4 ms·

> One study estimates 100,000 Americans die every year from air pollution That's still a lot more deaths than commercial nuclear fusion has been associated wit

> One study estimates 100,000 Americans die every year from air pollution That's still a lot more deaths than commercial nuclear fusion has been associated with in the US. It's also, incidentally, a lot of deaths. > 1. Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without significant government subsidies. This is a non-sequitur. Just because something needs government subsidies doesn't make it bad. Things like the Internet, modern solar energy, and the USPS were built with either massive initial subsidies or even complete government involvement throughout their ongoing lifetimes. That doesn't make them bad. > 2. Nuclear power plant falsely reduce costs by externalizing significant costs such as the processing of fuel, the processing of fuel processing waste, maintenance, inspection (eg by the NRC), switching out fuel, processing nuclear fuel, the time-to-build or the failure modes of nuclear plants. Lest we forget, the Chernobyl Absolute Exclusion Zone is 1,000 square miles 35 years later. Versus coal and oil plants, which externalize the costs of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Also, comparing a shoddily built and designed Soviet plant to modern Western ones isn't a good comparison. > If these next-generation LWRs are so economical, why isn't someone building them at scale? The standard response is political opposition but what about China? In the West, it's negative perception that largely predates widespread public awareness of climate change. As for China, it looks like China's getting in on the nuclear game too, precisely because of air pollution concerns. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... > delusional as climate deniers Yeah, no. Even if us supporters of nuclear power are wrong, we don't need to be compared to people who are on the level of flat earthers.

jmyeet 4y ago
> That's still a lot more deaths than commercial nuclear fusion You missed the point about how this is a completley made up number and even if it wasn't, nuclear power plants (vs emissions from burning fossil fuels) would only address a small portion of deaths anyway. > Just because something needs government subsidies doesn't make it bad. No one said bad. Try "uneconomical". > Also, comparing a shoddily built and designed Soviet plant to modern Western ones isn't a good comparison. Ah yes, nuclear proponents love to exclude Chernobyl as an outlier because they have no answer for it. In this case, it was a "shoddily built and designed Soviet plant". So anyone who pays attention to regulation in the United States (and elsewhere) should be aware of the "revoling door", which is also called "regulatory capture". This is where in a given regulated industry (eg oil and gas, pharmaceuticals) people will work for the regulator then private industry then the regulator and so on to the point where that regulation becomes ineffective. We see another clear example of the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit being staffed by all ex-patent lawyers who weirdly pretty much side with patent holders every time. Part of the problem with nuclear is the human component. It's easy to ignore maintenance in the interests of profit. The natural tendency will be for the revolving door to weaken regulation. So you want to dismiss Chernobyl as being "shoddily built" (and likely poorly maintained) but that's exactly what would happen with nuclear power regulation. How about a non-Soviet disaster: Fukushima. What will be the reason to dismiss that one? Earthquakes? One in a million natural disaster? Some other reason to exclude another inconvenience?

jmyeet 4y ago

> That's still a lot more deaths than commercial nuclear fusion You missed the point about how this is a completley made up number and even if it wasn't, nuclear power plants (vs emissions from burning fossil fuels) would only address a small portion of deaths anyway. > Just because something needs government subsidies doesn't make it bad. No one said bad. Try "uneconomical". > Also, comparing a shoddily built and designed Soviet plant to modern Western ones isn't a good comparison. Ah yes, nuclear proponents love to exclude Chernobyl as an outlier because they have no answer for it. In this case, it was a "shoddily built and designed Soviet plant". So anyone who pays attention to regulation in the United States (and elsewhere) should be aware of the "revoling door", which is also called "regulatory capture". This is where in a given regulated industry (eg oil and gas, pharmaceuticals) people will work for the regulator then private industry then the regulator and so on to the point where that regulation becomes ineffective. We see another clear example of the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit being staffed by all ex-patent lawyers who weirdly pretty much side with patent holders every time. Part of the problem with nuclear is the human component. It's easy to ignore maintenance in the interests of profit. The natural tendency will be for the revolving door to weaken regulation. So you want to dismiss Chernobyl as being "shoddily built" (and likely poorly maintained) but that's exactly what would happen with nuclear power regulation. How about a non-Soviet disaster: Fukushima. What will be the reason to dismiss that one? Earthquakes? One in a million natural disaster? Some other reason to exclude another inconvenience?