Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MoonlessPrairie t1_ix380rg wrote

Reply to comment by siwmasas in Higher energy prices are a call for more renewables and maybe nuclear, not more pipelines by TeacherGuy1980

I’m glad you’re suggesting your town for a SMR or large scale reactor. New York just shut down nine Mile point in part due to its proximity to New York City.

So, with my crayons, I think this entire argument is about carbon and not about energy.

So rather than obfuscate the issue, I am sure there are folks that would rather have nuclear power plants built vs a natural gas fired plant that has carbon emissions.

Nuclear has always been high-priced. In fact, if you look at some of the issues in Europe, they are caused by EDF having major issues with the reactor design. I think 12 of their 30 nuclear reactors are currently off-line due to critical flaws with the reactor design.

I am not in any way anti-nuclear power. But to assume that nuclear power can be produced cheaply reliably, and without safety concerns would be an assumption that is blind to the nuclear power industries history.

−2

siwmasas t1_ix4fdjg wrote

Ah yes, because we all know municipalities make decisions based on reddit threads. Regardless, bring it the f on, I'll take a reactor downtown. Maynard is already a superfund site! All you seem to care about is somebody else's money. I don't give two shits how much it costs if its massively better for the environment in the long run.

How is everyone burning fossil fuels not an immediate danger to everyone on the planet, regardless of proximity to where the fuel was consumed?

So how safe are nuclear reactors?

>In the 60-year history of civil nuclear power generation, with over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years across 36 countries, there have been only three significant accidents at nuclear power plants

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

one of those three is Three Mile Island in NY, nice cherry-pick. How dangerous are they?

>Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources

Same sources as above.

So how do nuclear power plants compare to fossil fuel powered ones?

>On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future. The main economic risks to existing plants lie in the impacts of subsidized intermittent renewable and low-cost gas-fired generation. The political risk of higher, specifically-nuclear, taxation adds to these risks.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

Cheaper than fossil fuels. The main barrier to nuclear energy is politics, not cost. CO2 emmisions for nuclear are 12g/kWh vs 41g/kWh for rooftop solar and a whopping 820g/kWh for fossil fuels.

So, your assertion that nuclear is more expensive, less safe, and unreliable is pure fabricated BS. Do some more research before you continue blabbering

We need more R&D to improve some of the designs, sure, but thats not a reason to discredit it, the same can be said for

0