5 ms·

Showing that lies repeated often enough can be extremely destructive. Nuclear energy is incredibly safe. It's very compact, very reliable, emits no CO2, and ex

Showing that lies repeated often enough can be extremely destructive. Nuclear energy is incredibly safe. It's very compact, very reliable, emits no CO2, and extremely scalable. It's now proven that dissolved uranium in seawater can be practically extracted and continuously replenished in the ocean from dissolved rock, making it sustainable and renewable. Greenpeace doesn't give a damn about any of that. The greens hate nuclear because it's an extremely effective way to sustain and enhance human life.

pfdietz 4y ago
The problem with nuclear isn't safety, it's cost. If nuclear were 10x safer and no cheaper, it would go nowhere. If it were 10x cheaper and no safer, it would be going like gangbusters.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That's why you see these ridiculously pre-negotiated prices for nuclear plants that would sink any commercial project before it was even committed to the drawing board. There is no way that these things will ever be commercially viable.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Indeed. There's a reason there's never been a merchant nuclear plant, selling into a competitive electricity market, anywhere in the world.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      They were in many places mostly a fig leaf in order to be able to create weapons grade nuclear material and it is no coincidence that almost every country that has heavily bet on nuclear power also has a nuclear arms arsenal.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        Or a large stockpile of reactor grade plutonium (which, despite claims, can be use to make weapons), that would enable a rapid breakout of control regimes. Japan is the particular example.
- RagnarD 4y ago
  Yes, that is a problem, but it's absolutely not some problem intrinsic to it - it's completely a political problem. The cost of the regulatory red tape is staggering, and beyond cost is sheer capriciousness on the part of the NRC. Note this article for example: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear...) "Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978" The NRC was created in 1975. So think about that. In stark contrast, France built 52 reactors between 1975 and 1990, supplying a whopping ~70% of France's power needs. Are the laws of physics and economics different in France? Hardly. The difference is political.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Regulatory red tape is the go-to excuse nuclear stans use for why their energy waifu is in such desperate shape. That particular link you presented is misrepresented. New nuclear wasn't approved for decades because nuclear's economic case was shown to be nonexistent after the first nuclear buildout. The thing that killed nuclear in the US wasn't the NRC, it was the slowdown in electricity demand growth, and especially the passage of PURPA in 1978. Nuclear now had to compete with non-utility power sources, and it had no hope of doing that. The market for new NPPs dried up; without that market, there was no pressure to get new reactor designs (which also couldn't compete) through the NRC.
- sebazzz 4y ago
  Climate change costs more and nuclear will easily offset that.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Nuclear appears to be economically uncompetitive with renewables + storage. This is why it's really hard to get nuclear plants funded these days, while it's much easier to get renewables and storage funded. The market is telling you something; listen.
    - RagnarD 3y ago
      Few markets today are free markets. Politics drives the growth of very costly "renewables" which are unreliable and intermittent - not a free market. Politics has made nuclear absurdly more costly for no good reason, just environmentalist antipathy towards nuclear. Fortunately, there is evidence that that is changing, given the abject failure of renewables to actually support the requirements of a stable civilization, proven at extremely high cost.
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  But the thing is that renewables + storage is more expensive than nuclear power, so there goes your argument about cost.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    This is not the case in general, especially with the price renewables will achieve by the time any nuclear plant whose construction was started today could come on line.

pfdietz 4y ago

The problem with nuclear isn't safety, it's cost. If nuclear were 10x safer and no cheaper, it would go nowhere. If it were 10x cheaper and no safer, it would be going like gangbusters.

jacquesm 4y ago
That's why you see these ridiculously pre-negotiated prices for nuclear plants that would sink any commercial project before it was even committed to the drawing board. There is no way that these things will ever be commercially viable.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Indeed. There's a reason there's never been a merchant nuclear plant, selling into a competitive electricity market, anywhere in the world.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    They were in many places mostly a fig leaf in order to be able to create weapons grade nuclear material and it is no coincidence that almost every country that has heavily bet on nuclear power also has a nuclear arms arsenal.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      Or a large stockpile of reactor grade plutonium (which, despite claims, can be use to make weapons), that would enable a rapid breakout of control regimes. Japan is the particular example.
RagnarD 4y ago
Yes, that is a problem, but it's absolutely not some problem intrinsic to it - it's completely a political problem. The cost of the regulatory red tape is staggering, and beyond cost is sheer capriciousness on the part of the NRC. Note this article for example: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear...) "Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978" The NRC was created in 1975. So think about that. In stark contrast, France built 52 reactors between 1975 and 1990, supplying a whopping ~70% of France's power needs. Are the laws of physics and economics different in France? Hardly. The difference is political.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Regulatory red tape is the go-to excuse nuclear stans use for why their energy waifu is in such desperate shape. That particular link you presented is misrepresented. New nuclear wasn't approved for decades because nuclear's economic case was shown to be nonexistent after the first nuclear buildout. The thing that killed nuclear in the US wasn't the NRC, it was the slowdown in electricity demand growth, and especially the passage of PURPA in 1978. Nuclear now had to compete with non-utility power sources, and it had no hope of doing that. The market for new NPPs dried up; without that market, there was no pressure to get new reactor designs (which also couldn't compete) through the NRC.
sebazzz 4y ago
Climate change costs more and nuclear will easily offset that.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Nuclear appears to be economically uncompetitive with renewables + storage. This is why it's really hard to get nuclear plants funded these days, while it's much easier to get renewables and storage funded. The market is telling you something; listen.
  - RagnarD 3y ago
    Few markets today are free markets. Politics drives the growth of very costly "renewables" which are unreliable and intermittent - not a free market. Politics has made nuclear absurdly more costly for no good reason, just environmentalist antipathy towards nuclear. Fortunately, there is evidence that that is changing, given the abject failure of renewables to actually support the requirements of a stable civilization, proven at extremely high cost.
TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
But the thing is that renewables + storage is more expensive than nuclear power, so there goes your argument about cost.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  This is not the case in general, especially with the price renewables will achieve by the time any nuclear plant whose construction was started today could come on line.