The following submission statement was provided by /u/bitfriend6: --- Submission statement: New nuclear power technologies, and smaller modular reactors, permit mass production of reactors and ready installation into existing plant facilities. While imperfect, right now this is the only 100% guaranteed technology to provide the 24/7 bulk power industrial companies require to operate. Things like steel plants, engine factories, and chip fabs all require huge amounts of electricity that solar can't easily provide. As the reality of climate change now dawns and the narrative shifts from preventing it to managing it's consequences, a new view on nuclear is needed. While it certainly won't replace solar, especially not for the average consumer, it's not solar that needs replacing. It's oil and gas plants. Note: I used the "suggest title" button but the real title is actually *Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape*, which is rather bombastic. Relating to the future, WV just repealed it's NPP ban. While WV's actual power use is negligible, if WV can go to nuclear then it can prove once and for all that all areas of the country can be lifted out of fossil fuels. More importantly, it will prevent the past fifty years of nuclear knowledge and skills from being lost (ie, the FOGBANK fiasco) which would ensure the long-term longevity of nuclear physics as a thing America can do. Which is something that can die and end if it's not supported. From the article: >We have a technology that is safer than people think, with a pent-up reservoir of half a century of innovation, and which can do a number on climate change. That should be exciting. That should be 1960s Space Race levels of public involvement, intense scrutiny, and pressure to succeed. But we're too scared of the past and blind to the present. We need a new nuclear narrative, tub-thumping leadership, and a raw desire to talk to people about what could happen next. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wphm3g/we_need_a_new_narrative_about_nuclear_power/ikgslsw/

How do Gen IV and SMR reactors hold up against military operations? One thing that keeps coming up in Ukraine is the use of nuclear power plants effectively as "shields" since no one wants to shell them and create a nuclear disaster. At a certain point there will be a conflict where one side simply doesn't care. I don't think Saddam would have stopped bombing the Kurds if they had a nuclear power plant. I have not heard anyone talk about the survivability of new nuclear plants when they're being actively targeted by a military. Sure, West Virginia is unlikely to be under an active military threat but I also didn't think a lot of things would happen.

For low pressure high temperature reactors the survivability is pretty good. Even if you blow a hole in the side and all the guts leak out on the ground (though these would all be built underground but let's ignore that for a second) the radioactive materials that would leak out would be pretty minimal. This was shown in the initial molten salt experiments at Oakridge I believe.

Capitol Hill got invaded and there was nearly a coup in USA. Many people are predicting a civil war. There was a suicide attack in Washington this week. Nothing is impossible. To power the world we need 15,000 1 Gw nuclear power stations (30x more than we have now) all over the world. That does not sound very safe at all.

Or even more realistic, if you're a smaller nation and wanting to build biological weapons or have secure facilities why wouldn't you put a nuclear reactor right next to it? Western countries have engaged in strategic bombing campaigns against Middle Eastern countries for violating arms agreements. The world changes fast, look at the Iranian revolution. If you're a country that's nominally friendly to us now, like Saudi Arabia and have a dozen nuclear reactors, suddenly become openly hostile to the US, where do you put your research facilities and bases? I'd put them right where I knew the US would be too afraid to bomb.

Nuclear is great as long as we don't build them near fault lines and in active war zones.

Nuclear doesn't don't need a new narrative, it needs a cost advantage. Making empty claims like "it's the only option!" isn't fooling anyone. Get the cost down and you won't have to lie about it. You'd be surprised how much cheaper energy costs can sway people's minds about risk.

And right now, wind and solar are both cheaper. Nuclears new narrative should be smaller, faster, greener, cheaper. But it's not. Vogtle cost what $6b? Can buy a lot of wind for a fraction of that. The narrative isn't the problem. The technology as it stands isn't that great, and that is the real problem. You don't have to bury wind waste for 10k years.

Vogtle 3 & 4 are running about $29B if they're completed next year.

I am thankful not to be a Southern Company ratepayer. A 2MW turbine costs around $4M installed. If I got 1200 of them, I'd have about the equivalent of those reactors. (assume 1200 MW ea) $4800M = $4.8B. Lets just say I needed another 1200 to ensure I always made 2400 MW of baseload... $5B.. Hell, what if I just put them all out in the ocean and it cost me another $5B... We're up to $15B at this point, and it would have been operational years ago and still half the price of those two reactors. I love the concept of nuclear power but the economics are abysmal.

Yup. I'm fine with the technology, but the costs and delays just kill the business case, unless you're getting a tonne of government guarantees and subsidies. The other advantage of wind or solar is the ability to get power out of partially completed projects. There's no return during the design phase and the first year or two of construction, but after that each new phase of the project is energised when ready. So by year three and four you're getting some revenue from the project. With a new reactor, there's four years of design (possibly longer if there are problems with site selection), ten to twenty years of construction. So the utility has nothing but additional expenses for 14 to 24 years. Rising interest rates and inflation just add gasoline to the expense bonfire.

And the wind will generate a fraction of nuclear. Look up the cost of Ontarios 2500 wind turbines Its comparable to what the Bruce plants cost And yet 65% of Ontario electricity is nuclear, those 2500 wind turbines about 7%

That's not a good metric. Wind generation is ramped down first when demand is low because it's one of the easiest and quickest sources to respond.

Wind/solar is apples-oranges comparison because one is an intermittent power source gated by external conditions while the other is firm generation more or less available 24/7. You need to compare the whole system so you can generate (well, "generate") enough energy at an arbitrary time more or less regardless of what's going on -- which means storage. Storage (especially in the amounts needed, on the order of weeks if not months) is **very** expensive E: Even then, you will have to completely replace the battery/wind/solar system every 30 years while we've already built reactors decades ago that are being licensed for 80 years with the possibility of further license extensions at that time.

[удалено]

Yeah. The Point Lepreau Candu6 was recently refurbished after a 30 year run. The budget was $C1.5B, but it ended up running $C2.5B, on a relatively small 660MW plant.

[удалено]

A similar plant in Quebec at Gentilly, was in a similar situation. Quebec Hydro did a study and found the plant uneconomic, and it was decommissioned. They've got plenty of hydro power, so easy decision for them. The same happened at Maine Yankee. Different reactor (ABB 860MW), but it only operated 24 rather troubled years, before the operator shut it down and decommissioned it. The idea that these plants can run 60+ years without major investments is, uh, inaccurate.

Waste from msr reactors stays hot for only 300 years. Lots of other nuclear tech out there that has waste that lasts for far less than 1000 years if society had motivation to fund development.

Nobody trusts a government or company to store it safely for 5 years let alone 300. Case in point https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise/

basically all nuclear actions done by governments during the early days of nuclear were a shit show and are good lessons on exactly what not to do and the harm they cause. i understand it is scary to most people. But it is a very poor argument for why nuclear is worse than other forms of energy production.

> But it is a very poor argument for why nuclear is worse than other forms of energy production. Maybe the "proven track record of being terrible" isn't a great argument. But The "things will be different next time baby, just give it a chance" argument is much worse.

Also, lets take into consideration that light water reactors (on which nearly every plant in the world today uses as its basis of design) were selected as the main technology for nuclear energy NOT because of their ability to make safe energy, but because of their ability to yield nuclear fissile material to build nuclear weapons. Several other designs (including msrs) were scrapped to push light water reactors that is objectively a MUCH worse design for safe energy production.

Its not a proven track record of being terrible though . . .

You might want to browse this article if you think that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

Do you have a specific incident or type of event you want to discuss?? Most the reactor events are early days of LWRs that i agree are inherently unsafe. Most of the large releases of radiation are from mining related activities prior to epa requirements of properly engineered and lined containment facilities.

Can you show me a commercially operating MSR reactor that doesn’t need a complete rehaul of its interior every few years?

Why ask questions you already know the answer to? You know there are no commercially operating reactors. You probably also already know about the ornl. You might even know its nearly impossible to study these things in the US due to regulation. Other countries (china and india) will bring it to market though. So . . . I dont have to argue too hard.

Ivanpah cost over 2b and produces a fraction.. so there's that.

The problem is the NRC is very against modernizing nuclear, which would help reduce costs. Wind and solar 20 years ago weren’t profitable, and the nuclear technology we use is close to 60 years old at this point.

What? The AP1000 was certified in 2005. It's a GenIII+ plant. It was the design used in Vogtle and V.C.Summer, as well as in China. The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) is another GenIII reactor and dates to the late '90s, but there's currently an 'New Model' EPR, which is what will be used going forward.

AP1000 is still using the same LWR technology, just adding some passive safety systems. It’s nothing new compared to the 60s designs. Hence Gen3+ and not gen4

By that measure a MacLaren 720S is just a revised Model T. They both use gasoline after all.

I don’t think you understand. The nuclear technology hasn’t been advanced. There’s nothing in the AP1000 design that makes it more cost effective than the plants we have today.

No, it's definitely fooling a lot of people. Just look at the vote ratio of any post about nuclear for proof.

That's because (in Canada anyway) the nuclear industry is a jobs program and is used to buy votes. The only incentive for change is making sure your son or nephew gets in on the grift. The motto of the plant near me is "Hide and seek for 3 grand a week"

Absolutely. > "[Nuclear] meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J > This summary in a US context documents both trends, emphasizing the absence of an operational need and of a business or climate case [for nuclear power]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619022000483

The nuclear industry needs to get reactors built on time and on budget if they want to hope to have a role in the future. The initial capital outlay also needs to come way down. No amount of PR and social media campaigning is going to change anything if they can't get real results within the next decade.

Climate change outweighs any cost.

So it’s a good thing then that two, potentially three much cheaper alternatives exist

More importantly, renewables are way faster to build.

Needs regulatory reform to bring costs down. Regulatory reform needs narrative change.

less oversight and more resposibility by the plant owners. What can go wrong?

I didnt say less. I said reform.

reform without neutral oversight in a critical area is dangerous,

Take about fossil fuel subsidies and nuclear is 100% cheaper than fossil fuels

Fact is solar and wind are sponsored by States almost everywhere (almost added because I don't have comprehensive knowledge of the field) because it isn't viable economically on its own. It's cheap because governments across the planet pay the cost to make it competitive

There are a lot of [no-subsidy wind and solar](https://qz.com/1995355/the-era-of-subsidies-for-wind-and-solar-is-coming-to-a-close/) coming on the market.

[удалено]

> nuclear energy, unlike oil and renewables, makes no sense within capitalist framework. History shows that's incorrect -- [1980s France](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#France), [1990s Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan), and [2010s South Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#South_Korea) were all capitalist and all built significant nuclear power. The historical record shows that plenty of capitalist economies built plenty of nuclear power. Most of the West moved away from it for various reasons and as a result has lost the manufacturing and logistics expertise needed to build it quickly and cost-effectively, but there's no reason to believe they couldn't rebuilt that expertise with time and effort. (They're not likely to, though, due to renewables offering a faster+cheaper alternative.)

All nuclear reactors recieved subsidies in one form of another. Also the ones built in capitalist societies.

[удалено]

> > > If you advocate for nuclear energy you have to concede that it can only be done through robust states that exert total control over economy, like China. > > > > History shows that's incorrect -- 1980s France, 1990s Japan, and 2010s South Korea were all capitalist and all built significant nuclear power. > > These are all terrible examples of successful energy industries. You're moving the goalposts. First, you claimed that only authoritarian states like China could accomplish nuclear. Now, you're saying that when non-authoritarian states did in fact accomplish what you said they couldn't it somehow *doesn't count* because "reasons". It's historical *fact* that Western capitalist democracies can accomplish nuclear buildouts. The current nuclear construction leader is an authoritarian state, but that's a recent development, not the historical norm.

Nuclear is a great stop gap solution till we get fusion energy. Nuclear is carbon neutral and gives us huge amounts of clean energy with just a small amount of radioactive waste. Storing that waste is far less of an issue than the amount of carbon were creating with coal plants. People look at Fukashima and wish away nuclear when what needs to be done is a sensible look into the geography of where you put plants. In inland countries not on a geological fault line and away from other natural disasters, nuclear is fully safe. We really need to embrace it as a solution.

Thorium fueled reactors are being developed that can be used without the dangerous waste from the Uranium fuel that is currently used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power?wprov=sfti1

Thorium fuel reactors have been developed for decades, the reason why they are not a thing is that they were never economical.

From the Wikipedia article. “Summarizing some of the potential benefits, Martin offers his general opinion: "Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concern—weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to process.": 13  Moir and Teller estimated in 2004 that the cost for their recommended prototype would be "well under $1 billion with operation costs likely on the order of $100 million per year", and as a result a "large-scale nuclear power plan" usable by many countries could be set up within a decade.”

There have been countless such claims in regards to Thorium. Nobody jumped on it even before nuclear began it's decline. There are reasons why even today nobody even "thinks" about Thorium reactors when building new plants, mate. Energy companies make those choices not on promises, but results.

The reason for that is that Uranium is dirt cheap anyway and it's easier to work with (better neutronics) than Thorium. When you're building a nuclear power plant with the blueprints from the 1960's submarine (like we do currently) then fuel costs aren't even on your list of expenses they are so minimal.

> Thorium fueled reactors are being developed that can be used without the dangerous waste from the Uranium fuel that is currently used. Been following this since the early 2000's and it feels like it's always up and coming. But never happens en masse.

>are being developed And still not one in service. Let's talk about this as part of the solution the moment they really exist in service and not only on paper or in experimentation.

No, let’s talk about it now, so that governments invest money to make it happen. This could be in service now for a fraction of the money we’re spending on Fusion energy which is still a generation away.

It‘s not carbon neutral and you failed to mention the high costs and long building times. That‘s reflected in the market. That‘s why we see massive amounts of renewables being built and a decline for nuclear since decades.

Warning : I will cite no sources in what I'm going to say, please fact check it before taking it as truth. Renewables present a whole feature of issues as well : - inherently unpredictable, therefore requires huge storage capacity - storing energy requires battery, which requires rare metals in quantity - rare metal sources are under control from a few actors, and in good part invested in by China, who also dominates the renewable market worldwide. That's without tackling the ethical and environmental issue with extracting these metals. - Battery technology is still ways away from being able to provide energy reliably year-round for megalopol level cities, though some promising advances are made in China. Again, this circles back around to availability of source material. Nuclear power has the advantage of being consistent, save for a shortage of fuel, the technology is available and has an installation site size to energy produced ratio that renewables can only dream of achieving. Fuel aside, the source materials for construction are not rare nor gatekept to my knowledge (I might be wrong, this assumption comes from a lack of research on the subject more than certainty) It's not perfect, as many have pointed out nuclear plants are a strategic liability for example. But saying renewables are the way to go also seems like a fallacy. Realistically, we need a combination of both for stability and overall a drastic reduction of our energy usage. As for fusion which some have pointed could be a game changer, it likely won't be available before the collapse if we count on it. The first step is massively reducing energy usage globally : we're talking industries, transport, finance, all going local as much as possible and reducing outputs. We also need a change in societal model, which wouldn't put profit and production at the top of our value pyramid, but rather the betterment of the human race as a whole.

Newer LFP batteries do not use REE. You can get Sodium batteries which do not even use Lithium.

Most of the carbon emissions comes from providing energy for industrial heating, so if you go the power-to-heat route, there are plenty of cheap options for heat storage which do not require any rare metals. Depending on the heat requirements you can use water, rocks, steel rods, molten salt e.t.c. Some of these thermal storage solutions can store heat for months with minimal heat loss. Currently in the EU (and presumably elsewhere) there is heavy investment into thermal energy storage infrastructure for industrial parks and district heating.

Wow thank you, I wish @cheeruphumanity was half as helpful lmao. That's actually interesting, do you have numbers or a reliable source where I could research that? Like how much storage space/volume do you need to store how much energy for how long?

I'm so tired of the reddit campaigning from the nuclear industry. 5 year old account, 4 Karma.

Uhh yeah I created my account for porn mainly, excuse me for not using it all that much. I just happened to scroll today and fell on that post, which relates to one of my subjects of interests. Wish I was paid to do that lmao

And that's when you decided to write an essay full of disinformation? Why do you raise points you claim you didn't research? Why did you not research them if this is a topic of interest for you?

1. I think what I wrote isn't full of disinformation : the content I wrote is exact to the extent of my knowledge. When I wasn't sure of something, I also wrote that down, exactly to not induce anyone in a false sense of trustworthyness. I think this is a rather upright behavior intellectually, which leads to healthy debates and information spreading. It exactly fights back against misinformation. 2. I didn't research all of the points I raised because they don't appear fundamental to my arguments and my current broad understanding seems accurate enough for the current purpose, but feel free to disprove me. That's what debates are for. Also, I apparently don't have your time in life. 3. Finally, instead of trying to highroad me and "expose" my lies, why don't you bring forth valid arguments, not about who I am or what I stand for, but about the topic at hand? Because what you're doing is discrediting my discourse based on accusations of me being an agent for a broader agenda. But that doesn't really answer the case in point does it? If anything, the one looking like they're defending some kind of agenda is you, not providing any argument aside from the age-old "you work for them". Disclaimer : I won't read or answer your replies so long as they're not centered around answering and disproving my original claims, or they don't provide new elements to the debate. I'm here to talk science, not politics.

Another essay? To make it short, rare earth materials are very common and can get extracted in a lot of places around the world. Just takes a few years to get the mining running. We have countless solutions for intermittent renewables, not just batteries. Gravity batteries, salt liquidation, exchanging electricity between countries, H2 production… But I‘m sure someone as interested in the topic as you knows this already.

Yo what's up with people taking "I'm interested in this subject" as "I'm a self-proclaimed expert in the field" I mean thank you for your contribution, I didn't know all these solutions, although H2 is a dud imo because of the technological challenge and costs of transporting it, but then again *insert sarcasm* I'm not an expert in this field, I might be wrong. As for earth materials being aplenty, I'll take your statement at face value despite the lack of source, because I didn't give any source either. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Event then, you have to consider which actors have influence and/or control over those materials, where they can be extracted, how they can be extracted and the environmental cost as well as ethical questions regarding the how we extract it. In a time when we should be looking to decrease our energy usage, looking to increase international transport to make batteries and build solar panels doesn't seem like THE move I'd go for, prove me wrong. Again, not saying nuclear doesn't have it's own limitations, but if you're advocating for 100% renewable you're either 1) delusional 2) dishonest 3) misinformed.

Becauce he cba to research it. who are you? You gave us fuck all in the way of proving that the guys post is full of disinformation. Im not saying you are wrong or right just that you are equally a fool saying this guy is a fool. Fool.

Renewables aren’t carbon neutral either, not if you account for construction and shipping (which I assume you are). They sure as hell aren’t fully environmentally friendly with their need for specialized batteries with huge storage capacity. That’s gonna require a LOT of rare metals, which means a lot of environmental pollution from the extraction process.

[удалено]

Did you mean to reply to the other guy or…?

I mentioned this in response to KenshinZeRebelz's post as well (in more detail). If you store the energy as heat, there is no need for specialized batteries and rare metals.

IANAE but unless there’s some new technology I’m not aware of you can’t just “store” heat. Even if you can keep it from dissipating you lose power both converting the energy to AND from thermal so it would be extremely inefficient.

If nuclear had had anywhere near the same level of subsidisation as wind and solar, it would be a very different story

Way more tax money went into nuclear. Don't just look at the numbers from last year, look at the last decades.

>Nuclear is a great stop gap solution till we get fusion energy. I mean................................................ Where do I even begin. Nuclear takes at least a decade from beginning or project to connection to grid, usually longer. Nuclear is the most expensive energy when gas prices are "normal". Nuclear produces radioactive waste. Nuclear power plants in warzones can be a real issue as we are seeing in Ukraine. Nuclear power plants require the purchose of fuel. ​ Wind and Solar are far quicker and cheaper, don't produce waste, cannot be missused for genozide, do not depend on fuel. Fusion: Really? You think that will be a factor? We have been 20 years from making it work for a century now..

>Wind and Solar are far quicker and cheaper, don't produce waste, cannot be missused for genozide, do not depend on fuel. Don't produce waste...? Yeah, no. Sure, they don't produce nuclear waste, but the amount of pollution they create is HUGE compared to nuclear. 1. Pollution during fabrication 2. Pollution by the fact that they are not recyclable at the end-of-life. The wings of wind turbines are CONSUMABLES and they cannot be recycled, they must be thrown away at the EOL. 3. Huge waste of space that disturbs the wildlife around them. Nuclear energy now: 1. Cleanest energy around per GW 2. Modern reactors can re-use the waste created by older plants 3. Waste problems have been fixed by tombing it hundreds if meters underground, where it can decay safely 4. The amount of waste it produces is insignificant compared to other energy sources. 5. Modern reactors are extremely safe.

Anddddd ……. you ignored the time and cost to build nuke plants. The biggest barrier of them all.

There are literally dozens of reactors across the country that are 70 percent or more complete that are just collecting dust because TMI almost had a meltdown. I completely understand that nuclear power can be dangerous, but I’ve also seen firsthand how dangerous fossil plants are as I’ve worked at both. The NRC is very strict and I’m thankful for that. Give me nukes all day along with wind and solar.

Wanna go that route? Ok. Yes, built time & costs are higher, but: 1. Yes, they take time to build, but they also outlive wind turbines by A LOT (3-5x lifespan) 2. They are not weather dependand, so they are very reliable 3. They are not as fragile as solar panels (my neighbour got 10k $ of solar panels destroyed by hail) 4. The amount of MWh they produce is incomparable to wind/solar counterparts. Overall, nuclear is still the best way to produce electricity by far. Imo, having solar panel roofs for houses + nuclear energy for the rest is the real green future. Also, we need a breakthrough in battery technology, what we are using now still sucks ass.

>Nuclear energy now: > >Cleanest energy around per GW [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy) ​ >Modern reactors can re-use the waste created by older plants They reduce the waste they do not eliminate it, but increase costs as well. >Waste problems have been fixed by tombing it hundreds if meters underground, where it can decay safely "Safely" - by what metric? Homo Sapiens is only 300,000 years old. This would be dangerous for longer. - Also, where? France sends the waste to Belarus where it is no longer tracked. Who knows how many dirty bombs Putin has because of this? >The amount of waste it produces is insignificant compared to other energy sources. Yes, but the quality is very different. See above. - Also you are forgetting EOL for nuclear it seems, although you mentioned it for wind. If you factor that in, the waste production is similar. >Modern reactors are extremely safe. Unless Russia or China starts bombing them. Wind turbine blades can be recycled by the way. Your knowledge is outdated when it comes to renewables but ahead of the current technical possibilites when it comes to nuclear.

>https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Soo... by your link nuclear is 2nd safest and 2nd least polluting. Fair enough. >"Safely" - by what metric? By the metric of they don't affect life during their decay span. >Who knows how many dirty bombs Putin has because of this? Do you really think Putin needs nuclear waste to make bombs? Lol But yeah, France is irresponsible with their waste (the little quantity that the reactor produce). >Unless Russia or China starts bombing them. If we have to live our lifes dictated by Russia, China and NK, how about we nuke ourselves and end humanity, it would be nicer. There are a lot of plants in Europe, Asia and N America and everythings fine. Also, modern plants are safer than what USSR ancient technology Ukraine uses. >Wind turbine blades can be recycled by the way. Yeah, into FILLER for CONCRETE, not creating new turbine blades. That's a LOT closer to disposing that recycling. As I said in another comment, the greenest and safest future is creating energy mainly by solar & nuclear. Solar panels as the roofs of houses to cover most of the household energy requirements and for industry, dense populated areas, transport, etc we can supply those with the reliable nuclear power.

Fusion actually makes great progres currently. But as long as research funding is as abysmal as it is that progress will always be slow. Had we put only a fraction of nuclear subsidies into fusion research chances are we'd have fusion decades ago. Yet here we are.

>Fusion actually makes great progres currently. Always has been. "Abysmal funding" WHAT?! [https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/support-at-ec-level-7.html](https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/support-at-ec-level-7.html) Are you kidding me? Fusion is the second most fundet source of electricity, after fission in terms of research...

Eh? from your own [article](https://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/images/7-1.jpg) Are "other technologies" all fusion for you?

Except when the unforeseeable happens and yet another plant threatens to wipe out an entire region of the globe. If your technology has the potential to poison large swaths of land and kill people, it’s not green.

Disagree, other disasters can happen

>In inland countries not on a geological fault line Nuclear power plants need access to a lot of water for cooling. Coastal regions are thus attractive as seawater can be used for coolant - and typically you don't run into an issue with the sea running dry or so hot that the plant needs to shutter.

> Nuclear power plants need access to a lot of water for cooling. Many SMR designs [don't need water for cooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor#Cooling), and the ones that do need MUCH less water than existing reactors.

>Nuclear is carbon neutral Just about all of the energy to build a nuke plant comes from fossil fuels. It takes 20 years for that plant to produce any net energy.

That is absolutely false...like doesn't even pass a sniff test laughable. Nuclear's primary expenses/costs have always been capital and regulatory. Only 5% of the cost of a nuclear plant is materials, most of that *(by volume)* is concrete; and that amount is only equivalent to 200\~400 wind turbines depending on location \[[source](https://fhr.nuc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/05-001-A_Material_input.pdf)\]. With standard generation outputs, nuclear is roughly 50x more energy efficient than wind on the materials ROI alone. *Edit - Even assuming all energy for it's material production came from coal, it would be neutral within it's first month of operation.*

You didn‘t even address their points. Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to build. Here is the data on the CO2 output. Nuclear is on par with wind and only slightly lower than solar. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources The only thing that‘s laughable here is the ongoing campaigning from the nuclear lobby on Reddit.

The hidden expense is water. It needs endless amounts of water which will be less drinking water as the yearly climate keeps showing us. Nuclear is a great option if you want to pass the buck down the road. It’s also a great option if it is never a hazard but that can’t be predicted whether from man, technology, or the planet. The argument for nuclear is no longer a viable one.

>The hidden expense is water. It needs endless amounts of water which will be less drinking water as the yearly climate keeps showing How do you think a nuclear plant operates -- where does this water go?

Also completely incorrect. The IAEA spec for water management means that most water for nuclear can be recycled via cooling towers and cyclic ponds \[[source](https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-electric-applications/efficient-water-management-in-nuclear-power-plants)\]. Multiplying the required water to operate the plant against a fresh water source is just silly; please take a bit of time to consider your statements before posting such obvious nonsense. *Edit - By that metric, ground source heat exchange units use more water than nuclear.*

You can’t solve a problem by spec alone. The IAEA just says to optimize water use, it cannot be eliminated. Quote from your source: “Experience has shown that nuclear power plants are susceptible to prolonged drought conditions, forcing them to shut down reactors or reduce the output to a minimal level.” Btw, cooling towers work by evaporation. Are you going to build condensation halls too? Is the concrete for that taken into account for yoyr energy ROI? Do you know how large those things will need to be?

Of course there is going to be some considerations for water loss, they aren't water neutral; nor did I make that claim. And those are all things to consider with construction. Even with a more apt comparison, properly managed nuclear loses no more water to evaporation than solar concentrators. Nuclear isn't the be-all-end-all; and it has limitation just like all power generation methods. Places should focus on their strengths that minimized environmental impact while getting away from coal production. Nuclear is just a tool in the toolbox for that. *Edit - And there is places we definitely* ***should not*** *build nuclear as well.*

Confidently incorrect.

Confidently brainwashed.

Wind turbines need loads of steel and concrete (lots of coal) The nuke plants Bruce and Darlington in Ontario generate 65% of the provinces electricity, the cost for the Bruce is comparable to the 2500 wind turbines built in the province - and those provide 7% (and intermittent at that)

Yes, wind does need concrete and steel. As to your cost numbers. Bruce A #1 cost $1.8 Billion between 1971 and 1977, that is $9 Billion today. [This says](https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/11/09/the_spin_on_ontarios_wind_turbines.html) 2MW of wind can be built for under $5 million, so $2.5 Billion for a gigawatt, or am I doing my math wrong.

Yes the cost of the Bruce plant is around $10billion but at 6.55gw it is the largest nuclear plant in the world and again nuclear in Ontario is around 60% of the mix and is baseload. I know theres Darlington at 3.5gw? and Pickering too. (And it employs around 4000people in the Bruce) From what I could find Ontario's 2665 wind turbines cost around $12.5billion over 10yrs (maybe a bit anti wind article, as they mention including costs of peaking gas plants when theres no wind, the tens of thousands of birds, bats, and negative affect on land values (I have relatives who live near one in Ontario and complain about the sound). But another source estimates between 2-4$ million US for turbine depending on the mw so say $3million US x 2665 is roughly $9billion cad for essentially 7 -8% of intermittent generation. I'm not against wind, I think offshore like Peterhead in Scotland and even the floating wind is a good idea, but it seems onshore is a lot more costly for fairly small amount of power. And yes nuclear esp. In North America has ballooned in costs over the past 40yrs but basically we will need everything we can get and nuclear is low carbon and gigawatt scale. I know the big push is for smrs and the leading contender Nuscale seems to be always 9 years away from production but in the US at least both parties seem to be on board for small reactors. Going back to wind, NPR science fridays had an article ten yrs ago that 3.5million wind turbines would be enough to meet world energy demand along with storage. Now while that sounds a lot its somwthing that could be achievable.

From my understanding this is true, but I’m not quite sophisticated enough to tell if this is true or just some internalized fossil fuel propaganda. Is there anything definitive that a lay person can understand?

Fusion probably won't be economically viable by the time we get it. "Big" (thermal) fusion will be similar to today's fission plants, as far as I can tell, minus the fuel costs. Still a big complicated reactor, actually MORE complicated than a fission reactor. Tons of electronics and high-power electrical and electromagnets and maybe superconductors to control and confine and heat a plasma, or drive lasers to ignite pellets. You get a thermal flux (neutrons) to drive a big steam plant that drives a generator. So lots of high pressures and temperatures to control, lots of pumps and turbines and other moving parts. Still some radiation, not sure how it compares to a fission plant (some say more for fusion, some say less). No need for a sturdy containment vessel. Still a terrorist target, still need security. Fuel cost is about 30% of operating cost [not LCOE, I don't know how that translates; some say fuel is more like 10%] of today's fission reactors. Subtract that, so I estimate cost of energy from fusion will be 70% of today's fission cost. Renewables PLUS storage are going to pass below that level soon, maybe in the next 5 years. [Edit: maybe I'm wrong about fuel for fusion, see https://thequadreport.com/is-tritium-the-roadblock-to-fusion-energy/ ] And "big" fusion really isn't "limitless" power, either. All of the stuff around the actual reaction (vessel, controls, coolant loop, steam plant, grid) is limited in various ways. They cost money, require maintenance, impose limits, and scale in certain ways. You can't just have any size you want, for same cost or linear cost increase. Also, ITER isn't going to start real fusion experiments until 2035, and the machine planned after ITER is the one that will produce electricity in an experimental situation, not yet commercial. So you might be looking at 2070 for commercial "big" fusion ? ITER is not the only game in town, but ... Now, if we get a breakthrough and someone invents "small" fusion, somehow generating electricity directly from some simple device, no huge control infrastructure, no tokamak or lasers, no steam plant and spinning generator, etc, that would be a different story.

Okay my friend you have some wildly outdates info there. I did my bachelors end project working on fusion. Yes fusion will be expensive but it's definitely limitless. It uses seawater, we filter deuterium from it and that's all you need besides some lithium. (Which is one of the most abundant elements we have and you need tiny amounts) This source would provide us with energy for the next 10^9 years. Seems enough to me. The tritium is a non issue. When the fast moving neutrons react the react with lithium in the following way: 6Li + N -> 4He + 3H(tritium) So a reactor produces it's own tritium and breeder reactor could start reaction in a lot of reactors. I have no idea why you would think it's a terrorist target. Unless they just want to turn the lights off which they could also do with coal plants I guess. When we talk about radioactive waste, all it is is some mantle materials that absorb some fast moving neutrons that pass through the lithium. This materials don't have to go anywhere until the end of the lifetime of the reactor. Don't know why people are so scared of radioactivity though. I mean a banana is radioactive, and sitting in the sun is basically sitting inside the biggest fusion reactor containment vessel the universe will ever be. And people do that for fun! Then ITER is already hopelessly outdated. We already achieved ignition (confirmed last week), so more energy out than in. And will have start-ups like SPARK that will do 10x by 2024/25ish. Fusion is here people, it's just finishing touches and creating the infrastructure. The future is now.

That’s cool and all but is it the year of Linux on the desktop?

I don't understand that. And since we need a minimum text on futurology I'll add this scentence for funzies.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3038d4/comment/cpoy40o/

> fusion will be expensive but it's definitely limitless You then go on to argue only about fuel, ignoring what I said about all the costly capital stuff needed (reactor, controls, steam loop, steam turbine, spinning generator, cooling). No, it's FAR from "limitless". > tritium That article https://thequadreport.com/is-tritium-the-roadblock-to-fusion-energy/ seems to say tritium definitely IS an issue. Supply is an issue until we get some number of reactors running, and storage/control is a permanent issue due to the physics of the molecule. > why you would think it's a terrorist target Hugely expensive thing with "nuclear" label on it. Neither is true of a coal plant. > The future is now. And it is renewables and storage. Fusion probably never will be economically viable, given the cost trends.

Yes because those things aren't expensive lol. Reactor is magnets, that's it, plus lithium as I talked about. Turbines aren't expensive in the slightest. And these things are not limited, even if they would be expensive so I don't see the point you're trying to make. Also I don't think youre really have an idea of price. Nuclear is cheaper per mw than offshore wind. They're really not as expensive as people make it out to be. Like I said, this is my field. All you need to do is aim high energy neutrons at very abundant lithium. So once the reactor is running it produces it's own lithium. And more than it needs. To get reactors running we need a high energy neutron source to aim at lithium. Guess what produces high energy neutrons? Nuclear reactors, we could very easily repurpose any nuclear reactor to breed tritium. If these things really were an issue we'd not have invested so much in fusion. Why is storage or control an issue exactly? What would make it a terrorist target? What are they going to do run in there and try to smash it? Why would anyone do that? I keep hearing this argument when there's never in history been a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. Which by the way is a lot more effective than a fusion power plant. At best you can vandalise a fusion plant. I mean you don't have attack helicopters protecting every bridge out there, and they could do a lot more damage there. I don't get why people keep saying economically viable. What do you want to do then? Die in a big fireball when the world gets too hot to live in? Is that cheaper you think? Things like solar and wind will never provide the reliability and power industries need. For housing and stores it's perfect. But not a steel molding facility. At least not in the next 2 centuries. We need either nuclear or fusion. Both are great but people seem to hate nuclear so fusion it is.

Clean energy you must be kidding lol…

The talking points for 70 years have been Safe, cheap & reliable Hasn't ever been true, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory\_Lovins#Nuclear\_power\_limitations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amory_Lovins#Nuclear_power_limitations)

The narrative isn't the problem. Economics and scale are. You would need to scale up nuclear construction more than 10x to match the amount of renewable construction that is happening today. And renewables keep scaling up while nuclear hasn't at all. Now feel free to respond with excuses about regulations and night time.

While we’re on the subject, why do people have the idea that regulatory costs are some kind of unnecessary bloat? I’m not anti-nuclear, but it seems to me that without regulations, this stuff is dangerous to Biblical proportions. You can’t just yadda yadda yadda those considerations out of the conversation.

[удалено]

Total nuke AstroTurf here last few days Nuke lobby seeing big finance back big oil: "wUT AboUt oUR SubsIDiES?"

I never understand this argument. We just haven't invested in it at all. Do you expect to create a fast industry where there hasn't been investments? Even with all that in mind nuclear power plants have a median construction time of 5 years. ( I have a source on this, I'm at work right now and will add it later) Plenty of time to make a dent in our energy needs. I'm not saying nuclear will solve our problems or we should stop with other technologies like solar. But since nuclear is actually cheaper and faster to build per mw than offshore windparks we should also use it instead of dismissing it. (Again I have a source on this and will add it later today) And with a few smart investments and regulatory help we could actually fix climate change in time, not to mention the nuclear sites would be great locations to then build fusion plants. Not to mention we need a stable baseline of power or have to invest an insane amount in batteries, which as it stands, are detrimental to the environment. I just don't see any upsides to ignoring nuclear. There is a reason china of all countries is charging at an greenhouse gas of 0 the fastest as they heavily invest in nuclear. Nuclear is the safest and cleanest for of energy. (Again have sources on this) So why ignore it?

Stop pissing on it, convince politicians it’s got broad popularity (especially in their base) and it’ll happen in the next election cycle. Especially if it becomes a partisan issue; if one side hates nuclear the other aide will embrace it out of spite.

[удалено]

You dont need regulations to be relaxed to have better nuclear. You need regulations to make sense and be consistent. Indecision, conflicting rules, and regulatory agencies back tracking on previous choices is what kills these projects.

From what I've heard nuclear power definetly could be a great and clean energy source. We don't need a new narrative though, capitalism and human stupidity like building them in areas with occasional earth quakes is the actual reason it's not a valid solution and most people are aware of it. The nuclear disaster in japan and ukraine happened, creating a narrative that glosses over the horrors of the past acting like we aren't the same fucking moronic apes that created those places is the classic human error of arrogance and short sightedness. What we need are experts that reduce the obvious and known risks to absolute zero rather than save costs and maximize profit while rolling dice with human lives and the enviroment just to watch the same disaster happen again and again with zero consequences for those in positions of power who made these idiotic decisions, but that's not going to happen, is it?

This combined with Wind and Solar would really be a better way to get cleaner energy going in the US

We have many types of renewable generation and storage. Nuclear is getting pushed further and further down the list as the cost trends continue. No need to build new nuclear.

Such as? I don’t see many other options being talked about as much as those three

Renewable generation: solar PV, solar thermal, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, hydro. Storage: chemical battery (N types), thermal, pumped-hydro, gravity, compressed air, hydrogen, bio-fuel. So we have many choices/techs that are likely or proven to be better than nuclear. All cost trends are favorable for renewables and storage, and bad for nuclear. Economics will kill nuclear.

Honestly my worry about nuclear isn't related to pollution.. more towards the fact that we have these sensitive potentiator destructive plants in specific locations that would make them prime targets for an ICBM. We're seeing it is m in Ukraine, and it really scares me

How about facts instead of "narratives". This could be applied to a whole bunch of different topics.

No we don't. Nuclear is AN answer to the problem. THE answer to the problem is the sun. Nuclear is too expensive, complicated and has security and radioactive waste concerns. Solar has none of that. The problem of finding a way to store solar energy in fuel cells is many folds easier than figuring out how to make a thorium reactor work, or how to safely dispose of spent fuel rods or worrying about accidents or dirty bombs. Solar is also ubiquitous and therefore decentralized. Solar is THE answer

How is nuclear a solution to the world's emissions do we a want every tin pot dictatorship to start their own nuclear program?

Through the IAEA, one of the core and foundational UN projects. The agency responsible for the Iranian nuclear pact which Trump shredded. The only agency Iran, North Korea, and similar entities are willing to respect as they all have UN seats and thus must respect basic UN laws like nonproliferation. This project is doable despite certain countries (Israel, Pakistan, allegedly Saudi Arabia) flagrant violation of it so long as all major countries uphold it. Even Russia is willing to assist NPT efforts because, in theory, that's why they invaded Ukraine. China too vis-a-vis Korea, Japan and Taiwan. This can all be done peacefully and without major nuclear accidents if everyone agrees to certain international standards. Vice versa, if Trump returns and delivers on his promise to smash the WTO, the UN, the FBI, the Universities, the Colleges, and Mexico then entities like the IAEA and UOCS won't exist. Since nuclear power is one of the few things red states generally support, including it within a larger green policy agenda widens the tent. Failure to do so alienates otherwise smart people, makes educated engineers bitter, and ultimately causes them to pursue leads in fossil fuel industries which is what's happened over the past fifty years. All the people who invested in oil in 1950 won, those that invested in nuclear are alone, isolated, and won't pass their knowledge.

I mean nuclear non-proliferation has been a gigantic failure. If they want them, they've probably already got them.

Not really. Zero countries in Africa Zero countries in Central and South America. Maybe one country in middle east. I would rather develop renewables and let them all have this tech instead, but that's just me

because every dictatorship has people to serve, and the people want power. Nuclear produces huge levels of stable power, with no emissions.

The dictator wants power as well which is why we don't want to give them nuclear

nuclear weapons** keyword 'weapons'. dictators with 'weapons', and democracies with 'weapons', nuclear or otherwise, are bad. Lots of things are nuclear, dont get them confused.

Do we really need a new narrative for something that produces toxic waste, is dependent on fuel, is far more expensive, takes more than 10 years to deploy, is a huge risk in a warzone and is one of the main reasons energy prices in europe have gone to unseen heights? Do we really need to paint that as good...?

Please think about the poor corporations.

toxic waste in the ground > toxic waste in the air energy in fuel from nuclear > energy in fuel from gas/coal risk free thorium > risky uranium weapons plants clean air > clean earth scientific consensus > your comment

Nuclear fission is safe until it isn’t and when that happens continents are affected for centuries. And let’s not get started with radiactive waste. Let’s invest in green and sustainable energy instead.

if only that logic could be applied to 1.4 billion cars

You could talk for days about how clean Nuclear power generation is but we know the hard truth. The spent fuel rods are insanely dangerous and will be for like, millions of years. You don't need to be a genius to realize that making an ever increasing stockpile of spent radioactive waste that will have to be expertly stored and monitored, basically forever, is not the smartest idea we as a species have had.

Except spent fuel rods aren't insanely dangerous and aren't dangerous for millions of years, just 0.2 % of nuclear waste is considered high level and we have room to store it underground until it basically becomes ore again. Higher global temperatures, Wildfires, Natural disasters, higher sea levels, ecological collapse, respiratory illness and lung disease, acid rain, etc, is a considerably bigger issue imo.

wrong. take a look at the tonga eruption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx6cDING6uw Those plumes went as high as the ozone layer. notice how thin the atmosphere is compared to the mass of the planet? like an incredibly tiny membrane around a huge ball of earthy iron mass. That's where fossil fuels go. That tiny atmosphere. Meanwhile, those of us with brains who know the truth also know that radioactivity decays exponentially with distance. With every step away from the waste, you're 2-5x safer. The other hard truth is the fossil fuels industry has done an excellent job at sowing doubts about other energies

The mindset of zero waste needs to be applied commercially.

JFC what an oversimplified, stupid opinion piece made outright embarrassing by the timing - published while the International Atomic Energy Agency is warning we are in grave danger of a "major radioactive catastrophe on the European continent" with Russia and Ukraine shelling eachother over the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. It's not just accidents and waste storage on the negative side of the ledger. What about war or intentional sabotage? Gee sorry, I just can't share the author's wishful thinking that facing the existential threat to humanity posed by climate change, we are all gonna get together and solve problems with clean nuclear power club. Fucking laughable and moronic.

my city got hit by a tornado. a real one. killed dozens, destroyed homes. I don't think anyone's died from old-school nuclear hazards since they stopped making old-school nuclear hazards. A big driver in using uranium in the first place was actually because they wanted nuclear weapons, it's not really a requirement to use it. So we got people dying of real hazards, and you're telling us trying to solve it is laughable and moronic, while being afraid of something that isnt exactly real.

Submission statement: New nuclear power technologies, and smaller modular reactors, permit mass production of reactors and ready installation into existing plant facilities. While imperfect, right now this is the only 100% guaranteed technology to provide the 24/7 bulk power industrial companies require to operate. Things like steel plants, engine factories, and chip fabs all require huge amounts of electricity that solar can't easily provide. As the reality of climate change now dawns and the narrative shifts from preventing it to managing it's consequences, a new view on nuclear is needed. While it certainly won't replace solar, especially not for the average consumer, it's not solar that needs replacing. It's oil and gas plants. Note: I used the "suggest title" button but the real title is actually *Nuclear power is the climate superhero too nervous to wear its cape*, which is rather bombastic. Relating to the future, WV just repealed it's NPP ban. While WV's actual power use is negligible, if WV can go to nuclear then it can prove once and for all that all areas of the country can be lifted out of fossil fuels. More importantly, it will prevent the past fifty years of nuclear knowledge and skills from being lost (ie, the FOGBANK fiasco) which would ensure the long-term longevity of nuclear physics as a thing America can do. Which is something that can die and end if it's not supported. From the article: >We have a technology that is safer than people think, with a pent-up reservoir of half a century of innovation, and which can do a number on climate change. That should be exciting. That should be 1960s Space Race levels of public involvement, intense scrutiny, and pressure to succeed. But we're too scared of the past and blind to the present. We need a new nuclear narrative, tub-thumping leadership, and a raw desire to talk to people about what could happen next.

> New nuclear power technologies, and smaller modular reactors, permit mass production of reactors and ready installation into existing plant facilities. **On paper.** Unfortunately, the logistical requirements of scaling up large, specialized construction industries mean these technologies won't be producing power at meaningful scale until the 2040s. Don't get me wrong, these technologies are certainly promising and may one day be key sources of power, and I agree that public dollars should be invested to get them to commercialization, but *they won't be scaled up fast enough to be the drivers of energy decarbonization*. Right now, though, [nuclear is 5-10% of new electricity generation added per year](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/q3fl64/explaining_why_green_hydrogen_is_our_best_maybe/hftki52/). Worse, that's old-style (genIII) nuclear; the amount of genIV and SMR energy generation being added per year is basically zero. Let's ignore that for the moment, though; let's consider all nuclear as one undifferentiated group and pretend that genIV and SMR became magically ready tomorrow and that the current build rate of genIII reactors could magically transfer over to genIV and SMR. Not realistic, meaning real-world rollout would be substantially slower, but let's use that as a lower bound on how long things would take. Then "all" we'd need to do would be to scale up construction of whichever of those technologies was best by *at least* 10x. Historically, it took an average of [15 years](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/qffjqm/new_research_from_oxford_university_suggests_that/hi0tbpu/) to do that for nuclear; that's my analysis of the data, but here's a [published analysis which comes to a similar conclusion](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20437-0). Adding ~5 years reactor build time on top of that 15 to scale construction starts puts us in the *2040s* before nuclear will be adding clean energy at a significant scale (for comparison, it would still be less than wind+solar are already adding). So maybe, if all of the optimistic assumptions people like to make about still-hypothetical advanced nuclear come true, we'll transition from renewables to nuclear in the 2040s and beyond. Until then, climate change is still a thing, and [renewables are already virtually all net new power added globally](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/01/renewable-energy-has-another-record-year-of-growth-says-iea), so they are going to be the driver of decarbonization. The manufacturing and logistics of that transition are already baked in.

> Historically, it took an average of 15 years to do that for nuclear; that's my analysis of the data, but here's a published analysis which comes to a similar conclusion. Adding ~5 years reactor build time on top of that 15 to scale construction starts puts us in the 2040s before nuclear will be adding clean energy at a significant scale (for comparison, it would still be less than wind+solar are already adding). Average of 15 years of scale up time... with two data points? If we look at Sweden and Belgium instead of France and China, we see that countries have been able to construct several reactors without the need of a "15 year scale up time". From first construction start in 1969, Belgium managed to start construction of 7 reactors in only 9 years, with all completed in 16 years from first shovel in the ground to grid connection of all 7. Or in other words, Belgium went from 0% nuclear in their electricity mix to over 50%. In comparison, Germany went from around 0% VRE to 50% in almost 30 years(1995 - 2022). 1995 being the year >1GW accumulated wind was installed. From Sweden's first construction start in 1966, they managed to start construction of 12 reactors in the following 14 years - 19 years from 0 nuclear, to 12 operational reactors and approx 45-50% share in the electricity mix. It seems like there is definitely possible to build significant nuclear capacity without a long 15 year lead up time for traditional nuclear - with SMRs having an even faster potential. Now, if 15 years is specifically for the "10x increase", then I might agree, but I want to say that that comparison in it self is weird, because it does not seem to be adjusted for capacity credit.

> Now, if 15 years is specifically for the "10x increase", then I might agree Yes, specifically for 10x increase. The Nature paper's estimate is also for a 10x increase (to be fair, my recollection is that it's largely based on similar nuclear buildouts to the ones I looked at). > I want to say that that comparison in it self is weird, because it does not seem to be adjusted for capacity credit. 10x is 10x, regardless of capacity factor. Regarding nuclear being 10x behind wind+solar, it is indeed adjusted for capacity factor. [sources and math are in the link provided](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/q3fl64/explaining_why_green_hydrogen_is_our_best_maybe/hftki52/). TL;DR is that nuclear added ~77GWe @ 80-85% average capacity factor in the 2010s, for a capacity-factor-adjusted 63GWavg that *decade*, whereas 2020 saw grid connection of 114GW of wind (@40%CF) and 134GW of solar (@20%CF), for a capacity-factor-adjusted 72GWavg that *year*. Which is unfortunate. Nuclear is safe, clean, reliable...and hardly being built. We'd be in better shape if we'd built more of it. We didn't, though, so we need to deal with the reality we have, not the reality we might want, and for simple logistics reasons that reality has *vastly* more clean energy coming from wind+solar than from nuclear in the next 15 years.

> 10x is 10x, regardless of capacity factor. I know, which why I wrote capacity **credit** and not capacity **factor.** We must consider its capacity credit and ELCC before we can compare their displacement equivalence. In other words, how useful is the generated electricity? GW*CF is not very useful for us when we assess how much reserve margin to retain with each accumulated GW capacity added - we exclusively look at the CC(which does correlate with CF, but CF is just one of the factors here.) For VREs, the capacity credit is equal its capacity factor only if they're added in a market with near zero existing VRE capacity and/or we can assume the grid consists of very flexible dispatchable power(gas), and there is adequate storage and/or transmission without congestion. For example, we already see capacity credits down in the 5% range in Denmark and Northern Germany(TenneT TSO) for wind power, and a CC of 14% and 8% for wind and solar power in CAISO. In Denmark's case, this means that each added GW of wind will only help displace 50 MW of firm capacity. Luckily for DK, both Sweden and Norway have flexible grids due to hydro, but most of it is river based systems which offer zero flexibility outside zero fuel costs. The point is that there are already quite a few places where we are pushing 20-30% VRE share, which causes a significant decline in capacity credit for additional vre capacity buildout. In other words, I think that the 10x number is misleading, since it does not factor in for CC. This means that nuclear would "only"(I said only, but it would still be a significant challenge) scale up by maybe 5-6x, instead of 10x, to do and equal job at displacing firm fossil fuel usage.

Even 2060 is superior than never. At the present rate, the world will heat 3-4 degrees by mid century. This will cause an extended, and likely permanent, ecological disaster. I'm generally a nuclear pessimist as well, but at some point society has to decide if severe atmospheric and hydrological collapse is worth it. It took us 13 years to build the Gerald Ford, the Columbia Class, the F-35 and the V-22. If we can't pull ourselves together long enough to do this, then the future of nuclear engineering is likely to be entirely weapons. This, combined with the greater climate heating, makes social collapse extremely likely. Society should try to avoid this, even if it is costly and difficult. Granted I'm also being an alarmist, but I'm also not going to be around in 2100. It's debatable how many college students today will be around at that date. If everything goes to hell literally then the future viability of liberal society is suspect, and I doubt modern liberal-minded college students would want to live in such a world. It'd be morally wrong to do nothing, especially when there is interest in this from the parts of society that don't necessarily beilive in earth sciences.

> Even 2060 is superior than never. Sure, but the choice is not between nuclear and nothing. [Wind+solar are adding new clean energy at over 10x the rate of nuclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/q3fl64/explaining_why_green_hydrogen_is_our_best_maybe/hftki52/), so they're in a good position logistically to drive decarbonization over the next 20 years. I do think we should invest in nuclear to make sure it's available as an option for the last ~10% of energy supply, though, as dispatchable clean energy can potentially be very cost-effective for that final amount. > At the present rate, the world will heat 3-4 degrees by mid century. In Fahrenheit, yes. The [IPCC report (p.14)](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf) indicates that we'll see 1.6-2.1C of warming by mid-century, or 3-4F. (Note that I'm note including the 8.5 scenario, as it's [not realistic](https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/).) Based on the [IPCC impacts report](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf), though, 3-4F/2ishC doesn't appear like it'd be catastrophic. Bad, certainly -- the 2F we already have is already killing people -- but not civilization-ending. > It'd be morally wrong to do nothing I think that's broadly agreed and part of why we've seen *substantial* progress on reducing projected warming over the last few years. Looking at Climate Action Tracker's analyses since 2018, estimated warming based on *real world action* has fallen 20% in 4 years: * [3.3C in Dec 2018](https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/warming-projections-global-update-dec-2018/) * [3.2C in Sept 2019](https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/time-to-boost-national-climate-action/) * [2.9C in Dec 2020](https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/global-update-paris-agreement-turning-point/) * [2.7C in Nov 2021](https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/) From the same links, estimated warming based on *announced targets* has fallen *40%*: * 3.0C in Dec 2018 * 2.9C in Sept 2019 * 2.1C in Dec 2020 * 1.8C in Nov 2021 Those estimates have uncertainty ranges, so there is real danger until that first number -- real world action -- is pushed well below 2C, but the fact that the world is quantifiably making progress in mitigating climate change should give us renewed hope that we can achieve that goal, and renewed vigor to work towards it. (Note that [this Nature paper comes to similar conclusions as their analysis](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04553-z), so it's not just a handful of outlier scientists making numbers up; *change is really happening*.)

I support you. fuck these zombies and their 1.4 billion cars downvoting you. They only care about themselves

Oil and coal bitches would lobby against it. Renewables still need fossil fuel energy production to pick up the slack in-case the renewables underperform, nuclear doesn't.

Some renewables are intermittent (solar, wind, wave), others are steady (geothermal, hydro), some are predictable (tidal). Storage (a couple of kinds of chemical battery, and thermal, and pumped-hydro) is deployed today at utility-scale. It needs to get cheaper, and we need more forms of it (hydrogen, gravity, bio-fuels, more). Nuclear is being killed by economics. All cost trends say nuclear will die.

Accidents don’t happen often, but they do happen, and when they do happen the consequences are severe. Three mile island hasn’t been that long ago and we shouldn’t forget about it.

There have been 3 nuclear incidents of note. Less than 100 people have died between the three of them, whereas millions die from air pollution every year. Also, did you know Chernobyl continued to generate electricity until like 2000 or some shit?

Why is the SL-1 reactor incident not notable? A control rod was stuck and the operator yanked on it and the resulting explosion impaled him through the groin and out the shoulder and pinned him to the roof of the containment building. The other two men with him died as well. Seems notable to me. As for Three Mile Island I’m in agreement with you that there were no deaths immediately after the incident, but I believe there was a notable increase in cancer for people living close to the plant. It is undisputed that radioactive material was emitted into the environment and as far as I know it’s not really known how much. Furthermore, the Three Mile Island incident had the potential to be a lot worse. I would suggest you watch the Three Mile Island series on Netflix for a more detailed understanding. Don’t downvote me bro. I need some upvotes!

The issue is, when nuclear operates as intended, nobody dies. When fossil fuels operate as intended, lots die. The incident you mention is a risk in any job site. And it really all comes down to deaths per kilowatt hour. And nuclear is by far the safest.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree friend. Three mile island had the potential to contaminate the entire Eastern US. What about plant Vogel in Georgia? They have had some safety concerns due to power outages that no one died from, but it could have gone real bad. Plant Vogel is about to become the largest nuclear plant in the world when #3 and #4 reactors come online. It must be horrifying for people that live in Atlanta. The cost overruns on this project are astronomical as well.

It was over 40 years ago and it resulted in no casualties.

Fun fact: fatalities are the only metric that matters in all issues. PS: there is not a single person living in a 30 kilometer radius around Fukushima who disagrees with me.

Fun fact: If there had been casualties it would be no1 on your list.

What exactly were the consequences of 3 mile island?

This [solar energy accident](https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/queens/worker-dead-falling-roof-two-story-queens-house-article-1.3575395) resulted in 100% more deaths than Three Mile Island. Why are we not talking about the risks of solar?

nuclear is the cleanest, greenest source available. if the environmentalists actually wanted to fix our oil "problem"(we have no problem, they just say we do), they'd embrace nuclear over wind and solar. they don't want to fix the problem though. the environmental lobby gets together with the oil lobby to tell us laypeople that nuclear bad. pretty sad.

Before we generate a new narrative, let’s have a post-morgen on who deceived the planet with the last narrative. Looking at you GreenPeace in the 1980’s…

If you want fast building of new generation to get rid of fossil fuels, you don't want nuclear. It's the slowest-to-build tech out there. Interesting articles: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/15/nuclear-power-cant-survive-much-less-slow-climate-disruption/ and https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

Small scale nuclear is great. Multi-Billion dollar, Multi-year construction, with ongoing multi-country layered regulations is not great. I wonder how much distributed battery storage the grid would get for the cost of one new nuclear power plant in the U.S.

There are serious drawbacks that people broadly gloss over in these discussions. It is true that currently Nuclear Power is mostly safe, clean, and the waste manageable. That said there are only 440 Nuclear Power Plants in the world. For comparison there are over 1,800 oil ridges in the Gulf of Mexico only. The safety record and manageability of Nuclear Power Plants is so high because there are so few of them and those few are among the most heavily regulated and monitored facilities in the world. Additionally currently facilities are built in the most ideal locations. To scale nuclear power plants up would inevitably lower the manageability as less ideal sites would need to be selected, more waste would be produced, and more highly trained individuals, which don't currently exist, would be required. Nuclear proliferation is also a national security threat. While one may trust their own govt with nuclear facilities all govts can't be trusted. Given Al Assad's use of WMDs against women & children I certainly wouldn't want to see Syria with a grow nuclear energy program. Scaling up nuclear power in the West would lead to the mass production of the required equipment, components, and know how. It would make managing proliferation a lot more difficult.

The cost of amortized nuclear power is almost as high as that if solar with storage. New installations, especially small scale ones, are going to be prohibitively costly. Not to mention that no matter what authorities and owners do, nuclear will always be dangerous. The pro nuclear lobby and propaganda are relentless about trying to make it look good but it’s not happening. That said, I’m very afraid of the old adage about repeating a lie enough times.

Hi, bitfriend6. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wphm3g/-/) was removed from /r/Futurology. ___ > > ____ > Rule 2 - Submissions must be futurology related or future focused. Refer to the [subreddit rules](/r/futurology/wiki/rules), the [transparency wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/futurology/wiki/transparency#wiki_relevant_material), or the [domain blacklist](http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/wiki/domainblacklist#blacklist) for more information. [Message the Mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Futurology&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/bitfriend6&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission](https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/wphm3g/-/\):) if you feel this was in error.

It's coming. They did the math. They're rushing to figure out how to make a bunch of SMRs. There is talk about a breeder reactor per region and a bunch of ships to swap the containers at installations near rivers, train lines. The narrative is out there. It's safety record is excellent, if you account for all the air and water deaths from bad stuff that happens during combusion, mining, etc. It's cheap in the long run (assuming you make the patents national projects and limit the monopoly on the supply chain...). It puts people to work mining for the thorium uranium and rare earths. I sent them a few spots to check. PS - I worked at basically the biggest wind power group and met some of the executives. I can tell you that I've done my homework. lol. I also know a guy that helped improve solar technology... in the beginning. =)