Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Grimm2785 t1_j1ke8pz wrote

First energy keeps shutting plants down too. I worked at one for about 9 years as a contractor. I've also seen how they're losing employees from the plants that are still open because those employees are worried their plant will be the next one to go. They've even been talking about shutting down the nuke in beaver valley.

97

drxdrg08 t1_j1kt12l wrote

Remember the old days when environmentalists were trying to sink popular opinion about nuke power in the 80s? They succeeded.

30

Muronelkaz t1_j1l2paz wrote

More like Coal/Oil strangled it in through lobbying, and the environmental activists sometimes get blamed for not understanding technology of the day or technology outpacing them.

64

GTholla t1_j1mzlws wrote

let's see, who should we blame for nuclear power being shit on, hippies from 40 years ago, or oil and coal companies šŸ¤”

^f^U^c^K^i^N ^t^R^e^E ^H^u^g^G^e^r^S

13

liverbird3 t1_j1l5hjn wrote

There was also that time a nuclear plant melted down within a few miles of the state capitol

but yeah blame shit on the people trying to keep the earth livable for the next generation

8

106473 t1_j1lm0nj wrote

Wasn't bad, and was managed properly.

Nuclear reactors now are hugely more efficient and safer than back then.

26

nss68 t1_j1m6vta wrote

Wasn't bad? They literally still hand out iodine tablets to the surrounding residences every year. This area has one of the highest rates of thyroid cancer and other thyroid issues in the country.

3

Espejo1753 t1_j1mq3nq wrote

Nuclear waste is the problem. It can't be considered more efficient as long as you have nuclear waste as by-product

1

Herr_Quattro t1_j1nll73 wrote

But it absolutely can. That radioactive waste is in some cases less toxic then coal ash. If we had fully committed to nuclear energy in the 50-70s, we could be 100% energy independent. And I still think itā€™ll be an incredibly important stepping stone to Fusion Reactors.

8

106473 t1_j1ol1fw wrote

And thorium reactors that that use waste

2

Irish_Blond_1964 t1_j1lzqtx wrote

You understand they havenā€™t built a new nuclear power plant since TMI, right?

−7

kowalski-analy5is t1_j1m0krr wrote

Tennessee opened one in 2016, and Georgia is building another one.

13

Atrocious_1 t1_j1n8dra wrote

Wow. What part of Pennsylvania are Tennessee and Georgia in

−5

Irish_Blond_1964 t1_j1m1b6f wrote

I stand corrected.Still not a long term solution.

−9

Entire-Job7656 t1_j1n5y6p wrote

Nuclear fusion, whenever it becomes viable, is undeniably the future like it or not. It will eventually be the main source of power for everything. Solar and wind may supplement on a local level, essentially people may use them like they use generators now, but there will never be massive wind and solar farms powering everything.

Even current fission is more likely to play a much bigger role to power the country than wind or solar in the long term. I have nothing against solar panels and windmills, but anyone who believes they could replace fossil fuels entirely or in large part is living in a fantasy. Especially since fusion has so many applications beyond just powering countries.

4

ktappe t1_j1mkrdc wrote

The French power their entire country safely with nuclear power, and I assure you they are far more environmentally conscious than we are.

9

BenderIsGreat64 t1_j1m003i wrote

Though they had good intentions, the anti-nuke crowd absolutely did more harm than good.

They should have pushed strictly for MORE solar and wind, not been AGAINST nuclear. There have been how many major nuclear accidents vs how many major fossil fuel accidents? When I was a kid, an oil tanker dumped well over 200k gallons of oil into the Delaware, or when the PES refinery blew up, almost gassing south Philly. How many abandoned coal mines are poisoning our waters?

8

Alfa505 t1_j1luovg wrote

Yeah wind and solar would fix this, smh

−6

mainelinerzzzzz t1_j1mnm56 wrote

During this latest storm there was not enough sun to produce any meaningful electricity and too much wind to run the turbines.

−4

Espejo1753 t1_j1mpuk2 wrote

Nuclear fusion, not fission is the future

0

HikerHal t1_j1niu0s wrote

I believe that the sky has giant fusion reactor transmitting gigajoules of power to the earth 24 hours a day.

1

Fluffy_Dziner t1_j1nlhr8 wrote

Yes, but the problem remains converting enough of it to usable energy and storing enough of it during good weather to keep the power on during long overcast periods like winter.

2

HikerHal t1_j1nm9p8 wrote

Winter is a hemispheric phenomenon.

0

IamSauerKraut t1_j1kug9c wrote

'twas in the 70's. And they were right. Nukes are going dark for a different reason, tho. Cannot compete with shale gas.

−40

drxdrg08 t1_j1kuyoo wrote

Fun fact: environmentalist groups that were targeting nuclear energy received money from big oil. They were in direct competition.

Nukes can't compete because they suffer from economies of scale. If there was more nuclear, it would be cheaper per unit built/operated. The world took a wrong turn here. Nuclear is a better source if one goes by facts not emotions.

38

NewAlexandria t1_j1kvu73 wrote

especially with breeder reactors and related modern designs

i'm sure we'll start to do it again after the people that can profit on fracing are finished profiting on fracing

11

Ganjaskate t1_j1kwlz6 wrote

Broā€¦I hate doing this and Iā€™m not an English perfectionist by any stretch, but ā€œfracingā€ is legit bothering me so much. Fracking. Lol.

12

flanny3365 t1_j1l2ejq wrote

I am an English perfectionist and he's right

0

106473 t1_j1lm77t wrote

Germany shut down all of their nuclear reactors because of environmentalists but it seems the environmentalists were paid by Russia, now Germany is reliant on fossil fuels from Russia and other countries.

They're trying to do the same for France but France has 80% of its energy from nuclear power.

5

IamSauerKraut t1_j1odxn3 wrote

>Germany shut down all of their nuclear reactors

Isar2 would like to have a word. Neckarwestheim and a couple others, too.

1

106473 t1_j1okv83 wrote

Thought they shutdown the majority?

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j1omlsz wrote

>Germany shut down all of their nuclear reactors

Majority =/= all.

1

IamSauerKraut t1_j1odmkg wrote

>Nuclear is a better source if one goes by facts not emotions.

Right. That's what they said before 1980 at TMI because all that was caused by emotions, not facts, same as in Chernobyl.

1

cardassianjazz t1_j1ktwv0 wrote

Talking about? I thought that was a done deal, I had friends that worked there saying they kept a skeleton crew on at huge wages to keep the plant running until the closure date.

12

RunningOnPunkTime t1_j1kw4az wrote

I thought they definitely were shutting it down in a few years. If I recall it's pretty old and out of date. But not replacing it is a terrible idea.

10

enemy_of_your_enema t1_j1n9kr1 wrote

Technically First Energy doesn't own power generation since deregulation separated distribution and generation companies. They have spun off companies like First Energy Solutions that actually are generators.

The coal and nuke plants keep shutting down because they are aging, expensive and can't compete with cheaper gas and renewables in the wholesale markets.

We could solve this shortage problem by incentivizing people to install battery storage and solar and giving them a way to share their stored power with the grid in exchange for money.

4