4 ms·
The debate is not about nuclear power. Whether we keep existing reactors or not is not going to have a significant effect on future greenhouse gas levels. Very
by jamesblonde 8y ago
The debate is not about nuclear power. Whether we keep existing reactors or not is not going to have a significant effect on future greenhouse gas levels. Very few new nuclear power stations are being built globally, so it won't be part of the solution. I agree that it could be - if we were really worried, as we should be.
Realistically, we just need the US on board. Then things will change. But a decisive majority of the US population is in a strange anti-science place these days, and the world's future rests on their shoulders. That's a scary thought...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jfnixon 8y agoThe debate should not be about existing nuclear plants. The debate should be about using modern passive safety designs for plants yet to be built.
- timb07 8y agoHow do you debate designs that haven't been built yet? Historically, nuclear power plants take years or decades to build, and at great cost. The risk to investors is so high that they only proceed with some kind of state-funded insurance. If there really was a modern nuclear reactor design that would compete in the energy market with wind and solar, everyone would be building them already.
- supreme_sublime 8y agoFrom my understanding a lot of the reason for this is it only really makes sense to make large scale reactors; mostly due to approval processes and regulations already in place. There's a massive up front cost no matter the scale of the operation, so it makes most sense to do larger projects vs smaller ones. https://newatlas.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/ https://newatlas.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/