Focus on peaceful use of nuclear energy tech, economics, news, and climate change.
From r/nuclear
Looking for moderators
Useful links:
IAEA PRIS - The Database on Nuclear Power Reactors: https://pris.iaea.org/pris/home.aspx
NRC US reactor status: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/index.html
US Nuclear Plant Outage Status: https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/outages/
Milestones in Advanced Nuclear: https://www.airtable.com/universe/expnrIMohdf6dIvZl/milestones-in-advanced-nuclear
What about the waste? http://whataboutthewaste.com/
What about the cost? https://zionlights.substack.com/p/what-is-the-true-cost-of-energy
How long will nuclear fuel last? https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html
Global Energy Footprint https://energy.glex.no/footprint/
Low Carbon Power Nuclear page: https://lowcarbonpower.org/type/nuclear
IAEA PRIS - Under Construction Reactors: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
Now walk us through how "land use" is the primary constraining factor for energy generation anywhere outside Singapore or Andorra.
As opposed to, I dunno, cost to produce a gigawatt ?
But... but... they found some bugs in the desert outside Las Vegas that could be negatively affected! Checkmate, leftists!
@Atom Nuclear is green energy. The problem green activists have is the massive cost of nuclear plants, the timescale of getting them active, and the security concerns of them merely existing.
Your post is not only deeply & deliberately misleading (that's not what the comic says, even remotely), it's also wrong and stupid. Well done.
Plus the still unsolved waste problem.
I thought vitrifying and subsequent underground storage is a pretty effective method of storage for many isotopes? Obviously it isn't perfect, but it means no liquids to leak atleast.
Also recent advances in fusion are exciting, though obviously only time will tell if they'll get anywhere or just fizzle out...
There are already prospects for long time storage, and some of these are in various stages of development. Finland may be furthest ahead. Even Norway (who's not even considering nuclear power at the moment) is looking into converting their temporary storage of research waste to a permanent solution. Stable geological conditions are critical, but it's technically very doable.
Yeah but nuclear has one very important advantage over alternatives, it puts all the power in the hands of billionaires. Smaller companies, farmers, even home owners with a pv, wind grid could supply power locally allowing communities to be in control of their own energy requirements which will mean the billionaires won't have such a tight and deadly grip on their lives - what next?! Allowing free communication over a community run internet? Food security without needing to work eight hour days in awful conditions?
It doesn't matter how we generate power at long as the billionaires are the only ones able to do it, everything else must be derided and attacked endlessly for the good of our precious oligarchy.
You seem upset about wind, solar and hydro yet your post doesn't seem to mention them. How is that related to the post?
Greens?
You should always eat your greens. Listen to your gran.
Probably referring to the green party (e.g. in Germany: Bündnis 90/die Grünen). OP seems to have a strong opinion against climate activists and for nuclear energy (see their other post).
There has been a massive uptick in pro-nuclear astroturfing across reddit (and presumably other social media that I don't use) over the last 18months.
It may be a coincidence that it coincides with the Russian invasion and Europe's efforts to ditch russian gas for renewables. Certainly the fact that the average build time for a nuclear plant being over a decade helps keep us on coal and gas for longer than the rapid deployment times for renewables.
I don't have any proof that it's a russian plot, it could just as easily be the fossil fuel industry at it again. They both have form in this regard so it could be either or both.
That there is a campaign however is undeniable, the uptick in "nuclear is the panacea for all your climate woes" is a hundredfold on 2 years ago.
Renewables are cheaper and faster, and Europe (& Australia for a different reason) have showed how much solar and wind you can deploy in 18months. Nukes take decades to deploy and cost hugely more than renewables.
Yeah, all the nuclear projects they announce go hugely over budget and often get cancelled because the money pulls out because it's impossible to be profitable while all the wind farms and solar installations are doing far better than projected and the cost of construction is constantly falling.
No one actually interested in power generation is looking at what's happening and coming to the conclusion that these oil company shills are trying to push, it just makes no sense.
Personally I think the only problem with nuclear is that it has to be near a large natural water source that stays very stable. Due to already ongoing climate change, there's not a lot of safe large bodies of water. Either you're so far above sea level you risk running dry, or your so close that you're at risk of flooding. There are still some places it's a good idea, but they're few and far between.