this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
66 points (100.0% liked)
News
40 readers
2 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ironically, a major reason for this is environmentalists themselves. Nuclear power would be way cheaper if it wasn't for their panic over things that contain atoms.
In terms of safety, there's a big difference between nuclear technologies that fail elegantly like LFTR and more traditional designs that tend to use weaponized isotopes with very long half-lives, and can meltdown and explode when operated incorrectly.
I can understand why environmentalists look at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and say, hmm, maybe we shouldn't do that.
The issue is you have a fairly large contingent that unknowingly bought the fossil fuel company kool-aid and wholehearted think all nuclear is bad
LFTR costs so much up front and if it does fail which is why it isn't utilized, which sucks because it's massively more efficient, cheaper to fuel, and like 1/10th the size. So over time it's ultimately cheaper than current gen reactors. Even with the failure cost replacement, there's no fallout because of its walkaway design, so yeah it's a LOT cheaper than a normal reactor failing.
Also it's the only reactor design so far that could work in space like on the moon or Mars.
I really doubt that environmental regulations more than doubled the price. Especially when they knew about those regulations when they were planning it.
Protests against nuclear power have certainly helped prevent many counties, US included, from investing in new reactors over the last 30+ years.
Right, but unless nuclear energy regulations have changed significantly since they started planning it wouldn't have increased the cost.
Or maybe it costs $15 billion to drag some hippies out of the way, I don't know.
That's the easy way out, just blame it on panic and not numbers, because you do not have numbers that make nuclear power look good compared to renewable energy. This is not about grandma being scared, this is about scientists presenting scientific facts and studies.
There have been 3 fairly dangerous and catastrophic meltdowns rendering partial or whole plants inoperable within 4 decades. These meltdowns have caused long term environmental damage, killed people, etc.
If you're averaging almost a meltdown a decade, and where each time we have been lucky it hasn't been worse, I reject any claims that this is a safe technology that we have under sufficient control for it to make sense, especially when we have such cheaper and less dangerous ways to get the power we need now.
If you're including Chernobyl in that list, it was a hopelessly out-of-date design and the operators basically did everything they could to make it melt down as part of some kind of misbegotten "safety test."
If you're including Fukushima, that one didn't actually kill anyone. Though the tsunami that caused it killed over ten thousand.
Do you happen to know how many people get killed by hydro dams bursting, or by the side effects of coal power plants? Or the environmental degradation caused by the chemicals required for manufacturing solar panels? Nothing's completely safe, but nuclear power happens to be one of the safest by comparison.
Now compare that with the amount of people killed by conventional power generated or how much of the planet was damaged when a spill occured. Bet the numbers don't look so bad when you compare the two. Hell, let's take it a step further and include the cancer causing effects of power generation on the people living in the vicinity of plants.
Nuclear has its problems, but quit spreading FUD.