When asked about the federal government’s role, 41% of Americans say it should encourage the production of nuclear power.

Let’s get those new construction contracts signed!

  • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Fossil fuel and monopoly utility owners desperately trying to direct resources away from the thing killing their profits to something they know is ineffective with astroturfing campaign. Fox news watchers parroting what they’re told.

    News at 11

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don’t mind more nuclear if it’s done in a modern and safe fashion. The US has a tendency to build old fashioned water cooled reactors that output nuclear waste that we have to find a place for. And we do stupid things like building them on fault lines and flood zones.

    Why not build a pebble reactor? Or molten salt?

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      If this magical reliable, cheap, abundant, fast to deploy molten salt handling technology existed, the people with it would be dominating the storage industry with carnot batteries on every abandoned (and active) coal plant as well as the solar industry with 2c/kWh CSP.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah cooling them with river water won’t work in the summer pretty soon and since it takes almost 10 years to build it really isn’t a reasonable choice if you see how many renewables you can rollout in that time with that money

    • Doug Holland@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, that’s what most people fail to grok. This summer, 2023, will be the coolest summer for the rest of your life. In frightfully few years, weather catastrophes will be as commonplace as gas station stickups, and all of the ‘modern conveniences’ will be doubtful at best.

      The internet will be frequently and increasingly unplugged, highways will buckle, flying will be only for oligarchs, hospitals will be amateur efforts, Hollywood will be in flames, pro baseball will be untenable, and wild hoards will roam what used to be the cities, searching for food.

      In this mix, it’s laughable to imagine there’ll be full, stable, well-trained staffing at nuclear power plants.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I feel ya and think it’s strange that everyone is OK burning coal an methane while the planet literally burns. Yes, a nuke could make a 200 sq mile area uninhabitable. Isn’t what we’re doing instead demonstrably worse?

      You may be interested in knowing that Georgia just brought a new one online a few months ago. Wyoming is building one. TX and SC have put money aside to study nuclear development in each state.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Russia was reusing a government reactor that wasn’t designed for the it. The US has had one major incident out of over a 100 plants in operations for decades. Japan faced an earthquake that was an order of magnitude higher than anyone planned for and still managed it very well given how badly it could have gone.

      I have gotten to work on a few small projects in the nuclear sector they make the government and pharm look efficient and risk adverse. Just a tiny taste of it: all tape used on wires had to be a specific brand of tape and not only no splicing no terminal blocks either. Wires had to be run fully point to point. We are talking football fields of distance a single set of cables had to be run.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I see we’re back to pretending santa susanna didn’t exist again.

        We’re also pretending rules like the specific brand of tape aren’t there to prevent hundred million to billion dollar cleanups like when someone used the wrong brand of cat litter at WIPP

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s plenty of diversity available without flooding yet another native town with uranium tailings from a mine you refuse to clean up in order to support a technology that can provide at most a 5% contribution to the total.

      Wind, PV, solar-thermal, tidal, wave, hydro, agricultural waste based biofuel, waste methane, even orange hydrogen are all options that are less harmful and have fewer externalities.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Some good news for once. All it took was the hottest year on record and a global plague that wiped out a bunch of the elderly anti-science crowd.

    Maybe we can build a few more before we all fucking die

  • Rakonat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Now just imagine if people were actually educated on Nuclear Power and how it actually compares to Solar, Wind, and Fossil fuels. Nuclear beats them and it particularly trounces Solar and Wind when you consider what it takes to power high density homes and business, making it a double win in the ecological friendly factor.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      People are educated. That’s why they’re buying solar panels even in places where laws are being written to make it harder and 10x more expensive.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Nuclear is great and the best path forward at this time is a mix of both nuclear and renewables. We don’t have to choose one over the other, both have advantages.

  • DadeMurphy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Naturally. It’s hard for Tesla owners to pat themselves on the back for being good people if the electric their car is running off of, was generated by fossil fuels, lol.

    However, regardless of climate change and its effects on the planet, our government isn’t going to choose nuclear unless they can be assured that they will make the same amount of money off of it, if not more.

    Pretty much everything boils down to money, regardless of what kind of BS they feed you.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Could just pull a play out of the playbook-> Pass regulation to make it prohibitively expensive and time consuming to build anything other than nuclear.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      All cars are awful, but an EV consuming 140Wh of electricity from you hypothetical all-coal grid from 60g of coal is still far better than an ICE burning 160g of petrol in their brodozer which required burning another 30g of gas and oil to refine after being pumped from a low-yield shale patch using 140Wh of electricity using that same 60g of coal.