5 ms·

Why is it every post about solar or wind have to end up with comments about how great nuclear is? It is like a religion they simply must preach.

by Dah00n 3y ago

thinkcontext 3y ago
I think those that make "what about nuclear" posts should be required to invest in a company that would build an AP1000. This is the reactor that was supposed to lead the US nuclear renaissance. Instead it's 2 projects were utter financial failures, with one getting cancelled after spending $9b on a hole in the ground and the other is coming online after going 2x+ budget in time and money. All in development AP1000 projects were cancelled after this debacle. But this shouldn't be daunting to true believers. The most advanced cancelled project was Turkey Point in FL. It had received all approvals so a developer can start tomorrow if they want. If we made everyone who said "what about nuclear" buy a $100 share that sucker would be funded in no time.
lordofgibbons 3y ago
Probably because it's the only known carbon-free source of dependable and non-intermittent energy that can be deployed nearly anywhere. Let's be realistic about the devastatingly massive amounts of environmental damage wind/solar are doing by requiring unimaginably large amounts of minerals to be mined for both solar/wind AND the required batteries. Right now, it's an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of a problem because the mining happens in poor countries. How many cobalt and lithium mines have been approved in the U.S? I can think of only a couple in the past couple of decades. Why? Because they're terrible for the environment.. so we outsource the environmental damage to poor countries. Nuclear is expensive, but if we build a new plant every 40 years... what do we expect? Each plant is a one-off bespoke creation. The same economies of scale that have made solar+wind so cheap also apply to nuclear tech. We have the technology to solve the climate emergency. Nuclear lets us do it. Everything else is wishful thinking. p.s wind and solar have a part to play - specially in unstable and failed states where the existence of fissile material could be very dangerous.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  So, your answer to “why do they have to preach” is… preaching? This is like someone posting, “Ban cars! Bikes are better!” every time someone mentions a breakthrough in, say, EV tech. It is both off-topic and everyone here knows it will derail the discussion into mudslinging, just like how all EV discussion gets derailed. It only adds noise.
- rtpg 3y ago
  Nuclear cannot be deployed anywhere, it needs a source of water. It also needs staffing, and it needs to be kinda near to people who need electricity. This last point is important because nuclear plants generate a lot of power, so you cant easily build a plant “just” for 500 people in the same way you can for other energy sources. I am fine with nuclear in principle. There are real reasons nukes are expensive and not the ideal option in many situations. We have to be clear eyed about this.
  - willy_k 3y ago
    Molten salt reactors don’t need a source of water, as much staffing, and could be used for industrial and other purposes given their improved safety profile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
    - rtpg 3y ago
      I want to believe with MSRs but the it’s had 80 years to prove itself and I have a hard time believing its large scale feasibility at this point. Lobbying only explains away so much. Remember, France is a large industrialized nation still building nuclear power plant. There’s gotta be some real reason they didn’t pick up MSRs.
  - gimmeThaBeet 3y ago
    Also as was seen in France this summer for instance, one of the interesting edge cases of water cooled reactors (really any generation that needs a lot of water) is that they can get basically thermally throttled e.g. the inlet water is too warm, you might be limited on how much water you can discharge to curtail affecting local ecology. I guess it makes sense to me that the conditions that spike electric demand also stress generation and transmission, but I do find it astonishing how universal it is, solar/wind/hydro/nuclear included.
kibwen 3y ago
In the 70s, fossil fuel companies stirred up anti-nuclear propaganda in order to deter nuclear plants, which they perceived as the biggest threat to their business. In the modern day, fossil fuel companies stir up pro-nuclear propaganda in order to deter renewables, which they perceive as the biggest threat to their business, because it's long since become clear that nuclear power is not economically viable as a replacement for fossil fuels even without the effect of their original propaganda (and the fact that they propagandized against nuclear in the 70s has yielded fertile harvests of people who are still salty about that, inspiring them to take up the pro-nuclear torch with little provocation).
- Krssst 3y ago
  > fossil fuel companies stir up pro-nuclear propaganda in order to deter renewables, Source? Nuclear power plants replace coal plants. Renewables on the other hand can coexist nicely with fossil fuels as backup power for days without wind / sun.
- belorn 3y ago
  Is the fossil fuel industry different in the US than EU? When Germany wanted to defined natural gas as "green investment", to act as a backup solution for wind power, it was the fossil fuel industry that was in favor and nuclear industry that was against. The pro-nuclear side wanted EU to clearly take a stand against all fossil fuels in the energy grid, while the pro-renewable side wanted to keep and promote investments into new construction of fossil fueled power plants with the hope that green hydrogen will at some point become cheaper than natural gas.
pyrale 3y ago
Same reason every nuclear topic is invaded by renewables supporters. At this point, it isn't even a culture war, it's a college football fans' rivalry.
ensignavenger 3y ago
Why does every post about nuclear have to end up with comments about how great solar and wind is? It is like a religion they simply must preach.
pydry 3y ago
The military nuclear industrial complex needs civvy nuclear power to share an industrial ecosystem and skills base. They run expensive PR campaigns to manufacture consent for subsidies. Those PR campaigns work. Loud PR campaigns dont work on everybody but can reliably convince a large % of people to believe most things.

Why is it every post about solar or wind have to end up with comments about how great nuclear is? It is like a religion they simply must preach.

by Dah00n 3y ago

Why is it every post about solar or wind have to end up with comments about how great nuclear is? It is like a religion they simply must preach.

thinkcontext 3y ago

I think those that make "what about nuclear" posts should be required to invest in a company that would build an AP1000. This is the reactor that was supposed to lead the US nuclear renaissance. Instead it's 2 projects were utter financial failures, with one getting cancelled after spending $9b on a hole in the ground and the other is coming online after going 2x+ budget in time and money. All in development AP1000 projects were cancelled after this debacle. But this shouldn't be daunting to true believers. The most advanced cancelled project was Turkey Point in FL. It had received all approvals so a developer can start tomorrow if they want. If we made everyone who said "what about nuclear" buy a $100 share that sucker would be funded in no time.

lordofgibbons 3y ago

Probably because it's the only known carbon-free source of dependable and non-intermittent energy that can be deployed nearly anywhere. Let's be realistic about the devastatingly massive amounts of environmental damage wind/solar are doing by requiring unimaginably large amounts of minerals to be mined for both solar/wind AND the required batteries. Right now, it's an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of a problem because the mining happens in poor countries. How many cobalt and lithium mines have been approved in the U.S? I can think of only a couple in the past couple of decades. Why? Because they're terrible for the environment.. so we outsource the environmental damage to poor countries. Nuclear is expensive, but if we build a new plant every 40 years... what do we expect? Each plant is a one-off bespoke creation. The same economies of scale that have made solar+wind so cheap also apply to nuclear tech. We have the technology to solve the climate emergency. Nuclear lets us do it. Everything else is wishful thinking. p.s wind and solar have a part to play - specially in unstable and failed states where the existence of fissile material could be very dangerous.

Dah00n 3y ago
So, your answer to “why do they have to preach” is… preaching? This is like someone posting, “Ban cars! Bikes are better!” every time someone mentions a breakthrough in, say, EV tech. It is both off-topic and everyone here knows it will derail the discussion into mudslinging, just like how all EV discussion gets derailed. It only adds noise.
rtpg 3y ago
Nuclear cannot be deployed anywhere, it needs a source of water. It also needs staffing, and it needs to be kinda near to people who need electricity. This last point is important because nuclear plants generate a lot of power, so you cant easily build a plant “just” for 500 people in the same way you can for other energy sources. I am fine with nuclear in principle. There are real reasons nukes are expensive and not the ideal option in many situations. We have to be clear eyed about this.
- willy_k 3y ago
  Molten salt reactors don’t need a source of water, as much staffing, and could be used for industrial and other purposes given their improved safety profile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
  - rtpg 3y ago
    I want to believe with MSRs but the it’s had 80 years to prove itself and I have a hard time believing its large scale feasibility at this point. Lobbying only explains away so much. Remember, France is a large industrialized nation still building nuclear power plant. There’s gotta be some real reason they didn’t pick up MSRs.
- gimmeThaBeet 3y ago
  Also as was seen in France this summer for instance, one of the interesting edge cases of water cooled reactors (really any generation that needs a lot of water) is that they can get basically thermally throttled e.g. the inlet water is too warm, you might be limited on how much water you can discharge to curtail affecting local ecology. I guess it makes sense to me that the conditions that spike electric demand also stress generation and transmission, but I do find it astonishing how universal it is, solar/wind/hydro/nuclear included.

kibwen 3y ago

In the 70s, fossil fuel companies stirred up anti-nuclear propaganda in order to deter nuclear plants, which they perceived as the biggest threat to their business. In the modern day, fossil fuel companies stir up pro-nuclear propaganda in order to deter renewables, which they perceive as the biggest threat to their business, because it's long since become clear that nuclear power is not economically viable as a replacement for fossil fuels even without the effect of their original propaganda (and the fact that they propagandized against nuclear in the 70s has yielded fertile harvests of people who are still salty about that, inspiring them to take up the pro-nuclear torch with little provocation).

Krssst 3y ago
> fossil fuel companies stir up pro-nuclear propaganda in order to deter renewables, Source? Nuclear power plants replace coal plants. Renewables on the other hand can coexist nicely with fossil fuels as backup power for days without wind / sun.
belorn 3y ago
Is the fossil fuel industry different in the US than EU? When Germany wanted to defined natural gas as "green investment", to act as a backup solution for wind power, it was the fossil fuel industry that was in favor and nuclear industry that was against. The pro-nuclear side wanted EU to clearly take a stand against all fossil fuels in the energy grid, while the pro-renewable side wanted to keep and promote investments into new construction of fossil fueled power plants with the hope that green hydrogen will at some point become cheaper than natural gas.

pyrale 3y ago

Same reason every nuclear topic is invaded by renewables supporters. At this point, it isn't even a culture war, it's a college football fans' rivalry.

ensignavenger 3y ago

Why does every post about nuclear have to end up with comments about how great solar and wind is? It is like a religion they simply must preach.

pydry 3y ago

The military nuclear industrial complex needs civvy nuclear power to share an industrial ecosystem and skills base. They run expensive PR campaigns to manufacture consent for subsidies. Those PR campaigns work. Loud PR campaigns dont work on everybody but can reliably convince a large % of people to believe most things.