What are your thoughts on nuclear power?
Posted by Terrible_Onions@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 359 comments
Posted by Terrible_Onions@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 359 comments
TotalSmooth@reddit
All for it but after 3 mile island 1979 until 2013, a period of 34 years, the nuclear regulatory Commission granted no licenses to build new nuclear reactors.
Strict-Farmer904@reddit
I would totally be all for it. Though I also kind of feel like we as a culture probably can’t have nice things because we’re just so nasty to each other about it. I’m sure there would be some easily preventable accident brought on by cost-cutting resultant from some kind of gladhanding somewhere. Add into that inevitable deregulation, and I would think that while nuclear is and should be broadly very safe, in America it probably wouldn’t be. It would be the 737 Max of power; Made unsafe by greed and laziness
DarwinGhoti@reddit
The fact that we’re not rushing to build thorium reactors is deeply stupid.
ODoggerino@reddit
How are we gonna do that when they don’t exist, and the science makes them seem awkward and difficult to use
DarwinGhoti@reddit
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-potential-in-nuclear-energy-new-iaea-analysis#:~:text=In%20August%202021%2C%20China%20announced,of%20Thorium%2DBased%20Nuclear%20Energy.
ODoggerino@reddit
Exactly! No thorium reactors have ever been used in anger because they’re currently so immature it’s just testing with experiments to see if it’s even feasible.
Techaissance@reddit
Very strongly pro. It’s a very clean and efficient power source. The only problem is that when it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. That said, it’s also rare enough that it makes headlines. Most of the e issues people worry about have been addressed in newer nuclear plants.
ODoggerino@reddit
It goes much less wrong than hydro does when that goes wrong. What do you think about hydro?
Techaissance@reddit
Too location dependent to rely on for a national grid.
NCC1701-Enterprise@reddit
We need more of it, it is safe and cheap, modern reactors produce minimal waste, it is shame that as a country our policy has been minimal use of nuclear power.
ODoggerino@reddit
Safe yes but far from cheap
FluffusMaximus@reddit
The Simpson’s Effect. For many folks it’s associated with Homer Simpson, subconsciously.
RastaFazool@reddit
safe, efficient, and would certainly lower energy costs.
people who are against it have no idea how how good the newest generation of reactors are.
ODoggerino@reddit
I work in nuclear and I’m not massively for it. It’s just so incredibly expensive right now.
cikanman@reddit
And don't get me started on thorium
ODoggerino@reddit
It doesn’t really exist yet so there’s not much to say lol
Linfords_lunchbox@reddit
That depends on the regulation of private entities running the things. Safety goes out the window when they think they can get away with it to boost profit.
MonsterHunterBanjo@reddit
There's literally nuclear plants where the control rods are held in place by electromagnets, so if the power goes off they fall into place to stop the nuclear reaction and shut down the plant.
Orlonz@reddit
And without checks and regulations, those rods will be held up by clear tape to save on energy to pay bonuses to the execs after refunding the tape expense and $10 gift card.
MonsterHunterBanjo@reddit
I'm trying to not be mean, but, the thing you're saying, like.. using cheap materials to "hold the rods up", would mean that, if the material fails, and the rods fall down, then the reactor shuts down because the rods fall down and stop the nuclear reactor, so it would be safe.
Orlonz@reddit
Apologies for the late reply. What I meant was that without regulations and checking, people will take shortcuts. Like using something cheap to save some money. In this case they will save the energy by holding the rods up some other way. And then give themselves a bonus for reducing operating costs.
MonsterHunterBanjo@reddit
I work in manufacturing as an engineer, and I don't know anyone who "cheaps out" on stuff. There are two major ways of operating, one that you have mentioned, where you reduce costs as much as you can, but that way of operating relies upon bulk/mass production in order to create a lot of units to be profitable. The other way that companies operate, and this usually happens in the energy sector, is "prestige and quality" model, where you compete against other companies to supply goods that are better quality, and yeah it helps to be less expensive too, but the drop in price is usually not allowed to happen at the reduction in quality.
In the way nuclear reactors are designed to day, the failsafe relies on gravity to drop control rods down which stops the nuclear reactions and the power plant shuts down and doesn't ever get close to having a melt down. If the material that holds the rods up fails, the company loses money because the power plant shuts down, so it becomes more profitable in the long run for the material to be made out of something that won't fail.
Orlonz@reddit
It's very rare that front line employees do these things or do them enough to cause such effects. Contrary to what the media paints, they have their pride and work ethic; this is true across sectors, not just power.
But without independent oversight, the overall business does cut corners. At best case, they do so because they underestimate the risk and they do so because of the focused view they have. This is why we have the concepts of "Trust but verify" and "4-eyes". Even engineers have the "PHB decision" gag.
Let's look at Enron. A company that literally told plants to throttle up so they could buy energy for cheap and then told them to throttle down so they could sell high. You think the front line employees had any say in these matters? Consider throttling down a nuclear plant when the river temperature is low. Any engineer would find that odd but would do it without question; because bosses orders.
But certainly that plant had to deal with the losses of operating inefficiently. Eventually those losses would result in cost cutting. And without oversight on what can't be done, cuts will happen for short term gain even if long term loss is expected.
To continue, the Californian pensions put far too much into Enron. You think any front line Accountant/Finance advisor thought that was a smart thing to do? To put so many eggs into one basket? The media, corp heads, and even the employees highly celebrated the decision. There was clearly little independent oversight. The short term gains were immense and I am sure expertise was let go since they were no longer needed to maintain a complex portfolio.
The long term gains were immense losses. Only Florida had larger, single entity losses.
MyUsername2459@reddit
As I always say, if you want something done poorly, cheaply, and without regard for safety. . .privatize it.
Privatizing government services never goes well. All it does is destroy perfectly good public services so someone can make a profit.
Eldestruct0@reddit
Remind me which nuclear disaster was the worst history and if it was privately or government owned again?
Rezboy209@reddit
Well, we are talking about the USSR and they did a pretty poor job of implementing Socialism. Aside from that the Soviet Union was pretty impoverished due to the many economic sanctions placed on them so what they did have was pretty poor quality.
Eldestruct0@reddit
They were impoverished because that's what happens whenever communism is tried because the thing never works in practice. Stop trying to say "it's not their fault" when it definitely was.
Rezboy209@reddit
They were impoverished because Russia had been worn torn for over 100 years. They were impoverished because Stalin implemented the Great Turn in order to rapidly industrialize in the 1920s-30s which took a huge toll on the USSR. They were impoverished due to WW2's huge impact on the nation and its people. They were impoverished due to the arms race during the Cold War as they tried to compete with other world powers. And they were further impoverished due to the numerous economic sanctions placed on the USSR by the US and our allies.
Some of those things were definitely their fault. I didn't once say it wasn't their fault, but it wasn't Communisms fault either. There were many factors, internal and external, that caused the problems and poverty in the USSR. Definitely do some reading.
Figgler@reddit
By that thought process communism should be the most efficient system out there.
Rezboy209@reddit
Let me tell you a little something about Communism. It 100% SHOULD be the most efficient system out there, but nobody in the history of our world has ever been able to properly implement it due to a variety of factors. The most well known "Communist" nations in the world (USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam) were in fact NOT actually Communist. Maybe an attempt at Vulgar Socialism, but certainly not Communist.
In a perfect world Communism would be the best system to live under. But alas we do not live in a perfect world.
MyUsername2459@reddit
No, because I'm talking about privatizing government services, not opposition to the free market economy.
Consumer goods and services work best when produced through well-regulated private industry.
Public services work best when performed by the government.
MarcusAurelius0@reddit
Ah so we need nationalized power.
ZerexTheCool@reddit
Only if your government is trustworthy and able to make long term plans and carry them out.
If you have a government that swings wildly back and forth, and one of those "forth's" wants to cut costs at any consequence and will blindly swing a chainsaw around heedless of the potential harm... Maybe not nationalized in that case.
MarcusAurelius0@reddit
So we need to protect it from politics.
OldBlueKat@reddit
OH, so have it run by "the government" but not by "the politicians".
How does THAT work?
Any day now, DOGE is going to turn it's chain-saw focus onto the lower level employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They are reporting through the Department of Energy to new Cabinet Secretary Chris Wright. Elon is going to 'decide' who we need regulating shit, and DJT is going to tell him to go ahead.
These are the people in charge of monitoring safety compliance at existing nuclear reactors. What 5 important things do you think they did last week?
I think even the privately owned (well, mostly 'stockholder publicly owned') utility companies are thinking "oh, we're fucked now."
ZerexTheCool@reddit
Absolutely. Just like how we need to protect the Central Bank from politics.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to protect it from politics if the populace vote for people who do not care about laws and court orders.
If the Central Bank can maintain its independence despite direct attempts to control it, I'll be more convinced that an independent nationalized energy department is a good idea.
(I don't need convincing if we leave it to the States to form, rather than the Federal Government. I feel like that has a higher chance of being fine despite crazy politics.)
SaintsFanPA@reddit
Some states? Sure. Trusting ERCOT to regulate nuclear? I’ll pass. Forget Alabama and Worse Alabama.
OHFTP@reddit
What is Worse Alabama?
SaintsFanPA@reddit
Some people call it Mississippi. It is also known as Worse Louisiana.
UnfairHoneydew6690@reddit
You’re aware we have a nuclear power plant here in Alabama and it’s fine right?
SaintsFanPA@reddit
Regulated by the Feds.
UnfairHoneydew6690@reddit
That doesn’t negate the point. Don’t shit on Alabama when we’re fucking fine.
HorseFeathersFur@reddit
You have an excellent way with words
sanesociopath@reddit
And yet one of the worst nuclear disasters was from a nationalized powerplant
Kyle81020@reddit
Any examples or are you just assuming that? Operators live in the vicinity of the reactors they work at; they have a pretty strong incentive to operate the plant safely.
Orlonz@reddit
That's not a serious question right? There have been many incidents and accidents over the decades. I think they are still far less than other types of plants.
It's the regs that keep the severity and frequency of mishaps to a minimum. But we still have them.
Would people really be safer if they got on the road without a driver's license? Would they be safer if they made the test too easy or relaxed to pass/fail?
opalandolive@reddit
Nuclear power also has a US self governing body (INPO) and a world self governing body (WANO), so it's not just the government.
HustlaOfCultcha@reddit
Also the Three Mile Island incident the reactor worked like it was supposed to work, but the people on hand that were supposed to know how to deal with the reactor as it was melting down, didn't. Fukushima was just an engineering blunder that other countries haven't made and Chernobyl just wouldn't happen in other first world countries.
Sardukar333@reddit
Soviet Union was explicit the second world.
I also like to say; If we didn't do things just because the soviet's failed at it we would have food or cars either!
Swurphey@reddit
I don't know why Japan didn't just build their reactor on the coast that DOESN'T get massive tsunamis
kilroy-was-here-2543@reddit
It’s also significantly cleaner than something like coal fire which releases significantly more radiation into the environment (it’s not even close honestly, coal fire ash is super radioactive and it gets shot out into the surrounding environment where a nuke plant keeps almost all of its radiation contained inside)
OldBlueKat@reddit
They are still FREAKING expensive to build at scale, so even in areas that would consider them, some of the potential generating companies, even those with experience with older tech, are a little hesitant to commit.
There's still a whole host of issues around what to do with spent fuel. Technologies exist, but there's a lot of NIMBYism holding some of it back, and a lot of fear-mongering about it.
Everyone is rubbing their hands together about fusion possibilities, but that's been hovering 'just over the horizon' for about 40 years now. Still looks possible, but we are far from scale level power available that way.
So -- keep the current fleet running, and keep innovating for the future, and try to pull down some of the legislative blocks that were over-reactions to 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima. AND MAKE SURE that people understand how those events were preventable with proper design and operation, and that future projects will take them into account.
the_number_2@reddit
Or in the case of 2/3 of them (Chernobyl notwithstanding), not nearly as bad as people think they were (still bad, just not "almost ended the world" bad).
OldBlueKat@reddit
Absolutely. It's like -- look people, the system to shut these things down safely in the event of a breakdown real did what it was supposed to do. Those 2 were kind of an ugly skid/slide to a stop, and we are taking lessons from them, but they did work.
Also, maybe don't build so close to a tsunami prone shoreline next time.
Sutcliffe@reddit
Even legacy. So few people realize ~15-20% of us power is nuclear without any of the new builds / tech. And they've been doing it for decades.
OldBlueKat@reddit
The Midwest has more than a few plants, but all of them are getting into the 'aged fleet' range. It's a question of how long can they be safely operated and maintained, how do we shut down and replace them (if legislators will even allow that), what do we do with the "currently safely stored, but..." spent fuel, etc.
It's an industry challenge.
Practical_Argument50@reddit
NJ used to be 50% Nuke powered. That was until Oyster Creek was shut down in 2019.
nylondragon64@reddit
Don't forget corporate greed. Energy prices won't go down.
RaspberryNo5800@reddit
the supply and demand understander has logged on
nylondragon64@reddit
Yeah that's a whole other thing. You don't have the same problem in maine as city areas. High rises , offices asking for more watts per foot than the over 100 year old infrastructure can handle.
I live on long island N.Y. we pay some of the highest rates in the country. All they do is jack up the prices every year. All that off shore wind farm no one wanted is going to do is raise rates again. Let's not talk about shorem that we are still paying for.
RaspberryNo5800@reddit
Right, I forgot, we don’t have electricity here yet. All that shitting in holes and staying warm by fire made me think I had electricity bills to pay for a second.
nylondragon64@reddit
Yeah, Ya'll still rubbing sticks together to make fire and your boats are made out of wood.
RaspberryNo5800@reddit
That does become a problem when we have to warm up on our boats, yes.
nylondragon64@reddit
Lol. Oh those old whaling ships were boiling the blubber on deck.
Not for nothing but I love all the old schooners up in Maine. An old friend of mines don owns the Rigging .
RaspberryNo5800@reddit
Well let’s not forget, we also make those absolutely fucking useless Zumwalt class destroyers. For some reason.
nylondragon64@reddit
Aye I'll load the cannons on my frigate any day.
throwawtphone@reddit
Agrees. The only caveat i have is that the geographic location is important. Weather extremes (earthquakes / flooding / tornados, etc) need to be seriously considered.
Forward_Control2267@reddit
The newest ones don't even have to worry about that as much. Look up PBRs.
martlet1@reddit
Japan would like a word…..
Forward_Control2267@reddit
Fukushima isn't a PBR. And frankly, Japan should be evidence that the absolute worst case scenario can be handled without catastrophe.
throwawtphone@reddit
I will thanks!
BeeNo8198@reddit
Safe, yes, efficient, yes, would they lower energy costs? Very unlikely. You in the US have a good spread of fuel types in your power stations. This tends to keep prices lower, because nothing is too dominant and you won't have price spikes. The new gen of nuclear being built by France across Europe (in Finland, UK, and France) are heinously expensive. To give you an idea, in the UK, at the point at which the new nuclear power station was given the "OK", the average price of electricity was around £45/MWh. The new nuclear station had to use a financial instrument, a contract for difference, which is a derivative product that pegs the price paid to the (in this case) nuclear power generator to the market price. The CfD was set at about £92, around double the market price for electricity in the UK (comprised at the time of a mix of mostly gas, some old nukes, coal, wind and hydro).
So, by all means have nukes to keep your lights on, but don't kid yourself that it will be cheap.
HamRadio_73@reddit
Full speed ahead.
Sands43@reddit
Ridiculous.
Show me the history of cost and schedule of project in the US vs those in France. That is why Nuke has routinely failed in the US.
Enrico_Dandolo27@reddit
You’re so right bestie. We need more coal power plants. Nothing says progress like destroying the world. While we’re at it, let’s get more oil power plants too. I don’t think the Gulf of Mexico has had enough oil spills in it. And maybe we’ll throw in some natural gas power plants! Fracking is the future 😍😍😍
Dumbass.
pinniped90@reddit
But I saw a commercial on TV about "clean coal"!
(Produced by Koch Industries.)
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
In other words, it can be done efficiently and successfully.
What's your point.
CODENAMEDERPY@reddit
Washington State.
sas223@reddit
Agreed
craik98@reddit
We definitely need it implemented everywhere.
Wii_wii_baget@reddit
I keep having dreams over nuclear war I hate it but if we can find a way to sustainably make power without nuclear powers help I’d be fine with that
Akem0417@reddit
We need it to support renewable energy. The sun and wind are much less consistent than people's demand for energy and if we don't use nuclear we'll have to burn fossil fuels to make up for that which is worse
MackSeaMcgee@reddit
It's a stopgap from fossil fuels to solar capture. It's incredibly dangerous and there is no long term solution to nuclear waste.
notyogrannysgrandkid@reddit
One of the safest and cleanest energy sources available. If anti-nuclear protests in the 70’s and 80’s hadn’t been so effective, we might not be anywhere near the atmospheric carbon levels we are today.
longpig503@reddit
If there is a viable alternative I’m not for it. I don’t consider coal viable. I mean things like geothermal, wave, solar, wind, hydro.
livelongprospurr@reddit
When it’s bad, it’s very, very bad. I went to a German university for an exchange year the autumn after Chernobyl, and there was still home preserved food from the garden around that I felt hesitant to eat. Distance from Chernobyl = 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometers).
Probably would have been ok, but I was reminded of that situation lately with the Japanese meltdown cleanup going on now which is going to take decades. And all they did was be in the path of a tsunami.
ThePfunkallstar@reddit
I think most people understand the benefits of nuclear at this point. You’re always going to have a minority (but loud) group of people who are worried about rivers full of fish with three eyes, though.
I always heard the problem is that it doesn’t make business sense yet, that the up front costs are too great.
JustSomeGuy556@reddit
"The costs are too great" is almost all based on a single powerpoint slide and substantially misrepresents the truth... It's basically using the most expensive builds ever, rather than any of the many that are far cheaper... including ones in the US.
OldBlueKat@reddit
If that were really true, I think we would be hearing a lot more 'enthusiasm' from the utility sector. We really aren't.
Those people know what their existing plants cost them to build, operate, and maintain. They have clues what the next 'capital expenditure' might look like. Even worse now with all the tariffs on key metals kicking in. It takes a LOT of specialty steel and concrete, as well as other things, to build a containment vessel.
They still keep their hand in, both for their existing nuclear fleet and for any promising technology advances. Also a lot of interest in any changes in state-level legislation about "no new nukes" or spent fuel reprocessing or permanent storage, but most of the industry seems to be focusing on wind and solar to replace their aging coal fleet for now.
There's an old joke in the nuke industry: The plant isn't finished until the weight of the documenting regulatory permit paperwork equals the weight of the plant itself.
JustSomeGuy556@reddit
The utilities are scared of nuclear because of regulatory uncertainty.
OldBlueKat@reddit
And huge capital outlays in the face of that uncertainty. Solar and wind farms give then scale up/down options if the political 'winds' shift too much, nuclear is a bigass commitment for decades.
Terrible_Onions@reddit (OP)
Isn’t that what the government is for? To take on big unprofitable projects the private sector doesn’t want to touch?
OldBlueKat@reddit
Have you met the recent US government?
They don't even want to pay salaries of food and nuclear and pharmaceutical plant INSPECTORS for the ones currently operating! They think once they chop down enough regulations, the private capital world will leap in overnight to build all these "Big, Beautiful" coal/ oil/ gas/ nuclear burning facilities.
And most of the generating companies are going, "Uh, nope. Cost of capital investment too high for good returns. We're spending on wind and solar now, thanks."
Meanwhile, DJT prattles on about his "beautiful, clean coal." I really believe he thinks they take it out in the backyard and hose it down with some "magic bleach-like stuff" and then it's fine.
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
That's what I've always figured. It would initially have to be a public works project.
Fit-Rip-4550@reddit
It is the best source of energy by far especially since it is the most dense. Needs considerably more innovation and development to achieve a proper atomic renaissance though.
DevilPixelation@reddit
Has its downsides, but it’s safe, clean, and efficient and should definitely be used more. Too many people think of stuff like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or the atomic bombs, when they hear the word nuclear.
stangAce20@reddit
Too much tozic waste
Temporary_Quote9788@reddit
Gets a bad rap. It’s clean, lasts forever, actually safe when they follow proper procedures. Unlike Chernobyl
RedBeardedFCKR@reddit
Cleanest, cheapest, and most efficient way to boil enough water to power 1/3rd of a state.
GulfofMaineLobsters@reddit
As someone who used to work with nuclear stuff (Machinists Mate, submarines) nuclear is good stuff, clean, efficient, reliable, and believe it or not potentially recyclable if you remove the contamination from the fuel rods, the French are pretty good at it already.
Sudden-Cardiologist5@reddit
We need more.
Carbon-Based216@reddit
I think it is necessary though i don't quite understand what it apparently costs billions of dollars to make a plant. I get stuff is expensive but not billion dollar expensive. Why can't they make some standardized designed and mass produce them? It has been almost 100 years since nuclear power became a thing. I can't imagine there is that much left to invent/engineer.
ReactionAble7945@reddit
Like all things there are places for it and places I would NEVER put it.
The USA needs 2 of these for the USA and probably 7 more for around the world.
When there is an earth quake or tsunami or .... You fly them in and drop them off close to a hospital (or maybe refugee camp) and have the electrical crews work from that location tying other things in.
In theory this would be like working an electrical outage form both end.
Down side, these are not large, there is a limit to what they can do.
It will need a water supply, lake, River,....
I am sure it would violate some EPA reg about water being too hot and expect there could be a fish kill, but maybe not any more than was already happening.
>>>>>
And the USA, Russia, France... made the reactors so they could make nuke bombs. I think (I don't know) there is a way to make them more efficient. Let's be smart about this. What can we build?
>>>>>>
>>>>
And at the same time, I have concerns about the radioactive materials and developing nations trying to go alone, or powers making dirty bombs or making regular bombs....
So, like everything else, the devil is in the details.
Super-Lychee8852@reddit
Need more
Smart_Engine_3331@reddit
From what understand, it's generally actually better than most conventional forms of power, but when it fails, it fails hard and thats what has given it a bad reputation. Im generally for it as long as it is carefully monitored.
DougOsborne@reddit
It's a no-go until we figure out what to do with the toxic waste.
Fusion and other variants are simply wishful thinking at this point. By the time thorium or other fuels are properly implemented, we hopefully would have exploited renewables to the point where nuclear is no longer an option.
androidbear04@reddit
I think people are foolish to not develop it. The hippies in the 70s were totally against it because they said it was somehow connected to nuclear bombs.
When my husband was in the Navy in the 70s, the submarines were nuclear powered and no one got hurt.
Instead of fewer ginormus nuclear power plants that cause ginormus disasters, we should have lots more smaller ones. Building more will give designers the chance to improve design and safety features because of the experience they will get and lessons learned from building many of them.
WinterRevolutionary6@reddit
I would love if more nuclear power was used. Radioactive waste is just rocks and dirt. It’s not some scary green goop. It’s all safe and I trust it
xXGreen45Xx@reddit
Seems to be better and cleaner than fossil fuel/natural gas, so I'm fine with it.
Fact_Stater@reddit
It's the only serious alternative to fossil fuels. It's much better for the environment than anything else. Even dealing with the waste isn't a big deal.
But thanks to the fucking moron hippies protesting them in the 60s, we're way behind on using it.
781nnylasil@reddit
Scary
ericbythebay@reddit
It’s expensive power and takes along time to build.
There are cheaper sources of generation.
ifallallthetime@reddit
We need a lot more of it
travelinmatt76@reddit
As more fossil fuel type power is shutdown we will need more baseline power such as nuclear to make up for when solar and wind aren't producing. I'm all for more nuclear.
StoicWolf15@reddit
I did a paper on it in middle school and have been a fan since. I'm currently an electrician and still pushing for it.
soloChristoGlorium@reddit
Pro.
It's safe, green and produces a lot of energy using not a lot of fuel.
And advancements in technology mean we can now use a lot of nuclear waste in power production as well.
ajenpersuajen@reddit
Just some context, I’ve worked in sustainable energy for about 10 years now. Maybe I’m just a hippie but real decarbonization stops when you use less energy, not make more of it more efficiently. That’s a near impossible future for humanity, unfortunately, so nuclear (to me) is a band aid solution to a problem that is viewed at from the wrong perspective. Humans consume what is available. That’s our history. There’s damn near never been a time where we don’t just consume whatever is available until it’s gone. Making more power just gives us more reason to be wasteful with it. Like with AI… do we really need to have it with every Google search? No, but we can, so we do. That comes with a huge amount of energy needs, but since we’re capable of meeting those energy needs, we just do it and fuck the consequences.
To me it’s like a subset of jevons paradox. But again, it’s a future that doesn’t work with the current philosophies of mankind, so I don’t even chime in on this anymore.
Mushrooming247@reddit
I support it.
I think our chances for another meltdown are very low, modern power plants at least in my country are well-regulated and monitored.
Both of my parents worked at a nuclear power plant from before my birth until they retired. They had one open house day where everyone could bring their families to tour the plant. They only did that once, but it was cool.
They had models of turbines set up, and we got to see inside a cooling tower. We also just kind of roamed around with our parents and met coworkers. Everyone was excited to show their families the plant, but I think it might have been a security issue, as I mentioned it was never repeated.
But we did come back to hang out around the plant and volunteer for the annual union-member river cleanup, and I never saw any 3-eyed fish or any of the car-sized catfish the divers claimed lived in rivers. (The plant employed divers to monitor and scrape clams off of grates underwater. They loved the warm water from the plant and would clog the outflow pipes.)
DMDingo@reddit
We need to expand out our nuclear power grid. However, our current plants could use a refitting as well. All of them in IL are 40+ years old.
It's a bit crazy that we don't have more along the Mississippi.
JMS1991@reddit
Could flood risk be a reason?
Lootlizard@reddit
Flooding isn't a real problem for most of the Mississippi River basin. It doesn't have massive flow changes like a lot of mountain fed rivers. It's called Old Man River for a reason.
OldBlueKat@reddit
LOL -- that's NOT why it's called "Ol' Man River" at all. The upper Mississippi has regular spring floods, some more dramatic than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1993
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mississippi_River_floods
There is, in fact, a reason no utility company has tried to permit a nuke plant in the flood basin. There are quite a few coal or gas fired plants in the upper system though.
(My Dad took a rowboat to the plant he worked at for weeks in the 1965 flood -- technically on the Minnesota River, but just upstream of the confluence with the Mississippi.)
And for fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh9WayN7R-s (the audio is a bit scratchy from a 1936 recording.)
Lootlizard@reddit
I know that's not why it's called Old Man River. I was saying that the name fits because it is a massive, slow flowing river that doesn't see any regular massive water level swings. The area of the river you described north of Minneapolis is EXTREMELY different from the true river south of Minnesota. I grew up an hour from the headwaters, and I've been there 20 times. It's indistinguishable from every other river in Minnesota until you get past the falls in the Cities.
There has been a handful of relatively minor floods in the several hundred years that the river basin has been heavily industrialized. Compared to other major rivers that have massive flood cycles like the Tigris/Euphrates, the Nile, the Yellow, the Indus, etc... the Mississipi water level barely changes throughout the year. There are literally thousands of suitable sites along the Mississipi, 10's of thousands if you count it's major tributaries.
OldBlueKat@reddit
That's BS. There was major flooding on the lower Miss MULTIPLE times, just in different sections of it. Did you scroll down through that Wiki list?
Yes, the whole river rarely flood the entire length like some of those foreign rivers you named, but it has flooded regularly SOMEWHERE along it very often.
Born and raised MN too, and I'll agree that it's more of a slightly oversized meandering creek north of Monticello or so, but it's been an occasional monster from Iowa on south.
Lootlizard@reddit
"Major Flooding" is a relative term. Several of the "Floods" on that list just required a couple spillway to be opened and the biggest flood in terms of water level change in the North was in 1965 which only caused $225M in damage, which is not a lot considering how heavily industrialized the Mississippi river is. Adjusted for Inflation Hurricane Ian did more damage than almost every Mississippi flood combined.
My point still stands, though. Flooding is not a MAJOR concern on the Mississippi River. It floods rarely and relatively lightly so it can easily be prepared for. It's not like the Yellow River, where it'll randomly flood every few decades and kill a couple hundred thousand people or the Nile that has a massive flood plain that can stretch for miles in either direction. It is one of the most predictable and steady rivers in the world.
DMDingo@reddit
I could see that. Seven with all the lock & damns we have, it still floods a fair amount.
But I'm no engineer haha. There are probably solutions. There just had to be a will and $ for it.
dopefiendeddie@reddit
I'm absolutely for it. It's a clean and safe way to generate power.
Silver_Catman@reddit
Love nuclear power, wish we had more of it
FishrNC@reddit
It's the best solution for electric generation available. Small modular reactors could solve many distribution problems.
EdofJville@reddit
I'd rather have nuclear fusion plants than nuclear fission. I've long had a fear of radioactive meltdowns.
r2k398@reddit
We need more of it.
SteakAndIron@reddit
Anyone opposed to nuclear power entirely is a moron
Thereelgerg@reddit
It's great.
Meilingcrusader@reddit
I am Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant's strongest soldier. I think we should build like another 3 of them in New Hampshire. We have a need for electricity which can't be cut off by Canada, we have a ton of old mill towns on major rivers with plenty of water and in need of a bunch of good jobs, and the one plant we already have makes over half of all electricity the state makes (and our state makes more than it needs). We could become an energy powerhouse, fueling much of New England. It would make me proud to drive by a nuclear plant on my way to work knowing that the people in my town are working good jobs to keep the lights on, lower energy costs, and fuel the future all without any Co2 emissions.
Mueryk@reddit
Another way for us to heat water.
Puts out less radiation than a coal plant.
More reliable than a gas plant.
Has downsides but certainly has a large place in our energy needs.
We could definitely use more of them.
Wish we would have researched/designed for thorium/small scale plants. Less likely to be weaponized, and better scalable.
the_number_2@reddit
So many people give sideways face when you tell them that.
MaggieNFredders@reddit
My stbxh works in a hospital. I worked at a nuclear plant. He received more dose each quarter than I did in ten YEARS at the plant. I literally worked a hundred yards from the RX building. I was protected. Medical folks are not.
Mueryk@reddit
And the sad part is that it isn’t a subtle or little difference.
In many cases a nuclear plant even has a lower radiation signature than the surrounding area by nature of its design.
OldBlueKat@reddit
People do (are) researching them, we just don't have tech at commercially viable scale (yet.)
For one example: https://www.ornl.gov/directorate/ffesd
There's a lot of work going on at both the various National Labs, and at various research universities, sometimes in collaboration with energy industry companies. I'm sure DOD is in there somewhere, too.
Some of that is the kind of stuff DOGE is slashing, though.
thunder-bug-@reddit
Woaaaah
sleepinglucid@reddit
It's the safest way to power the world
grayMotley@reddit
Not against them.
Warm_Objective4162@reddit
We need more of it. I’ve lived my whole life near different nuclear power plants and have never had any fear of something bad happening.
AdEast4272@reddit
Three Mile Island really freaked out the boomers and their parents. It drove a lot of the crazy which effectively killed new nuclear power in the US. Chernobyl sealed the deal. Fukashima added a new layer of seal coat.
Having lived for a couple of years within 10 miles of the Braidwood plant back in the mid/late 80s, I can tell you the underlying fear was real.
OldBlueKat@reddit
One of the reactors in MN recently had a small escape of some cooling water that had very low contamination. The systems worked, they found it, solved the problem, cleaned it up, etc. They were pretty public about keeping the outside world informed as well as the proper authorities (PUC, EPA, etc.)
Then social media went viral about it. The number of local parents that went nuts to the media as if they expected their kids to glow in the dark within months was a bit surprising. it's still a bit of a 'hot topic' around there.
pfta4@reddit
I heard it's safe and great, but most people are undereducated about it and don't like it.
BoukenGreen@reddit
Because the first thought that come to mind when you mention nuclear energy is the Chernobyl disaster. And humans always think worst case scenario.
warneagle@reddit
Using Chernobyl to say that modern nuclear reactors are unsafe is like using the Ford Pinto to say that cars made in 2025 are unsafe. The Chernobyl reactor would’ve been obsolete in the west even in 1986.
OldBlueKat@reddit
True enough, but Fukushima re-ignited the fear.
There is something about 'radiation' that hits something primal. People are more unnerved by it than by smoke from wildfires or fossil fuel burning plants. It's hard to educate past that gut reaction.
BoukenGreen@reddit
Agreed but anti nuclear alarmism will always point to that and the Fukushima meltdown cause by the Tōhoku earthquake and Tsunima as why we shouldn’t have nuclear. I want more nuclear. I know it safe if everything is followed correctly. Of course that is probably because I live in the same county as Browns Ferry nuclear plant.
warneagle@reddit
Ironically enough Brown’s Ferry is a great counterexample to Fukushima since it suffered a LOOP due to the Hackleburg/Phil Campbell tornado on April 27th and shut down perfectly safely because the automatic safety systems did their job.
BoukenGreen@reddit
Yep. I was in the county rescue squad that has joint responsibility for keeping people out of the water around the exclusion zone when things go bad at the plant during that time, and we was never called for anything at the plant. We were mainly called to set up our flood lights for FEMA during that time.
warneagle@reddit
Yeah I mean it’s obviously not on the same level as a 9.1 Mw earthquake and it didn’t directly hit the plant, but it does show that our passive safety systems are solid and we’re prepared for this kind of thing.
BoukenGreen@reddit
Yep. They lost external power so it was automatically shut down and took around 5 days to get restarted.
BullfrogPersonal@reddit
It was started by Eisenhower as a propaganda program called "Atoms for Peace".
It is a joke. The closest thing to socialism in the US. It can only exist with huge government subsidies and protection. The industry with the closest alignment with the federal government.
The private sector would never use it because it is a money loser. It ties up huge sums of money for decades before you even generate electricity.
High grade uranium ore will only last for another 75 years. Since Russia cut off supplying the US with uranium, the US enriches uranium for power plants with enriched uranium from nuclear weapons.
There is a big overlap between civilian nuclear power, the federal government and nuclear weapons.
Sustainable energy is already cheaper than nuclear power.
The largest user of batteries in power generation is nuclear power not solar or wind power. That is because you can't economically throttle back the electrical output of a nuclear plant at night when power demand is lower than the output of the nukes. So they pump water uphill in pumped hydro reservoirs. Something like 90 percent of battery storage of electricity generated by nukes.
In summary, nuclear power is a bad idea. The best thing that will happen is the existing plants will be decommissioned eventually. You can have one or two to generate isotopes for medical stuff.
PossibilityOk782@reddit
Better than coal worse than many renewables
ehbowen@reddit
I completed Navy Nuclear Power School and I blame Jimmy Carter for torpedoing the industry with his Executive Order against reprocessing. I would say that it was the stupidest move he ever made, but we're talking Jimmy Carter so it might not even make the top ten.
UltimateAnswer42@reddit
Do i even want to know the logic behind stopping reprocessing?
DarwinGhoti@reddit
There’s a historical context. Three mile island was still fresh, and there was a pretty intense national debate on what to do with the byproducts of both the reactors and the refining/rep processing. People were still not very well educated on nuclear, well, anything at the period. Remember, we were still having duck and cover drills for nuclear annihilation as well.
ehbowen@reddit
I was in high school at the time of Three Mile Island. While I can't speak for the entire nation, I know that from the whole time I was in school, from 1968 onward, I never ONCE had a "duck and cover" drill.
DarwinGhoti@reddit
Interesting! I had them all throughout my childhood/school years) (72-84). Were you in TX the whole time?
OldBlueKat@reddit
Same for me in MN. I think my last one was pre-68?
ehbowen@reddit
Yes. Within sight (or at least smell!) of Refinery Row in Houston the whole time.
Maybe that's the reason my local school district never bothered. If the balloon went up we were going to get plastered anyways...
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
Pretty much anywhere within commuting distance of Downtown L.A. was going to get wiped off the map in the event of a first strike. Country's biggest port + aerospace/defense industry.
DarwinGhoti@reddit
I stand in awe of your username.
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
Why thank you. A man of culture, I see!
DarwinGhoti@reddit
I for one had complete faith in my desk to Sheild me from thermo nuclear annihilation. 🤣
OldBlueKat@reddit
Yeah, duck and cover was fading out in most places 5-10 years before the 3MI incident.
That doesn't mean there wasn't an entire generation of young adults who, having just come through Vietnam and the Watergate years, didn't have a HIGH level of scepticism about trusting the government to manage the nuclear industry.
ehbowen@reddit
Bluntly, Jimmy Carter thought that privately run nuclear reactors could never be safe. He was willing enough to keep naval reactors, but he wanted to shut down the civilian industry. He thought that blocking reprocessing and thus leaving the fuel cycle open (with little plutonium mines scattered all over the country in reactor fuel pools) would do it. He was almost right.
The safest way to handle nuclear waste...is to put it back into a reactor, after being reprocessed to remove undesirable isotopes. Unprocessed waste is extremely dangerous for thousands of years. If you reprocess it, though, and return the plutonium and other long-lived isotopes to a reactor where they can produce more energy, in less than 300 years the removed waste becomes less hazardous than the ground it was originally dug up from.
OldBlueKat@reddit
That's a pretty big IF.
I may be twisted around on the facts a bit here, but isn't some of the mess at the Hanford, WA site related to various failed reprocessing attempts? I mean, yes, the initial contamination came from work in WWII, but there's really a problem there and several projects have started and shut down over decades trying to reprocess the waste there.
I'm hopeful that bright young minds can find solutions, but they aren't easy.
WulfTheSaxon@reddit
The steelman argument is that opponents of reprocessing didn’t want other countries to develop reprocessing facilities because they could be used to make weapons material, and they thought that the US engaging in reprocessing would “legitimize” it and encourage other countries to do it.
Of course France, China, etc. are doing it anyway.
therealdrewder@reddit
Reprocessing produces plutonium, which can be used in bombs. However, considering how many bombs we already have, i don't see us avoiding it is very useful. Also plutonium can be used to make more nuclear energy.
An_Awesome_Name@reddit
Former NNPP shipyard engineer here. While Carter certainly didn’t help, three mile island and Chernobyl are more to blame in my opinion.
I still meet people near me that are proud of the fact they protested and helped stopped Seabrook Unit 2 in the 90s because Chernobyl scared them. Then when I try to explain how safe a PWR is, they want none of it.
It’s always funny too when in pretty much the same breath they ask why electricity is so expensive in New England. “Well let’s see, people like you blocked a 1200 MW PWR from being built in 1995, and since 2015 two 600 MW BWRs have been shut down because of people like you. We now burn more natural gas than we ever have”
ehbowen@reddit
The thing about Jimmy Carter's E/O is that it set the precedent that billion dollar capital projects (think Keystone pipeline) could be shut down at the whim of the executive's pen. Reagan rescinded that E/O as soon as he took office, but the damage was done. Nobody in corporate circles would ever truly think long term again.
Agreed that TMI didn't help, especially with the coincidental timing of The China Syndrome and associated scaremongering. Speaking of reactors, I started doing some independent research on nuclear power while I was in high school, and I still have a very nice GE "Description of a Boiling Water Reactor [BWR-6]" which runs about 100 pages, circa 1979.
An_Awesome_Name@reddit
It’s not just Carter’s E/O though even if it plays a major part though.
For example here in Massachusetts, no nuclear power activity other than decommissioning can occur without a state wide referendum. No new licenses, no licenses extensions, no construction permits.
Some of that probably goes against the NRC and DOE’s authority but it’s never been tested in court because nobody dares try, even state agencies tasked with clean energy transition. The reason nobody tries in this state is because both our sitting senators basically campaigned (partially) on closing Pilgrim, which they succeeded in. And why were they elected? Because a lot of Massachusetts residents wanted to see Pilgrim closed 10 years ago.
Attitudes are shifting I think, but the nuclear industry is definitely fighting an uphill battle here in New England. This is kind of surprising, considering we have two research reactors in the state, one of them right in the middle of Cambridge.
OldBlueKat@reddit
We have some slightly similar legislation here in MN.
There have been several attempts to 'unbend' some of the details, particularly any that constrain the possibility of extending the use and viability of our existing nuclear plants, which are reaching an age where they need to either upgrade or shut down within a decade or so.
ehbowen@reddit
I saw a very good suggestion from a commentator named Karl Denninger recently. We should have (at least) legislation, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, which states that once a governmental body (Federal, state, or local) issues a license for a proposed activity any revocation of that license for any reason other than failure to operate under the conditions specified when the license was granted constitutes a governmental "taking" under the Fifth Amendment and the license holders must be made whole for any loss, including loss of anticipated profits over the lifetime of the license.
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
I'd be okay with that if it was an upfront lump settlement rather than a neverending stream of payouts.
ehbowen@reddit
Look up "Present Value of an Annuity." If a plant is licensed to operate for 40 years, and due to something other than violation of the terms the license was issued under the license is revoked at the ten year point, then the licensee is due capital costs plus reasonable profits for the next 30 years. I'd put "reasonable profits" as a 10% profit margin after all anticipated operating expenses including taxes and fees. If you treat it as an annuity then it really doesn't matter if it's paid as a lump sum or over the 30 year period; it all works out the same in the end.
Of course, in this scenario suppliers and subcontractors with contracts would be due compensation for the taking of the value of the contract, as would permanent employees who are working or have been given an offer of employment at the time of the license revocation. No contract, though, no payment; the licensee would be free to select another vendor for purely business reason at any moment anyway. But if you're an employee working there and you planned to make it a career, you've had your future taken as well.
Linfords_lunchbox@reddit
Snazzy cardigans though...
davidm2232@reddit
It's grossly over complicated and over regulated. You could do nuclear so much cheaper while still being safe.
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
I'm for it.
23haveblue@reddit
The Mr Fusion ran the time machine, it still required gasoline to get the Delorean to 88 miles per hour
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
Will it run on whiskey?
DarwinGhoti@reddit
And my Mr. Handy.
dr_strange-love@reddit
A nuclear powered hand job machine sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
purdinpopo@reddit
Relevant top secret scene
https://youtu.be/hXqLWqCqDHc?si=us9k5Azv99JN7Lxc
Martin then dies from using the wrong electrical outlet, which happens off screen.
Fantastic_Fox4948@reddit
How about a Ms. Handy then?
mrlolloran@reddit
And my axe!
gadget850@reddit
You mean the Ms. Boebert.
ComesInAnOldBox@reddit
"So, am I good to go with this thing?"
"Yeah, but practice on a hot dog first, otherwise you might rip your dick off."
NoScarcity7314@reddit
I see you dweller
pinniped90@reddit
It's the only hope our planet has of decarbonizing.
Windmills and solar are nice - they're good local solutions. Iowa has windmills everywhere and they can about cover the needs of Clear Lake. That's good.
But we'll need nukes - a bunch of them - to power Chicago.
Kevincelt@reddit
I never understood why some people want to get rid of the nuclear plants before the fossil fuel plants. Like wouldn’t it be better to get rid of the high emission stuff first and then think about what to do with the nuclear plants?
OldBlueKat@reddit
Fear of radiation is rampant. People don't seem to get that coal plants ALSO have 'some' low level radiation all the time, plus the GHGs, etc.
It is scary, because radiation exposure at low levels now can mean cancers in 30+ years, but that's just as true of getting too much sun exposure or too many X-rays as living in the shadow of a nuke plant. OTOH, seeing any of the pictures and data from Chernobyl or from Hiroshima will chill you to the marrow.
I'm pro-nuclear if VERY well designed, regulated, and maintained, and a rational plan for dealing with spent fuel exists. Then the catch is -- those plants are VERY expensive to build and run. WAY more than most fossil fuel generators.
OldBlueKat@reddit
Fear of radiation is rampant. People don't seem to get that coal plants ALSO have 'some' low level radiation all the time, plus the GHGs, etc.
It is scary, because radiation exposure at low levels now can mean cancers in 30+ years, but that's just as true of getting too much sun exposure or too many X-rays as living in the shadow of a nuke plant. OTOH, seeing any of the pictures and data from Chernobyl or from Hiroshima will chill you to the marrow.
I'm pro-nuclear if VERY well designed, regulated, and maintained, and a rational plan for dealing with spent fuel exists. Then the catch is -- those plants are VERY expensive to build and run. WAY more than most fossil fuel generators.
OldBlueKat@reddit
There are already quite a few nukes powering Chicago. I was around there when one was built south of Kankakee in the 80s, and it's still in operation.
The oldest nuke plant still in operation in the world is in Switzerland, and it started up in the late 60s. These things tend to have design limitations somewhere in the 40-80 year old lifespan range, so there's some head-scratching we need some engineers doing now.
Flettie@reddit
Great as long as it's a stop gap until fusion proves it's worth
huuaaang@reddit
I'm for it in general, but really really want to see more serious push towards thorium.
But even new uranium reactors are pretty good.
Guinnessron@reddit
It’s a must for any conversation about sustainability.
Firm_Accountant2219@reddit
If we could be smart about it it’s the best way to go.
ScreamingLightspeed@reddit
100% for it. And if I wasn't, sucks for me because I live in Illinois lol
MorkAndMindie@reddit
I'm for it. I'm just concerned about our ineffective government's ability to enforce controls and accountability.
mtcwby@reddit
It's a necessary and important green supplement to other power sources. The holy Grail being developing the ability to create as close to off the shelf plants as possible to get the cost down. Solar and wind are great as cheaper sources but the system needs redundancy and Nuclear fits that role.
mtcwby@reddit
It's a necessary and important green supplement to other power sources. The holy Grail being developing the ability to create as close to off the shelf plants as possible to get the cost down. Solar and wind are great as cheaper sources but the system needs redundancy and Nuclear fits that role.
xampl9@reddit
I wish that every nuclear plant wasn’t a custom one-off design.
If we had a more standardized design (proven safe and efficient) we could build more of them, more cost effectively.
Rhuarc33@reddit
Designs are always improving in safety and efficiency. New designs are better than doing one
No-Lunch4249@reddit
This may be changing with the new modular reactor designs though
Rhuarc33@reddit
Yeah but even modular designs will be outdated eventually. And I see that as a good thing we should always be looking for cleaner and more efficient energy
Due_Satisfaction2167@reddit
Waste of money better spent on other types of generation.
thatthatguy@reddit
The United States would be well served to increase the proportion of nuclear power in our energy mix. But that is unlikely to happen any time in the next couple decades, not before the baby boomers lose their death grip on political power.
I am interested to see if any of the next generation nuclear reactors go anywhere. I’m particularly interested in molten salt reactor technology.
Equivalent_Zone2417@reddit
It's fucking fake and we could just bury our nukes and still be #1.
winteriscoming9099@reddit
Love it and we should use it way more
Cautious_General_177@reddit
I worked in nuclear power for over 20 years. I’m a fan of it.
dgmilo8085@reddit
Like they promised in the 50s, we should have nuke reactors in every household!
CatOfGrey@reddit
Fuck Greenpeace for it's protesting of nuclear power, a potentially game-changing resource for helping fight climate change.
cryptoengineer@reddit
We need to get a lot more. Fossil fuel plants pollute and cause far more deaths each year than nuclear power has done over its whole existence.
gadget850@reddit
We need power plants that can use the waste from current plants.
jaebassist@reddit
Underrated. They provide tons of electricity AND depleted uranium for A-10 ammo.
kartoffel_engr@reddit
I love it.
We just need to build one quick enough to stay on budget. The red tape process really drags it out as people battle it out.
Reverend_Bull@reddit
Complicated. We should use it more but the spin up costs and political reprecussions are tremendous. Why spend likely billions and fight nimbys only to have a volatile regulatory environment shut you anyways? Especially when those regulators are elected by folks dumb enough to thing nuclear power is just contained nuclear bombs? I greatly favor distributed solar, wind, tidal, geothermal etc. With local batteries of a variety of types. I adore the two lake battery solution for example
More-Sock-67@reddit
We need more of it. It’s literally the most obvious answer for clean renewable energy.
To plays devils advocate, I’m not sure who I trust enough to actually maintain safety and soundness
health__insurance@reddit
I live in Phoenix, we are powered by the world's only nuke plant not built on a river/sea. It uses treated wastewater. Very cool!
aleatoric@reddit
Nuclear power makes a lot of sense for other reasons people say here. But if you ask people (maybe not the people in this thread) if they want one built near them, they usually say no even if objectively they think nuclear is a good idea. I think there is still a lot of fear towards them and that is a difficult thing to overcome culturally. You always have push back against them from local groups who don't want them built near them especially those with kids. I think people just see them as ticking time bombs or something.
JustSomeGuy556@reddit
I'd rather a nuclear plant be built near me than a coal fired plant.
Shellsallaround@reddit
I am all for Nuclear escalation!
As a nation we need to seriously start looking at Nuclear power as a more viable option. Spent some time living next to Rancho Seco Nuclear power plant.
mikethomas4th@reddit
I wish it was our single source of power across the board. All other options/sources have more negatives.
An_Awesome_Name@reddit
Nuclear engineer here, and I hate to say it but nuclear power has negatives as well that make it impossible to be our only source of power.
In areas with more commercial and residential demand than industrial demand, like the Northeast, total demand rises and falls significantly over 24 hours. Nuclear cannot respond that quickly, which is why hydro dams and gas turbine plants are used to generate power for the peak demand every afternoon. That’s where the term “peaker” plant comes from.
What nuclear is good for though is the base load. Electricity demand in a given area never falls below a certain number and that’s called the base load. Nuclear is the best base load source we have, and we really should be using it more.
But I also think technologies like wind have come a long way and will definitely be significant sources of electricity going forward in areas like the plains or coastal New England.
WulfTheSaxon@reddit
I think that deserves some clarification. Newer designs can theoretically load-follow, but it’s true operators will still likely run them full-tilt, because so much of the expense is in building them in the first place and the energy is cheap after that.
This, for example, is from the AP1000 design documentation:
(Elsewhere, I believe the minimum power is 15%.)
An_Awesome_Name@reddit
It is true that some newer designs can load follow much better than even the 1990s designs. But IMO it’s a gimmick that won’t get used much, outside of extreme situations.
Most coal plants can’t load follow easily either, so it’s not like this is a new problem for base load plants.
Dan_Berg@reddit
My main concern with nuclear power is with safety 20+ years down the road but I'm not sure I'm informed enough to ask the question as to what happens after say a "pro business" administration takes over the federal and/or state government and just...metaphorically chainsaws regulations everywhere they can, or middle management starts to cut corners in attempts to boost profits; are there redundancies built in to the reactors to prevent meltdowns if over the course of time they go from state of the art to being held together by duct tape and c clamps (in a worst case scenario with a Mr. Burns type running the place, or vulture capitalists buy it to strip it apart)? How difficult would it be to forget about 3MI and foster an environment that produces the same outcome?
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
I think it would have to be public works, at least upfront, and there'd have to be a stack of "thou shalt nots" the size of a Manhattan phonebook from back when everyone still had quarters in their pockets.
SkiingAway@reddit
The increasing viability of battery storage could also help nuclear to cover variable demands - just as it does for smoothing out renewables and solving the duck-curve/time-shift problem for solar.
(OP certainly knows this already from their writing - but for context: solar output peak is mid-day, but the PM demand peak comes when solar output is rapidly tapering off).
AngriestManinWestTX@reddit
This is what I've said for a while. Let the renewables (solar, wind) and nuclear handle base load or regular demand of a power grid. They're perfect for that purpose. Retain fossil fuel power sources such as coal, natural gas, oil and hydroelectric for the spikes in demand. As long as the pipelines or wellheads aren't frozen solid and there is a way to get the energy out, they're great for meeting spikes in demand.
MrDilbert@reddit
You don't want a single point of failure in any system (let's say a critical part of an NPP can't be produced in-country for whatever reason). So, no, it wouldn't be good to have them as a single source of power. But they are GREAT at providing constant baseline power, and you can utilize other, quick-start power generation methods for peak consumption periods.
AngriestManinWestTX@reddit
That's not a great idea at all.
As already said, nuclear struggles to meet unexpected spikes in power demand and even struggles to meet daily or weekly fluctuations in demand. We need other sources that are capable of quickly meeting that demand. And that's not even going into the fact that uranium is a traded commodity. It may not fluctuate the way petroleum, copper, or gold does, but it is a commodity and tying our powergrid to that and that alone would not be a good idea.
mhoner@reddit
Good lord, why? It’s a good sources, so is solar, hydro, and wind. We need to be diversifying. All the benefits they provide far outweigh any minor negative they have and they are only improving.
ZerexTheCool@reddit
Na, no need to put all our eggs in one basket.
Using a verity of different power systems taylored to the needs of each area has more benefits and lower costs than any "one silver bullet" solution.
Easy example is that we would be dumb to close down hydroelectric plants just to set up nuclear power. Same goes for things like geothermal.
martlet1@reddit
In the 80s the liberals just about ruined the hope for new plants being built in the states. We had 3 mile island and the Russians had their meltdown. There was a lot of fear about radiation leaks so the environmentalists wanted no new plants.
Now they want new nuclear plants to fight climate change.
I just want a mr fusion
Vachic09@reddit
Overly demonized
DrMindbendersMonocle@reddit
Its great
StrongStyleDragon@reddit
War never changes.
No-Lunch4249@reddit
Love it. Want more of it.
Were the Saudia Arabia of Natural Gas but if we want to be realistic about a net-zero carbon energy grid, nuclear is going to be a big part of it.
StrongStyleDragon@reddit
War never changes.
Vivid_Witness8204@reddit
Energy too cheap to bother metering was the initial claim. Didn't prove to be substantially cheaper in the long run and that doesn't include the eventual costs of waste disposal/storage. And although the risk can be downplayed it certainly isn't zero. It was a much heralded technology that didn't live up to the advance billing. Other alternative energies will be the future. Barring a great breakthrough in fusion which isn't likely in the near future.
n00bca1e99@reddit
Love it. Want more of it. Want to stick people who think nuclear is extremely dangerous next to a coal plant and have them breathe in all the healthy clean air from the stacks.
russian_hacker_1917@reddit
That it's absolute BS the "environmental" movement in the 70s decided to be against it.
Rhuarc33@reddit
Pro, it's great. And very safe with modern standards
AnymooseProphet@reddit
With the modern pebble reactors like they use in France, they not only would revolutionize our power grid but we could use stored waste from old reactors as fuel.
It would need to be nationalized though so that all reactors used the same design.
Noclassydrops@reddit
We should be leaning HARD into nuclear energy and pouring money into salt reactor research
slasher016@reddit
All power generation should be nuclear or renewables. Shutter all coal first then shutter LNG.
devnullopinions@reddit
Build more of it.
ScroogeMcDuckFace2@reddit
the only way to power all these EV dreams
CoffeeDangerous2087@reddit
We suffer from extreme anti nuclear propaganda so I see fusion being cracked before we can stop the stupid
PickleProvider@reddit
Of all the places to do nuclear, USA is one of the best. Maybe not right on the west coast where an earthquake could ruin your day but modern facilities plan for even that.
John_Tacos@reddit
Should have been using it for decades by now.
JustSomeGuy556@reddit
We made a possibly world ending mistake by not fully embracing it.
Anybody who is against nuclear power, at this point, I consider to be actively involved in wanting to destroy the world.
Seakrits@reddit
A lot of people, I think, freak out when we hear "nuclear" because everyone associates it with Chernobyl. We don't hear enough about how far we've come and how much safer it can be now. I think the fear is that it's a phenomenal source of power and the best available option, but it's also a phenomenal source of destruction if it goes bad. I'm all for it, personally, but there is some amount of fear in me still, regardless.
warneagle@reddit
Yeah the source of the opposition to it is based on pure ignorance but given the rock-bottom level of scientific literacy in this country I don’t know how you really go about fixing that.
Seakrits@reddit
I think it's less about scientific literacy, and more that people who don't run in science circles, just don't get the memo's. I myself am not a scientifically minded person, and so don't get a lot of information on progress in the field unless I go hunting for it, and in general, I don't spend a lot of time wondering about the advancement in nuclear science. The only reason I know how far it's come is because I have a daughter in the science field and she informs me of a lot. A good start would be more coverage in the general news outlets about the safety of it. If it were talked about more in the average day-to-day news circles, more people would hear about the advancements and would at least help to start displace the fear.
warneagle@reddit
That would require scientific literacy among the media, who by and large do not have it and are too lazy/incompetent to actually research things (when they’re not deliberately spreading misinformation, which is obviously what they’re doing a lot of the time).
machagogo@reddit
We need more. Lot's more.
jastay3@reddit
We have to get power somehow and this is less troublesome than some until solar power (which of course is another kind of nuclear power but with a safer reactor) or whatever is made efficient enough to do the job. A lot of power sources are actually more messy in the long run even if the idea of a Mordor-like tower of burning poison is rather creepy.
craders@reddit
Need more of it
Lemmingmaster64@reddit
I'm for it, I even wrote whole paper in support of nuclear power for a college writing assignment.
Derfburger@reddit
I was 7 and lived through the 3 Mile Island incident. We had to evacuate. That said I am still 100% pro nuclear. The newest reactors are very safe and stable.
ballrus_walsack@reddit
We shut our local one down a few years back and people have been grousing about high electricity prices ever since. The same ones who wanted it closed. Now we are vulnerable the retaliatory tariffs from Canadian hydroelectric sources because of idiots in the White House and president musk.
ColossusOfChoads@reddit
I suppose we should look into it, but I don't want to see any Chernobyl / Three Mile Island / Fukushima repeats.
LTora213@reddit
I prefer renewable energy, especially after what happened in Chernobyl, Ukraine in the 80s and Japan in 2011. I don't like the risks.
warneagle@reddit
Chernobyl was an outdated, deeply flawed design that was never used in the west. The type of accident that happened at Chernobyl could never happen to a modern western reactor (or even the ones we were using in 1986) because our reactors didn’t have those design flaws and have passive safety systems that would prevent that kind of runaway power surge. Claiming that modern western reactors are unsafe because of Chernobyl is like claiming that a modern car is unsafe because the Ford Pinto was dangerous.
DrProfessorSatan@reddit
Yes
Danibear285@reddit
We need more. Three Mile Island is old history
warneagle@reddit
Three Mile Island wasn’t even a big deal. The most-affected people got the equivalent of a chest X-ray and there wasn’t a statistically significant change in cancer rates.
Jhooper20@reddit
So long as whoever runs it doesn't fall into the pitfalls GA Power did with their plant*, I'm all for it. Just so long as people who actually know what they are doing are making sure wo don't have another Chernobyl on our hands in a worst case scenario.
*What I'm referring to above is that in its construction, the nuclear plant went grossly over budget at $31B, originally $14B, and was completed only last year instead of the projected 2017 date. They then uncharged everyone on their power bill to recoup the money even if you weren't on that particular grid. Just look up Georgia Power Vogtle plant for more
warneagle@reddit
I grew up about 20 miles from Vogtle and that fourth reactor took most of my lifetime to build lmao, incredibly incompetent
AngriestManinWestTX@reddit
Any proposal to go green that does not contain plans for constructing at least some nuclear power plants or allowing the proposed expansion of existing plans lacks seriousness in my opinion.
Nuclear energy is integral to reducing our carbon footprint and is essential if we really do want to reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels and reduce the vulnerability of our economy to price swings for these particular commodities. Even if we only added units to already constructed powerplants or brought retired units back online with newer technology or reactors we could greatly reduce our dependence on resources like coal. Building completely new powerplants would be better but I'm not insensitive to the amount of planning of budgeting that such proposals include. Using existing plans, proposals, or facilities would limit some of those issues at least.
All of that said, a diverse power grid is a sturdy power grid. Renewables, nuclear, and yes, fossil fuels, continue to have a place for the time being. We need to update our grid in general to meet the spikes in power demand we've been seeing during particularly hot or particularly cold weather events.
warneagle@reddit
This. There’s no such thing as an anti-nuclear environmentalist. Nobody who seriously cares about slowing down climate change or protecting the environment would oppose expanding the best source of near-zero carbon energy we have.
Word2DWise@reddit
The most undervalued form of energy out there.
Supermac34@reddit
Nuclear Power + Natural Gas (especially with carbon capture) is the most reasonable and efficient way to transition away from the more carbon producing power producing methods and would be a fabulous stepping stone in greatly reducing carbon while transitioning to even more clean energy sources over the coming decades.
JMS1991@reddit
It has a couple of downsides (building costs being the main one, but that has a lot to do with mitigating risks). But right now, it's the best option for producing cheap (once the production costs have been made back), safe, and reliable power on a large scale.
I wish we built more, but everyone got scared when Three Mile Island happened...you know, where almost everything that could go wrong, did go wrong, and still no one died as a result. And that was built with 1960's technology.
TheBlazingFire123@reddit
Want more
Suppafly@reddit
I'm all for it. Most people who aren't are frankly uneducated or have unrealistic ideas about how things work.
CabinetSpider21@reddit
Very for it, just very expensive
Playful-Mastodon9251@reddit
It's awesome and we should use it way more.
tacobellbandit@reddit
I like it but I grew up in the wake of the three mile island incident so it’s still taboo for my locale
benicebuddy@reddit
Bring it on. We have plenty of space to store the waste. Put the whole country on an electric grid and we won't have to fight over oil nearly as much. Stick them out in the country so if something bad happens only the employees get sick. Pay them really well for the risk.
Eric848448@reddit
I think we need a lot more of it and we needed it 50 years ago.
ScienceNeverLies@reddit
I love it and think we should be using more of it.
HoyAIAG@reddit
We don’t have a good plan for the end lifecycle of the waste and how to deal with aging nuclear plants. I think the future is definitely nuclear but we need a paradigm shift.
Cheap_Coffee@reddit
All for it.
0XKINET1@reddit
Logical power source but better power sources more clean can possibly be built.
Salsalover34@reddit
Gimme all of it
madogvelkor@reddit
We need more of it.
Layer7Admin@reddit
Wish we had more of it.
Fireguy9641@reddit
I am extremely pro-nuclear power. I think it is the answer to supplementing renewables.
I'm also a proponent of building breeder reactors to reuse spent fuel. I've seen estimates that we could reburn like 90% of the existing spent nuclear fuel.
I'm also saddened when people who say "Science is real" or "Believe the Science" then spout a bunch of lies about nuclear power or refuse to support it.
Flairion623@reddit
Now I don’t know but I been told
Uranium ore’s worth more than gold
Sold ma cab, bought me a jeep
I got that bug and I can’t sleep!
the_real_JFK_killer@reddit
Just don't put it on a fault line
fossiliz3d@reddit
Need more of it yesterday! If it didn't take 10 years of paperwork and lawsuits before you could even start construction, we would have achieved zero carbon electricity by now with plenty of capacity for AI datacenters.
AntisocialHikerDude@reddit
I would support its expansion.
The_Butters_Worth@reddit
Just keep Zachaev away from the spent fuel rods.
BoukenGreen@reddit
We need more of it. With strict controls so we don’t have a melt down. Of course I live in a county right next to a nuclear power plant.
Ray5678901@reddit
We need more modern plants!!
Remarkable_Table_279@reddit
It’s pretty darn awesome…I’m fascinated by the concept of “Small modular reactors” they seem very Star Trek to me
Eldestruct0@reddit
If you want to stop using carbon to power the grid, nuclear is the only practical option.
SavannahInChicago@reddit
I don’t trust the human element. No matter how safe nuclear energy is selfish and greedy human will find a way to cut corners and ignore regulations.
tonyrocks922@reddit
20,000 Americans die per year from coal pollution. The last major nuclear accident killed 1 person and injured less than 10.
Subvet98@reddit
That’s it 20k
Terrible_Onions@reddit (OP)
Plenty of countries have done it successfully
MonsterHunterBanjo@reddit
Safe, less CO2 emissions than solar panels, good for long term energy, and even the radioactive byproducts can be recycled and re-used in other products.
Colodanman357@reddit
We need more. The more the better. There is a new kind of reactor being built in Wyoming by TeraPower that is pretty exciting and hopefully is a harbinger of things to come.
TheBimpo@reddit
We should be building them and dismantling fossil fuel plants.
Cicero912@reddit
If we want stable generation of power without taking up vast amounts of land, nuclear energy is the only non-fossil method to do so.
It should be in concert with other methods of power generation, but it is absolutely the future, and anyone against it is idiotic.
There is nothing worse than an environmentalist against nuclear.
cbrooks97@reddit
Best way to produce clean energy. So of course the environmental lobby hates it.
Appropriate-Food1757@reddit
I’m a fan of it
HorseFeathersFur@reddit
Well this is an interesting question. Somewhere by me they are working on a newer more efficient nuclear energy that is safer and cleaner than conventional nuclear. They are building it for AI, but the tech will eventually be streamlined and used for the general population. I am all for it.
https://x-energy.com/media/news-releases/triso-x-breaks-ground-on-north-americas-first-commercial-advanced-nuclear-fuel-facility
Successful_Job2381@reddit
it's good, but expensive as hell
hatred-shapped@reddit
If you are part of the green movement and are anti nuclear, you are either a moron, or a shill for the wind and solar movement.
BitofaGreyArea@reddit
It's great. It's dumb we don't have more of it.
LittleCrab9076@reddit
I think it’s a great source of essentially non greenhouse gas energy. Modern plants are expensive but also have incredible safety features.
Raving_Lunatic69@reddit
100% for it, long overdue.
Especially if I can get my own set of T54 power armor in a Nuka-Cola Quantum paint scheme.
HalcyonHelvetica@reddit
For it, but I don’t know how feasible it is in our political landscape with how stigmatized Cold War propaganda has made it
Throw_Away1727@reddit
safe, efficient, and would certainly lower energy costs.
people who are against it have no idea how how good the newest generation of reactors are.
But also...
Don't nuke one next to me.
BluesyBunny@reddit
For it, efficient, pretty clean all said and done.
Risks are way over blown.
El_Polio_Loco@reddit
Biggest downside to them is the very very high initial costs and build times compared to other forms of power (except maybe hydroelectric).
Other than that, there's the mild safety risks in regions with high seismic activity or other major natural disasters.
Even with those considerations, I think that the US should be spending most of the money going into wind, solar, and natural gas on expanding nuclear, it's just a vastly superior form of electricity generation compared to everything else.
As for the waste, that's still something that needs to be figured out too.
NonSupportiveCup@reddit
We don't have enough of it.
MagosBattlebear@reddit
It exists.
sheimeix@reddit
If regulated correctly, it's one of the best power sources you can use. That being said, our current government would cut those regulations so dramatically that I'd be concerned about several reactor meltdowns if we were as reliant on them as I would hope.
Successful_Sense_742@reddit
Best way to use nuclear reaction is for a controlled reaction to make constructive energy other than using the technology in a bomb or missile.
bigoldgeek@reddit
I'm in a state where most of our power is from nukes. I'm for it though updated designs might be nice
therealdrewder@reddit
It's good, and we need more of it. All coal plants need to be converted to nuclear. With the raise of ai, our power needs are going to increase dramatically.
Critical-Term-427@reddit
I think the benefits most definitely outweigh the risks.
Yankee_chef_nen@reddit
I’m all for it. I grew up taking several field trip to Seabrook Station in New Hampshire and Maine Yankee in Maine so I had the opportunity to learn about nuclear power early in life. I’d like to see more plants build across the country.
WizeAdz@reddit
I drove my electric car to another state and back yesterday. It was a fun trip to The City Museum of St. Louis Missouri for our school-aged kids’ spring break.
The Midwest power grid had good weather for renewables yesterday, so we were running at about 45% zero emissions power yesterday.
About 15% of my trip resterday was carried by zero-emissions nuclear power.
Nuclear power has its share of problems — accidents are very few but very bad, and uranium mining is a nasty business that has fucked over some vulnerable people. But I’m also quite concerned about climate change.
On balance, sincewe've already got the nuke plants and lots of fuel, we should use it.
I charged my car in St. Louis on solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, and coal power. That's cool! My vote is to build renewables (and the natural gas plants that back them up), keep the nukes, and scale back coal.
P.S. I'm persuadable when it comes to building new super-safe nuclear plan designs, but the details matter.
mips13@reddit
Not great, not terrible.
RaptorRex787@reddit
I think it should vastly replace many of our coal and gas plants, while yes it is expensive during construction of the reactor, maintenance, fuel, and other costs are relatively low compared to the construction cost that it basically pays itself overtime with the amount of energy it produces.
nylondragon64@reddit
Not a fan of any big utility. They charge way to much. Let out the suppressed tech. Every home can have there own power modules. Electricity is so easy to make I. Various ways. Think Tesla. Not Elon.
An_Awesome_Name@reddit
I’m an engineer and I worked in the nuclear industry for a few years.
It’s the best source of baseload power we have, period. Every coal plant in the country should have been replaced with nuclear decades ago.
Even back when I was a nerdy teenager and engineering student I was a bit skeptical of nuclear power. Then my first job out of college was in the nuclear industry, and after seeing it all with my own eyes I’ve been a huge supporter of nuclear energy.
The only reason I don’t still have that job is because I took another job closer to my family.
Afterlast1@reddit
Positive. Glowing, in fact. It's not only one of the safest forms of energy, it's orders of magnitude more efficient than any other we've considered. With nuclear as an options, there's hardly an objective argument to be made for considering other power sources even.
Ohohohojoesama@reddit
While not without problems it seems like a good fit for base load power that doesn't have the many many issues other power sources that can fill that role do. Generally very, pro nuclear.
wpotman@reddit
Just find somewhere to put the water and use it everywhere possible already.
Whatisgoingonnowyo@reddit
We need more
CaptainAwesome06@reddit
I think we should have invested in it decades ago. Now, I feel like we should be working toward the next big energy source. They aren't great for the environment (still better than coal) and they are cost prohibitive. People who think nuclear is environmentally friendly should look into what it does for local ecosystems.
G0PACKER5@reddit
Funny enough, I'm licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to run one.
Mr__Citizen@reddit
It would be great. It's not as perfect for the environment as proponents like to claim, but it's a leap better than coal/oil and more reliable than other "clean energy" sources like solar or wind.
We'll probably end up skipping it to go for geothermal though. People are working out the kinks on that and it doesn't have the bad reputation of nuclear.
officialigamer@reddit
the newest generation of nuclear power is so much safer and more powerful. With today's power hungry world, we absolutely need it!
amcjkelly@reddit
You can't ever dream of getting carbon out of energy use without it.
People are not going to freeze.
StarSpangleBRangel@reddit
Love it. Radiation is badass.
DonChino17@reddit
It’s the way to go in my opinion. Many people are misinformed about it and fear it so there isn’t as much support for it and also I’m sure there are companies that have a stake in preventing wide use of it.
flying_wrenches@reddit
It’s ridiculously expensive (as it should be) but I would heavily prefer it compared to coal.
It’s also more efficient than solar farms or wind farms in energy produced.
xivilex@reddit
Love it. I wish we used it more.
cerealandcorgies@reddit
I live five miles from several nuclear power reactors. Safe, efficient energy.
Apocalyptic0n3@reddit
I wish we had more of it, frankly. Thankfully, SRP and APS seem to agree and are entering the "talk it over with the public" phase of adding a fourth reactor to Palo Verde (which is interestingly the only nuclear plant in the world not near a source of water)
BB-56_Washington@reddit
Pretty badass.
Sands43@reddit
The history of project management and costs in the US is poor.
France did it correctly with basically 1 power plant design copied / pasted in many sites (50?). That's the only way to control costs and schedule.
daishiknyte@reddit
You mean the way to cost effective nuclear isn't stifling innovation, crippling over regulation, and build/development time so long and infrequent that no one has the personal or institutional experience to do it well?
Yeah, no wonder we're bad at nuclear
CODENAMEDERPY@reddit
It’s awesome. It’s the best option. People are irrational.
No_Consideration_339@reddit
A really expensive way to boil water.
But seriously, it's great for base load generation. New reactor designs hold a lot of promise. Waste can and should be reprocessed. But it's still really expensive.
hornbuckle56@reddit
It is the only way forward.
emmasdad01@reddit
Clean, efficient, and safe. Love it.