5 ms·

I'm genuinely curious, why are there so many extraordinarily pro-nuclear people on this forum? And how many of them have greater than zero experience with nucle

I'm genuinely curious, why are there so many extraordinarily pro-nuclear people on this forum? And how many of them have greater than zero experience with nuclear anything? I worked in the nuclear power industry for a decade and people in the industry are not as maniacally pro-nuclear as the people in this forum.

evandale 3y ago
This forum has lots of highly intelligent individuals and nuclear power is the most intelligent energy source to switch to so we can stop relying on fossil fuels. Perhaps you were working with people who don't feel the need to talk about how great nuclear is all the time because you all work in the industry and understand that already.
pjc50 3y ago
It's weird, isn't it? There's a lot of nuclear cheerleaders, and it makes me suspicious when they're also anti-renewables rather than "yes, and". Essentially everyone has forgotten the arguments of the nineties: nuclear weapons proliferation, waste dumping, and covering the entirety of western Europe in a thin layer of airborne radioactive particles. As well as the more practical cost overruns. Personally I think it would be worth someone giving SMR a go, but in a different country from me and at their own expense.
- gcheong 3y ago
  "nuclear weapons proliferation,..." Seems like we got that anyway thanks to the military industrial complex without getting much in the way of nuclear energy generation.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Lots of places built dual-purpose reactors? The initial UK nuclear program (Windscale) was weapons-first. The famous French reactor programme and their independent nuclear deterrent are also linked. Also, this is why people are reluctant to let some of the world's larger carbon emitters, the oil states in the middle east, build nuclear reactors. Iran has a small, heavily monitored fleet.
    - gcheong 3y ago
      Fair enough, but my point is that nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons development are two different things and one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. In other words one can be against a particular use of a technology without being against the technology itself.
JoeAltmaier 3y ago
By definition then, those people have experience with decades-old technologies and installations? The enthusiasm is largely for newer nuclear designs that address the FUD that gets thrown around whenever nuclear is mentioned.
yellow_lead 3y ago
I think it's because the enormous costs of plant construction are not well understood. Or maybe, we think these costs can be reduced greatly.
- adastra22 3y ago
  The latter. Costs are artificially high. Indeed in a weird roundabout way they are mandated to be high. It has nothing to do with actual needs.

evandale 3y ago

This forum has lots of highly intelligent individuals and nuclear power is the most intelligent energy source to switch to so we can stop relying on fossil fuels. Perhaps you were working with people who don't feel the need to talk about how great nuclear is all the time because you all work in the industry and understand that already.

pjc50 3y ago

It's weird, isn't it? There's a lot of nuclear cheerleaders, and it makes me suspicious when they're also anti-renewables rather than "yes, and". Essentially everyone has forgotten the arguments of the nineties: nuclear weapons proliferation, waste dumping, and covering the entirety of western Europe in a thin layer of airborne radioactive particles. As well as the more practical cost overruns. Personally I think it would be worth someone giving SMR a go, but in a different country from me and at their own expense.

gcheong 3y ago
"nuclear weapons proliferation,..." Seems like we got that anyway thanks to the military industrial complex without getting much in the way of nuclear energy generation.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Lots of places built dual-purpose reactors? The initial UK nuclear program (Windscale) was weapons-first. The famous French reactor programme and their independent nuclear deterrent are also linked. Also, this is why people are reluctant to let some of the world's larger carbon emitters, the oil states in the middle east, build nuclear reactors. Iran has a small, heavily monitored fleet.
  - gcheong 3y ago
    Fair enough, but my point is that nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons development are two different things and one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. In other words one can be against a particular use of a technology without being against the technology itself.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

By definition then, those people have experience with decades-old technologies and installations? The enthusiasm is largely for newer nuclear designs that address the FUD that gets thrown around whenever nuclear is mentioned.

yellow_lead 3y ago

I think it's because the enormous costs of plant construction are not well understood. Or maybe, we think these costs can be reduced greatly.

adastra22 3y ago
The latter. Costs are artificially high. Indeed in a weird roundabout way they are mandated to be high. It has nothing to do with actual needs.