste from solar and wind generation.

Solar panel production is a very dirty industry, as is dealing with decommissioned turbine blades.

Stop spreading lies about waste streams.


ialsoagree t1_is5hoqb wrote

Please quote something I said that is a lie.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, be specific about what I lied about.


MachineGoat t1_is5jxt4 wrote

All of your points were a comparison of nuclear versus other methods of power generation.

You statements are just like the news, full of fear and doubt to drive a position but without any substance and if examined for more than a few seconds they fall apart.

You voiced a very strong opinion without stating any facts. What was your point if not to drive a position using misleading information?

Misleading is lying.


ialsoagree t1_is5krgn wrote

So you couldn't quote a single thing, got it.

Meanwhile, solar panels and wind turbine blades are recyclable.

Who is recycling nuclear waste again? Or right, no one, it's not recyclable. It's radioactive for tens of thousands of years and requires nuclear plants to keep full time security staff at every plant to prevent terrorists from getting to it.


[deleted] t1_is5l8aj wrote



ialsoagree t1_is5mkbp wrote

This is just propaganda from the oil companies, are you a paid shill?

That's not to say wind turbine blades are widely recycled, they aren't, but they can be, and anyone stating otherwise is spreading misinformation and lying.

Further, the toxicity of solar panel production is overstated due to a non-peer reviewed study that reached erroneous conclusions by using deceptive comparisons with spent nuclear fuel.

You can read more about that here: