4 ms·

It's expensive because it includes much more of the externalities in the price with much longer time-frames for ROI, as compared to other sources like coal or n

It's expensive because it includes much more of the externalities in the price with much longer time-frames for ROI, as compared to other sources like coal or natural gas. Nuclear as a power source is fantastic. One of the biggest operators is the US Navy which has been running reactors in military vessels for decades without incident. The problem is politics, ignorance and lack of will to actually see it through, not fundamental science or tech.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> One of the biggest operators is the US Navy which has been running reactors in military vessels for decades without incident. AFAICT, none publicly acknowledged since a bunch in the 1970s, but that may mean less than it seems since the US government has a history of covering up nuclear incidents for decades (like a whole slew at the Hanford site from the 1940s-1980s that weren't acknowledged until the 1980s.)
- manigandham 6y ago
  Hanford was for nuclear production, not power generation, and was created during the early days of nuclear weapons research. Modern reactors are in an entirely different league with an incredible safety record. [1] Considering how easy it is to detect nuclear failures and the consequences in a tightly-enclosed ship, it's unlikely that there are any serious incidents. It's clear that they're experience and technology is continuing to get better every year though. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/23/americas-nuclear-navy-still-the-masters-of-nuclear-power/#5ee0d3466bcd https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/23/americas-...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Hanford was for nuclear production, not power generation, and was created during the early days of nuclear weapons research. I'm not saying that Hanford has the same risk profile as Naval reactors, I’m saying that it demonstrates that the US government has a propensity for covering up nuclear incidents that it can get away with covering up (note that it also acknowledged other incidents at Hanford in the decades it was concealing many of them), so the fact that it hasn't acknowledged any related to naval power generation since a bunch in the 1970s is absence of evidence of such incidents, but not reliable evidence of absence of such incidents.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> One of the biggest operators is the US Navy which has been running reactors in military vessels for decades without incident. AFAICT, none publicly acknowledged since a bunch in the 1970s, but that may mean less than it seems since the US government has a history of covering up nuclear incidents for decades (like a whole slew at the Hanford site from the 1940s-1980s that weren't acknowledged until the 1980s.)

manigandham 6y ago
Hanford was for nuclear production, not power generation, and was created during the early days of nuclear weapons research. Modern reactors are in an entirely different league with an incredible safety record. [1] Considering how easy it is to detect nuclear failures and the consequences in a tightly-enclosed ship, it's unlikely that there are any serious incidents. It's clear that they're experience and technology is continuing to get better every year though. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/23/americas-nuclear-navy-still-the-masters-of-nuclear-power/#5ee0d3466bcd https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/12/23/americas-...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Hanford was for nuclear production, not power generation, and was created during the early days of nuclear weapons research. I'm not saying that Hanford has the same risk profile as Naval reactors, I’m saying that it demonstrates that the US government has a propensity for covering up nuclear incidents that it can get away with covering up (note that it also acknowledged other incidents at Hanford in the decades it was concealing many of them), so the fact that it hasn't acknowledged any related to naval power generation since a bunch in the 1970s is absence of evidence of such incidents, but not reliable evidence of absence of such incidents.