3 ms·

It depends on the country. In the US there is significant money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg with

It depends on the country. In the US there is significant money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-YRSqaPtMg with the common side effects: https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/spiraling-costs-of-vogtle-nuclear-project-lead-to-lawsuit-by-venture-partners/ https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/spiraling-costs-of-vogtle-... https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Co-owners-sue-Georgia-Power-in-695M-Vogtle-17256074.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Co-owners-sue-Georgia-Po... In Germany (and many parts of Europe) the same companies which run gas and coal plants, run nuclear. And there are state interests like nuclear weapons, submarines, etc. So no, it is not just some nuclear enthusiasts or other romanticisms. It's just money. As everywhere else. In the case of nuclear energy it's also many times taxpayer money. A lot of it.

PaulHoule 4y ago
I would point to this person as a nuclear enthusiast https://www.ted.com/speakers/kirk_sorensen https://www.ted.com/speakers/kirk_sorensen Circa 2010 he came to the conclusion that Thorium could save the world, he runs a startup now https://flibe-energy.com/ https://flibe-energy.com/ but this is nowhere near being a large or established industry. If anything the work that's been done to advance molten salt reactors has made plutonium cycle reactors based on chlorides instead of fluorides look really good. See https://www.moltexenergy.com/ https://www.moltexenergy.com/
- Krasnol 4y ago
  I don't know if you've intentionally misunderstood me or if I was hard to understand. This is not about one of those "just 30 years away"-technologies and their startups. This is about EXISTING nuclear reactors and people who want to keep them running or build more of them. Their representatives on the anti-social networks are people like Shellenberger and his "Institute" selling the "green nuclear" idea while spreading hate against renewable energy with it. - https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough?s=r https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denia... - https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-lights-michael-shellenberger-and-the-breakthrough-institute/ https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-... (NSFW) - https://nuclear.foe.org.au/michael-shellenbergers-pro-nuclear-lobby-group-environmental-progress/ https://nuclear.foe.org.au/michael-shellenbergers-pro-nuclea...
- hinkley 4y ago
  So this here is why when people say "there's no nuclear industry conspiracy" I call bullshit. There absolutely was a nuclear industry conspiracy, and that conspiracy was to produce reactors that are complementary to nuclear weapons programs. Part of the draw of thorium and some other options is that are anywhere from difficult to nearly impossible to weaponize, but they were ignored because they didn't support the Arms Race. The narrative and the precedents were set around a losing strategy. Not unlike how some people think that the Space Shuttle fucked the space program, because it elevate pilots above progress. Neither is as simple as that, but these choices had huge and long lasting consequences, and I wonder where we would be if we had decided not to choose and we had pursued both.

PaulHoule 4y ago

I would point to this person as a nuclear enthusiast https://www.ted.com/speakers/kirk_sorensen https://www.ted.com/speakers/kirk_sorensen Circa 2010 he came to the conclusion that Thorium could save the world, he runs a startup now https://flibe-energy.com/ https://flibe-energy.com/ but this is nowhere near being a large or established industry. If anything the work that's been done to advance molten salt reactors has made plutonium cycle reactors based on chlorides instead of fluorides look really good. See https://www.moltexenergy.com/ https://www.moltexenergy.com/

Krasnol 4y ago
I don't know if you've intentionally misunderstood me or if I was hard to understand. This is not about one of those "just 30 years away"-technologies and their startups. This is about EXISTING nuclear reactors and people who want to keep them running or build more of them. Their representatives on the anti-social networks are people like Shellenberger and his "Institute" selling the "green nuclear" idea while spreading hate against renewable energy with it. - https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough?s=r https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denia... - https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-lights-michael-shellenberger-and-the-breakthrough-institute/ https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2020/09/16/statement-on-zion-... (NSFW) - https://nuclear.foe.org.au/michael-shellenbergers-pro-nuclear-lobby-group-environmental-progress/ https://nuclear.foe.org.au/michael-shellenbergers-pro-nuclea...
hinkley 4y ago
So this here is why when people say "there's no nuclear industry conspiracy" I call bullshit. There absolutely was a nuclear industry conspiracy, and that conspiracy was to produce reactors that are complementary to nuclear weapons programs. Part of the draw of thorium and some other options is that are anywhere from difficult to nearly impossible to weaponize, but they were ignored because they didn't support the Arms Race. The narrative and the precedents were set around a losing strategy. Not unlike how some people think that the Space Shuttle fucked the space program, because it elevate pilots above progress. Neither is as simple as that, but these choices had huge and long lasting consequences, and I wonder where we would be if we had decided not to choose and we had pursued both.