Poll of the Day > With all the talk about renewable energy, I don't know why nuclear is ignored.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It seems to be barely even talked about as a solution. HBO isnt helping us out...

There has been a lot of research into various new types of nuclear, but it isn't as PR sexy as things like solar so it doesn't tend to hit main stream news as much.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/analysis-fy2020-spending-bill-points-nuclear-resurgence
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/11-reasons-why-doe-all-new-nuclear

The biggest issue with nuclear, aside from all the historical baggage, is the waste problem. We already have decades of nuclear waste that nobody wants in their backyard and every time we have a plan for long term storage the government gets sued to stop it.

rjsilverthorn posted...

, is the waste problem

Just put it back where the uranium was sourced from! it's a self filling hole/self solving problem!

---

Nuclear power turns liberals brain to mush. There are legitimate problems to solve with nuclear power (its extremely expensive, it can be a potential security risk, waste products can be hard to deal with, etc) but it's usually engaged on the level of "DON'T YOU REMEMBER CHERNOBYL?!?!?!" and "I won't let MY babies be turned into radioactive zombies!" There's just a tremendous PR issue with it and "nuclear power = bad" is a very liberal partisan issue.

Especially for a country like the US that has gigantic tracts of empty geologically stable land nuclear power seems like an obvious energy solution.

rjsilverthorn posted...

There has been a lot of research into various new types of nuclear, but it isn't as PR sexy as things like solar so it doesn't tend to hit main stream news as much.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/analysis-fy2020-spending-bill-points-nuclear-resurgence
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/11-reasons-why-doe-all-new-nuclear

The biggest issue with nuclear, aside from all the historical baggage, is the waste problem. We already have decades of nuclear waste that nobody wants in their backyard and every time we have a plan for long term storage the government gets sued to stop it.

Modern nuclear reactor designs can run specifically on the waste from older reactor designs. It would just require building brand new nuclear facilities and that doesn't really happen.

SomeUsername529 posted...

but it's usually engaged on the level of "DON'T YOU REMEMBER CHERNOBYL?!?!?!" and "I won't let MY babies be turned into radioactive zombies!"

You think it's liberals saying this?..

---

Jen0125 posted...

You think it's liberals saying this?..

Historically republicans have generally been for nuclear power and democrats against it. Ive heard it described in the past as a clear indicator of someones party. Theres probably more differences now, but Ive wondered if republicans current dislike of solar/wind has been twisted from a historical preference for nuclear.

Waste doesnt seem like that big of an issue. Like its a big issue, but recycle when possible and have a few grounds in the middle of nowhere we never go to...maybe even have robots deliver the waste to there if it gets to a point its concerning to deliver to and make sure we can take the shielding back so it doesnt build up.

Jen0125 posted...

You think it's liberals saying this?..

It would have taken just as much time to look it up yourself as it did to write that post but I'll show you anyway:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll

It's not as pure a prediction of someone's party alignment as something like abortion but it's very strongly partisan and it's democrats/liberals that think nuclear power is bad.

SomeUsername529 posted...

It would have taken just as much time to look it up yourself as it did to write that post but I'll show you anyway:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/23/18507297/nuclear-energy-renewables-voters-poll

It's not as pure a prediction of someone's party alignment as something like abortion but it's very strongly partisan and it's democrats/liberals that think nuclear power is bad.

Unless I'm not understanding those polls correctly, it still doesn't look that clear that it's in anyway partisan. There are a ton of people who don't know what to think it looks like.

hockey7318 posted...

Unless I'm not understanding those polls correctly, it still doesn't look that clear that it's in anyway partisan. There are a ton of people who don't know what to think it looks like.

Yeah, seriously. I don't think most laymen have a grasp on nuclear energy regardless of party lmao

---

Theres no realistic path to curbing carbon emissions drastically without nuclear power.

---

Maybe in the US but France, Sweden, China, and India all have a large proportion of their energy supplied by nuclear power.

Any route to being zero carbon needs to include both nuclear and traditional renewables. And both need additional innovation cause they cant really be deployed at scale globally.

They need to improve their storage technology for a start to deal with the unreliable nature of renewables.

And nuclear plants are costly as hell and take forever to build so unless they can resolve that nobodys going to use it. And then finally its the question of waste, need to find a way to make use of it rather than dumping it.

But anyways its not a question of nuclear or renewable, we need both

---

It's too dangerous, nobody wants another 3/11.

Speaking of that, The Japanese government shouldn't dump the radioactive water from Fukushima into the ocean.
---

I'm not fully blaming it but the Simpsons didn't really help nuclear power's image either.

---

A big issue with making more nuclear is that you are expecting 20 years of the system running to make a profit.
That's just not good enough for a lot of places.

blu posted...

Historically republicans have generally been for nuclear power and democrats against it.

I can't really verify how Republicans feel about it, but I know I'm irritated by how leftists feel about it, which is "Chernobyl bad wind farms good".

---

Probably because of incidents like Chernobyl

---

It's not ignored, it gets talked about all the time by nerds who want to ignore the political realities of the idea.

Everybody wants a nuclear power plant, nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them. That's not even getting into the storage of nuclear waste which is a whole separate unresolved issue.

Until there's a shift in public opinion nothing will happen. Given how selfishly people acted in 2020, I'm not holding my breath. If you can't convince people to vaccinate against a deadly infection you're not going to convince them to live near a nuclear waste storage facility.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

It's not ignored, it gets talked about all the time by nerds who want to ignore the political realities of the idea.

Everybody wants a nuclear power plant, nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them. That's not even getting into the storage of nuclear waste which is a whole separate unresolved issue.

Until there's a shift in public opinion nothing will happen. Given how selfishly people acted in 2020, I'm not holding my breath. If you can't convince people to vaccinate against a deadly infection you're not going to convince them to live near a nuclear waste storage facility.

You're right, that's why we never get more dumps, more coal plants, more slaughterhouses, or anything else that smells bad or is dangerous to the public.

shadowsword87 posted...

You're right, that's why we never get more dumps, more coal plants, more slaughterhouses, or anything else that smells bad or is dangerous to the public.

It's why we don't get more nuclear power plants. Don't hurt your back on those goalposts lol

---

Just send all the waste into the sun

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

It's why we don't get more nuclear power plants. Don't hurt your back on those goalposts lol

I'm saying that argument is dumb, people get stuff they don't want in their backyard all the time.
People also complain that windmills are loud, but they're still going up.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Everybody wants a nuclear power plant, nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them.

Im fine having one near me. Sure theres risk but even three mile island had 0 deaths and the most dose a person got was still below annual background (and yes, time effects matter). Just an education thing.

Thorium reactors would be much, much safer than uranium or plutonium plants. Thorium is 3 times more abundant than uranium, it's easier, cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly to mine, ton for ton can produce as much as 200 times more energy than uranium with about 1/100th as much waste produced, it produces waste that is less radio-toxic, it's nearly impossible to make a bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts, and most thorium reactor designs are meltdown-proof.

Too bad the US basically abandoned thorium research in the 1970s.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

It's not ignored, it gets talked about all the time by nerds who want to ignore the political realities of the idea.

Everybody wants a nuclear power plant, nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them. That's not even getting into the storage of nuclear waste which is a whole separate unresolved issue.

Until there's a shift in public opinion nothing will happen. Given how selfishly people acted in 2020, I'm not holding my breath. If you can't convince people to vaccinate against a deadly infection you're not going to convince them to live near a nuclear waste storage facility.

There was actually an interesting case in my city where Kodak kept a secret nuclear reactor right in the middle of the city underground. People freaked out about that despite the fact it wasn't even large enough to cause issues if it did fail, and that it was there for 30 freaking years without issue:

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/local/2016/08/18/did-you-know-kodak-park-had-nuclear-reactor/88944080/

---

It scares people to death and it seems even if the smallest event happens they get shut down permanently. It's pretty much the ultimate nimby situation (although I would personally prefer a nuclear plant in my backyard compared to a coal plant)

---

Most people don't remember the worst nuclear accident to occur in the US, the steam explosion and meltdown of the SL-1 reactor in Idaho. One of the maintenance technicians yanked the main control rod 20 inches out of the shut-down reactor, causing the core to go prompt critical. In 4 milliseconds the fuel and the water around it vaporized, causing a water hammer that launched the reactor vessel 9 feet into the air. The shield plugs were blown out, impaling one of the techs and nailing him to the ceiling. The super-heated steam killed another technician and severely injured a third man, who died a few hours later from a head injury. All three men were killed by physical trauma, but had they survived the radiation would have killed them anyway. Their bodies were buried in lead-line caskets sealed with concrete and placed in metal vaults. Some of their body parts were so radioactive they had to be buried in the desert as radioactive waste.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWi_w2H1saE

Though not designed to withstand an explosion, the building housing the reactor managed to contain nearly all the radiation. The reactor building was demolished and was buried nearby along with the reactor vessel, minus the recovered fuel, and other contaminated debris. The burial site was capped with rip rap in 2003.



---

I want to believe UFOs are nuclear powered drones. U.S. was one of the pioneers of space flight and nuclear energy but that was decades ago. What have they been sitting on this whole time?

There should be experimental reactors and all sorts of amazing stuff out in the desert. But sadly those guys would be a break away civilization at this point.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Gqq_0rxeE
---

trodi_911 posted...

I'm not fully blaming it but the Simpsons didn't really help nuclear power's image either.

It didn't hurt it either. People know what comedy is.
---

Because it's bad and dangerous and something we shouldn't fuck around with.

Wind and sun energy works fine.

---

https://youtu.be/EhAemz1v7dQ

---

Revelation34 posted...

It didn't hurt it either. People know what comedy is.

Between Homer's shenanigans and Mr Burns' malpractice, it doesn't paint nuclear power in a positive way. Also, people don't want to find the information and will accept fiction as the truth because it's the easier solution.

---

trodi_911 posted...

Between Homer's shenanigans and Mr Burns' malpractice, it doesn't paint nuclear power in a positive way. Also, people don't want to find the information and will accept fiction as the truth because it's the easier solution.

Nobody thinks that way about a cartoon.
---

SomeUsername529 posted...

Modern nuclear reactor designs can run specifically on the waste from older reactor designs. It would just require building brand new nuclear facilities and that doesn't really happen.

do they have racing stripes?
what about fins for wind resistance?
---

funfact: If Chernoble, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima combined happened every single year.... still not even a spit in the wind compared to coal/oil related damages.

---

Revelation34 posted...

Nobody thinks that way about a cartoon.

You'd be surprised.

---

Lokarin posted...

funfact: If Chernoble, 3 Mile Island, and Fukushima combined happened every single year.... still not even a spit in the wind compared to coal/oil related damages.

This is blatantly false. Especially the Chernobyl example.
---

With all the talk about renewable energy, I don't know why nuclear is ignored.

Because it's not a renewable energy? >_>

It's an alternative energy and one that would help to remove our reliance on things like coal, but that's not the same thing as a renewable. At least it's a somewhat practical solution unlike the pie in the sky idea that we can completely switch to renewable right now, which would need to be a more gradual process and technological improvements are necessary.


---

I always hear Conservatives talking about Nuclear power one day and then bitching about Fukushima the next.

---

Modern reactor nuclear waste is not even close to the waste produced by fossil fuels.

i have a huge suspicion that its fossil fuel companies that are just as opposed to nuclear as the NIMBY crowd.

The new reactors that are being built now actually re use the waste to fuel themselves.

the only real issues with reactors is the cost and the level of training staff require.

the size of a nuclear reactor is also 1/100th of a field of solar to generate equivalent output.

unlike solar or wind nuclear is reliable.

further Chernobyl is a terrible example of something gone wrong because the user from the start relied on risky breeder reactors that can easily spin out of control and they were trying to win a Cold War that in the end they were simply outspent by the us.

---

Zeus posted...

Because it's not a renewable energy? >_>

I mean, neither are other renewables

Geothermal should really be considered more.
Its clean, makes more energy then solor and wind. And doesnt destroy a large area like hydro, wind and solar.
Plus you dont get the waste like nuclear
It doesnt produce as much as nuclear sure, and finding good spots for plants can be hard, but it really should be considered.
Tidal generates can also be good, but can hurt sea life.

---

Zeus posted...

Because it's not a renewable energy? >_>

With breeder reactors it can be renewable, or as close as anyone cares.

It's not a fully explored system yet.

Zeus posted...

Because it's not a renewable energy? >_>

There is enough thorium in the US alone to supply our energy needs for the next 1000 years. Thorium is almost as abundant as lead and more abundant than tin.

---

Ogurisama posted...

Geothermal should really be considered more.
Its clean, makes more energy then solor and wind. And doesnt destroy a large area like hydro, wind and solar.
Plus you dont get the waste like nuclear
It doesnt produce as much as nuclear sure, and finding good spots for plants can be hard, but it really should be considered.
Tidal generates can also be good, but can hurt sea life.

IIRC Iceland gets most of its electricity from geothermal. But they're in a prime location for it.

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

I always hear Conservatives talking about Nuclear power one day and then bitching about Fukushima the next.

lolwut? This dude and his trolling.

Conner4REAL posted...

i have a huge suspicion that its fossil fuel companies that are just as opposed to nuclear as the NIMBY crowd.

I suspect that they historically have funded a lot of the so-called environmental and other protests against nuclear and other alternative energies.

blu posted...

I mean, neither are other renewables

Sunlight, wind, and water don't involve physical resources being depleted.

---

There is understandable hesitation around nuclear though because if managed irresponsibly it poses an existential threat to entire continents if not all life on earth.

---

Zeus posted...

Sunlight, wind, and water don't involve physical resources being depleted.

Pedantically, repairs and maintenance on them will deplete non-renewable resources, but that is a pretty negligible effect (a lot of which can be negated by recycling the broken parts).

---

adjl posted...

Pedantically, repairs and maintenance on them will deplete non-renewable resources, but that is a pretty negligible effect (a lot of which can be negated by recycling the broken parts).

To be honest, hydropower seems like a bad path to go down. They actually don't generate that much power, and they do a decent amount of damage to the ecosystem.

Obviously if a damn is needed, hey hydropower is great to tack on. But I don't think it's great to go looking at places looking for more hydropower, it's not ideal.