4 ms·

> Regardless. Nuclear is dead. Whenever I hear nuclear is dead "clean/green energy shill" is the word that comes to mind. If the world mostly the US and other

> Regardless. Nuclear is dead. Whenever I hear nuclear is dead "clean/green energy shill" is the word that comes to mind. If the world mostly the US and other developed countries had committed to nuclear the way the French did after the oil shock of the 70s would we be facing that much "global warming" today? You have the Western countries complaining that it takes 15-30 years for a nuclear power station to come online when the Koreans and the Japanese have it down to 5 years. Why the difference?

audunw 2y ago
> "clean/green energy shill" From a purely technical point of view, I would personally love if the world built more nuclear energy if it made sense. Yet I routinely experience being called a shilled, or stupid online, for even daring to think that maybe nuclear doesn't make sense anymore. The love for nuclear energy in social media isn't as much based on pure rational thought as its proponents would like to think. It's a super interesting and sexy technology with lots of incredibly fascinating engineering challenges.. and because of that the proponents are rationalizing why nuclear is the solution. That's my impression anyway. I say that because I sense those feelings within me myself. I WANT to believe nuclear is the solution. But if you look at the full picture, it's hard to see how it ever could be. Just because France had some success building lots of nuclear when labor was super cheap and there was lots of synergies with nuclear weapons programs, doesn't automatically mean that nuclear makes sense in the 21st century. France has recently had to import energy from Germany and is now aiming for at least 50% renewable energy. While Germany has been able to cut dependence on Russian gas, the Russian nuclear energy has been exempted from EU sanctions. And France's supplies of uranium from former African colonies is under threat. > when the Koreans Where you've had scandals around faking certificates related to nuclear energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal "Just do it" isn't a viable model for nuclear energy anymore. It has to be done 100% right. I might agree it's not entirely rational. But even if you're an avid believer in nuclear energy you should absolutely support doing it 100% right every time.. because even one more disaster will make people lose faith in nuclear energy for another decade or three. I'm sorry but people just don't think rationally when it comes to nuclear energy. Maybe Fukushima didn't kill anyone, but people would rather die a very slow death by coal than having to suddenly and unpredictably have to leave their home and whole life behind due to a nuclear disaster. It might not be rational. But if you're hoping that humans will suddenly become 100% rational you're in for disappointment.
- soperj 2y ago
  > While Germany has been able to cut dependence on Russian gas Wasn't that by using coal plants?
  - TillE 2y ago
    No, it was by importing liquefied natural gas. You can't convert the myriad applications of gas to electricity in a matter of months.
- AtlasBarfed 2y ago
  The weird thing about those people is that they probably are self-professed conservative pro-economics rationalists. And yet nuclear has absolutely no economic argument right now and hasn't really for a decade. There's this inertia that the pro-nuclear people have that they think that people oppose a nuclear just being these these Fringe green nutsos. In reality, advocation of nuclear power is The realm of the rapid wackos and zealots. There simply isn't an economic rational case that's supported for 10 years now
jltsiren 2y ago
Western construction business is incapable of delivering what they promise. They build something that resembles it, which is not good enough for nuclear reactors. The inspectors see something that does not match the specs and is full of of flaws, and they tell the construction company to dismantle it and try again. That keeps repeating, the budget runs over, and the construction takes decades to finish.
- epolanski 2y ago
  I've read once that the cost of building nuclear plants is logarithmic in time, as cost of fuels and especially regulations increase at that rate.
raisedbyninjas 2y ago
Electricity production is only about half of carbon emissions. 100% nuclear electricity would make a significant dent, but climate change would still persist.
- epolanski 2y ago
  Is it even half? I expected way less. Anyway it's absurd how meat industry gets away with their share of pollution. I guess selling people to eat less beef is tougher than changing their power unit in the car.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
Well what if we had committed to solar and wind in the 1950s as opposed to the 1990s? Certainly wind would have been viable at its current price points 40 years earlier than we have it now. I do think there does exist a world where nuclear power is competitive, but I don't think it involved solid fuel rods and pressurized water and gigantic domes. There probably is a MSR design out there that could probably compete but we would have had to have started funding that back in the '60s and '70s. We went solid fuel rod in the '60s and that kind of was it. I don't think solid fuel rod can be competitive no matter what regulatory environment

audunw 2y ago

> "clean/green energy shill" From a purely technical point of view, I would personally love if the world built more nuclear energy if it made sense. Yet I routinely experience being called a shilled, or stupid online, for even daring to think that maybe nuclear doesn't make sense anymore. The love for nuclear energy in social media isn't as much based on pure rational thought as its proponents would like to think. It's a super interesting and sexy technology with lots of incredibly fascinating engineering challenges.. and because of that the proponents are rationalizing why nuclear is the solution. That's my impression anyway. I say that because I sense those feelings within me myself. I WANT to believe nuclear is the solution. But if you look at the full picture, it's hard to see how it ever could be. Just because France had some success building lots of nuclear when labor was super cheap and there was lots of synergies with nuclear weapons programs, doesn't automatically mean that nuclear makes sense in the 21st century. France has recently had to import energy from Germany and is now aiming for at least 50% renewable energy. While Germany has been able to cut dependence on Russian gas, the Russian nuclear energy has been exempted from EU sanctions. And France's supplies of uranium from former African colonies is under threat. > when the Koreans Where you've had scandals around faking certificates related to nuclear energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal "Just do it" isn't a viable model for nuclear energy anymore. It has to be done 100% right. I might agree it's not entirely rational. But even if you're an avid believer in nuclear energy you should absolutely support doing it 100% right every time.. because even one more disaster will make people lose faith in nuclear energy for another decade or three. I'm sorry but people just don't think rationally when it comes to nuclear energy. Maybe Fukushima didn't kill anyone, but people would rather die a very slow death by coal than having to suddenly and unpredictably have to leave their home and whole life behind due to a nuclear disaster. It might not be rational. But if you're hoping that humans will suddenly become 100% rational you're in for disappointment.

soperj 2y ago
> While Germany has been able to cut dependence on Russian gas Wasn't that by using coal plants?
- TillE 2y ago
  No, it was by importing liquefied natural gas. You can't convert the myriad applications of gas to electricity in a matter of months.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
The weird thing about those people is that they probably are self-professed conservative pro-economics rationalists. And yet nuclear has absolutely no economic argument right now and hasn't really for a decade. There's this inertia that the pro-nuclear people have that they think that people oppose a nuclear just being these these Fringe green nutsos. In reality, advocation of nuclear power is The realm of the rapid wackos and zealots. There simply isn't an economic rational case that's supported for 10 years now

jltsiren 2y ago

Western construction business is incapable of delivering what they promise. They build something that resembles it, which is not good enough for nuclear reactors. The inspectors see something that does not match the specs and is full of of flaws, and they tell the construction company to dismantle it and try again. That keeps repeating, the budget runs over, and the construction takes decades to finish.

epolanski 2y ago
I've read once that the cost of building nuclear plants is logarithmic in time, as cost of fuels and especially regulations increase at that rate.

raisedbyninjas 2y ago

Electricity production is only about half of carbon emissions. 100% nuclear electricity would make a significant dent, but climate change would still persist.

epolanski 2y ago
Is it even half? I expected way less. Anyway it's absurd how meat industry gets away with their share of pollution. I guess selling people to eat less beef is tougher than changing their power unit in the car.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

Well what if we had committed to solar and wind in the 1950s as opposed to the 1990s? Certainly wind would have been viable at its current price points 40 years earlier than we have it now. I do think there does exist a world where nuclear power is competitive, but I don't think it involved solid fuel rods and pressurized water and gigantic domes. There probably is a MSR design out there that could probably compete but we would have had to have started funding that back in the '60s and '70s. We went solid fuel rod in the '60s and that kind of was it. I don't think solid fuel rod can be competitive no matter what regulatory environment