I’m typically pro-nuclear, but there are legitimate problems with it:
Waste disposal - We STILL haven’t made a good solution for storing nuclear waste in most places.
Cost overruns - Nuclear projects almost always run over their budgets by 10-30% or more.
That said, I’m of the opinion that it should be a part of our energy mix, given it’s reliability in producing consistent power. I think we should prioritize wind and solar, but for our overnight and non-windy days, nuclear is a great way to fill the gap.
Battery storage is inexpensive and getting less expensive every year now that non-American companies are doing R&D. America is stuck in fossil fuels and nuclear because corporate propaganda has indoctrinated too many people.
Waste disposal - We STILL haven’t made a good solution for storing nuclear waste in most places.
Waste disposal can be pretty much ignored for new projects. We already have waste to store for thousands of years and the actual volume of said waste is so small that doubling it wouldn’t matter much for long term storage. Our politicians just need to get their shit together and actually build something to store waste.
I think we should prioritize wind and solar, but for our overnight and non-windy days, nuclear is a great way to fill the gap.
Nuclear is really bad for that. Nuclear power plants need to run as close to 100% uptime as possible to be even remotely economically viable and would still be the most expensive energy source by far.
So you either have them running 24/7, always delivering the same lets say 50% of our required power and you switch off wind turbines / solar panels during the day.
Or you only turn their output up when its needed, which then increases the price per kWh upwards of 1€.
I saw a skit from wkuk saying that if some emergency made it impossible for the reactors to be tended to (in the skit is was societal collapse) they would melt down.
Idk how true this is but if true it be a risky vulnerability
To my knowledge, modern nuclear plants are designed to fail safely if faults are detected, but prolonged periods without staff monitoring the facility could be more risky. This one automatically regulates itself, and shuts down if any parameters are out of range, waiting for operator intervention to bring it back up. Every nuclear plant designer since Chernobyl has been very keen on safety.
I’m typically pro-nuclear, but there are legitimate problems with it:
That said, I’m of the opinion that it should be a part of our energy mix, given it’s reliability in producing consistent power. I think we should prioritize wind and solar, but for our overnight and non-windy days, nuclear is a great way to fill the gap.
Battery storage is inexpensive and getting less expensive every year now that non-American companies are doing R&D. America is stuck in fossil fuels and nuclear because corporate propaganda has indoctrinated too many people.
Waste disposal can be pretty much ignored for new projects. We already have waste to store for thousands of years and the actual volume of said waste is so small that doubling it wouldn’t matter much for long term storage. Our politicians just need to get their shit together and actually build something to store waste.
Nuclear is really bad for that. Nuclear power plants need to run as close to 100% uptime as possible to be even remotely economically viable and would still be the most expensive energy source by far.
So you either have them running 24/7, always delivering the same lets say 50% of our required power and you switch off wind turbines / solar panels during the day. Or you only turn their output up when its needed, which then increases the price per kWh upwards of 1€.
I saw a skit from wkuk saying that if some emergency made it impossible for the reactors to be tended to (in the skit is was societal collapse) they would melt down.
Idk how true this is but if true it be a risky vulnerability
To my knowledge, modern nuclear plants are designed to fail safely if faults are detected, but prolonged periods without staff monitoring the facility could be more risky. This one automatically regulates itself, and shuts down if any parameters are out of range, waiting for operator intervention to bring it back up. Every nuclear plant designer since Chernobyl has been very keen on safety.