The problems with nuclear power aren't meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that's just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.

It's not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can't do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.

And it wasn't some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don't know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn't some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.

Also there is good science on why we actually can switch to entirely renewables: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

The number of people who still think nuclear power is a manageable risk in any capacity is really depressing. We still have no idea what to do with all the nuclear waste we're creating even now. And that's not even considering the impact of having a nuclear plant when you're in a war.

I don't think nuclear power was killed by NIMBYs, at least not entirely. In the 1970s and 80s the financial world started taking a much more short-term view. Nuclear power plants have such a huge up-front cost that you aren't going to see returns for decades. When the market wants numbers to go up every quarter they're not going to finance something that won't make a profit for 20 years.

The problem with nuclear is it gives fossil fuel giants a free pass to try speedrun killing the planet before it even arrives.

If we plan for nuclear, we plan to do nothing for 50 years.

Suspect a lot of those NIMBYs were led by fossil fuel producers in a NIMBY hat...

As someone who has actually looked into nuclear waste and the current storage techniques instead of relying on knee-jerk fear mongering, yes. Store it in my area. Hell, store the casks underneath my house for all I care. If you are surprised by this answer, it's because you don't know shit about nuclear waste and how little of a problem it is.

The waste doesn't pose any danger as long as it's stored securely and doesn't cost that much space. The only downside of the waste is that it needs to be stored forever, but that's a very, very, small price to pay for not destroying the planet..

Weird how y'all haven't figured it out yet considering Finland has and Germany has had nuclear power plants for longer.

But I suspect it's more of a lack of wanting to do what's needed for storage because 'politics' and boomers than it is because it's not possible.

It just needs to be buried deep enough. Problem solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

The US has a fuckton of space not being occupied by anyone or anything.

You know what’s scary? The existential threat of climate change.

"Endanger birds"

A whole lot less than most alternative solutions

Nuclear is not cheap.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

I would. ROI takes longer, but they're super fucking profitable as soon as they turn a profit at all. They're generally base loaded 24/7 except for about 3-4 weeks per year for refueling outage. I'm 35, so assume 10 years to build and another 10 years before it starts profiting. I'm retired at 55. Sounds pretty good to me.

Edit: source in response to reply asking for it so they will find it :)

I absolutely would and have done so: https://www.vaneck.com/us/en/investments/uranium-nuclear-energy-etf-nlr/

You dolt there was never a problem with cooling the plants. The issue was that there is red tape that limits how much water the plant can discharge into the Rhine. That could have easily been addressed if the plants were just allowed to cycle more water. The higher the flow rate the colder the water will come out the other end . The water is put through a heat exchanger and then cycled back to the river. If more water can be piped through then the reactor can maintain lower temperatures.

Energy shouldn't be a business, it's a necessity at this point.

I'd like to note it's not profitable because it generates so much energy so consistently that it's hard to keep prices up.

That's why nuclear energy should never have been a private sector investment but a government one, or maybe hybrid. That's how it's worked in Finland, and the new reactor we had built plus the growing solar really saved us from the electricity spike after Russian gas was turned off.

1. It creates radioactive waste that will destroy storage sites for centuries to come.
2. Mining and preparing the fuel needed for the reactors is far from green.

Do all of you share one brain cell? Have you ever researched nuclear beyond slurping big oil propaganda? Fossil fuels are currently devastating our water and air, but yes lets fret on hypothetical issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drillhole_disposal https://yle.fi/a/3-10847558

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Third and fourth-gen nuclear addresses these issues to a very, very significant degree.

Like, less than 1% of the current waste stream, and waste that lasts around 300 years (as opposed to the current 27,000 (fucking) years.