What's wrong with nuclear energy?

[alexw]

If you're talking about Hanhikivi 1, then feel free to provide some sources as to why it would be "the most expensive nuclear power plant in the world."

Without sources the answer would be no.

I thought it was 10 years late and $5 billion over-budget? I can't see how anything can beat that.

[Tradewind]

You realize it was a joke, right?

Probably not. Considering they're on about depths and shit, probably don't realize that a few feet of dirt can absorb most if not all dangerous ionizing radiation emitted by fissile materials. A deep pool could do it too.

[Deleted]

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete. First of all, it is toxic from the beginning of the production chain to the very end. Uranium mining has sickened countless numbers of people, many of them Native Americans whose land is still contaminated with abandoned mines. No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste, which remains deadly to all forms of life for much longer than all of recorded history. And the depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East.

Nuclear power is dangerous. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima create contaminated zones unfit for human settlement. They said Chernobyl was a fluke, until Fukushima happened just 5 years ago. What’s next - the aging Indian Point reactor 25 miles from New York City? After the terrorist attack in Brussels, we learned that terrorists had considered infiltrating Belgian nuclear plants for a future attack. And as sea levels rise, we could see more Fukushima-type situations with coastal nuke plants.

Finally, nuclear power is obsolete. It’s already more expensive per unit of energy than renewable technology, which is improving all the time. The only reason why the nuclear industry still exists is because the government subsidizes it with loan guarantees that the industry cannot survive without. Instead we need to invest in scaling up clean renewable energy as quickly as possible.

what a load of bs

[alexw]

I imagine he's talking about Olkiluoto 3, which was over budget, but still only in the 4-6bn range. Hanhikivi 1 will probably hit around the 8bn mark once it's actually done.

Though, neither of those come close to prospective plant in Britain, around the 30bn mark when its done.


You realize it was a joke, right?

Well it was expected to cost 3bn now its up to 8.5bn. Given that its still not completed and the prior history of the project there's a good chance it could end up costing even more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkilu...ar_Power_Plant

The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion, so in principle, any construction costs above that price fall on Areva. In July 2012, those overruns were estimated at more than €2 billion,[34] and in December 2012, Areva estimated that the full cost of building the reactor would be about €8.5 billion, well over the previous estimate of €6.4 billion.[2][3] Because of the delays, TVO and Areva are both seeking compensation from each other through the International Court of Arbitration. In October 2013, TVO's demand for compensation from Areva had risen to €1.8 billion, and Areva's from TVO to €2.6 billion.[39] In December 2013, Areva increased its demand to €2.7 billion.[40]

According to some estimates, Olkiluoto reactor could be the fifth or sixth most expensive structure in the world,[citation needed] even more expensive than the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.

[chazus]

Well it was expected to cost 3bn now its up to 8.5bn. Given that its still not completed and the prior history of the project there's a good chance it could end up costing even more.

Those are still estimates. And a notable portion of that cost is due to delays about groups fighting about the cost.

[Afrospinach]

I think we should go back to calling it atomic power. Sounds so much cooler than nuclear.

I think you will face very little opposition from that one, unless you awaken team nukular.

[Vizardlorde]

mismanagement of current powerplants dont give people a lot of confidence. Right now we have a issues with FPL's Turkey point nuclear power plant superheating slatwater and if its not resolved soon it risks contaminating the aquifer in the south Florida area.

[Shakadam]

The future should be renewables and hopefully Fusion. Unfortunately Renewables still have to be improved quite a bit, but the longer we take the easy way and rely on Nuclear no one will give any fucks to invent better tech. It's just like in WoW, if the fire doesn't tick for enough damage, then why move out?

The problem with this thinking is that we do not currently rely on nuclear energy. The vast majority of energy production worldwide is done in fossil-fuel power plants burning coal, oil, or natural gas (mostly coal). Coal is by far the worst polluter out of all the energy sources we use, it would make sense to replace these with nuclear plants until we figure out something better.

If within the next few decades we could shift our energy production to rely mostly on renewables, well then it wouldn't be an issue. But that's not going to happen. Current renewable energy sources aren't reliable enough to be used as a main source of energy nationwide.

[THE Bigzoman]

Indeed. Ironic isn't it, how the braying and neighing of the hippies and environmentalists of the past, have done a significant amount of harm long term by basically forcing/shaming nations to rely on fossil fuels for power this whole time.

you'd be surprised how self-serving environmentalists are.

They pretty much ensured they'd have jobs for decades.

[Garnier Fructis]

you'd be surprised how self-serving environmentalists are.

They pretty much ensured they'd have jobs for decades.

I always chalked it up to colossal incompetence instead, but I guess this is a reasonable explanation as well.

[DJ117]

that was after a literal natural disaster. also can't forget the ineptitude of the Japanese government.

They had another incident in the 80s or 90s.

- - - Updated - - -

So, because something has inherent risks involved, it's not worth doing?

When the inherent risk is a nuclear explosion, followed by decades of radioactive fallout, yes.

[chazus]

When the inherent risk is a nuclear explosion, followed by decades of radioactive fallout, yes.

We do a LOT of things with greater risk than a reactor having a critical event. A lot. Yet we still do those things.

Besides, situations like that are 100% preventable. They've largely been caused by governmental or corporate mismanagement.

[ringpriest]

So I have been reading about France and how 75% of their energy comes from nuclear reactors. With ine of the major platforms being man caused climate change, why have I not herd more politicians pushing for more nuclear reactors?

US operations and oversight systems (both government and private, with the notable exception of the Navy's nuclear reactor program) both public (government) and private (corporations), are simply not capable of running a nuclear plant with the degree of attention to safety required, and are equally incapable of dealing with the byproducts of nuclear power generation. It's not that these things are impossible, it's just that the corporations will cut corners in search of profit, and the government is too weak, incompetent and/or corrupt to force the corporations into compliance or run its own nuclear reactors. So no focus on nuclear power in the US.

(I'd wager, though I confess I don't actually know, that the fossil fuel companies (and these days probably "green" energy companies too) have lobbied against nuclear power pretty hard as well.)

[Torgent]

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, expensive and obsolete. First of all, it is toxic from the beginning of the production chain to the very end. Uranium mining has sickened countless numbers of people, many of them Native Americans whose land is still contaminated with abandoned mines. No one has solved the problem of how to safely store nuclear waste, which remains deadly to all forms of life for much longer than all of recorded history. And the depleted uranium ammunition used by our military is now sickening people in the Middle East.

Nuclear power is dangerous. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima create contaminated zones unfit for human settlement. They said Chernobyl was a fluke, until Fukushima happened just 5 years ago. What’s next - the aging Indian Point reactor 25 miles from New York City? After the terrorist attack in Brussels, we learned that terrorists had considered infiltrating Belgian nuclear plants for a future attack. And as sea levels rise, we could see more Fukushima-type situations with coastal nuke plants.

Finally, nuclear power is obsolete. It’s already more expensive per unit of energy than renewable technology, which is improving all the time. The only reason why the nuclear industry still exists is because the government subsidizes it with loan guarantees that the industry cannot survive without. Instead we need to invest in scaling up clean renewable energy as quickly as possible.

If it weren't you, I would go in on ripping this copypasta apart. But since it is you and I know that you aren't interested in facts, I'll just give you a LUL.

[Skroe]

US operations and oversight systems (both government and private, with the notable exception of the Navy's nuclear reactor program) both public (government) and private (corporations), are simply not capable of running a nuclear plant with the degree of attention to safety required, and are equally incapable of dealing with the byproducts of nuclear power generation. It's not that these things are impossible, it's just that the corporations will cut corners in search of profit, and the government is too weak, incompetent and/or corrupt to force the corporations into compliance or run its own nuclear reactors. So no focus on nuclear power in the US.

(I'd wager, though I confess I don't actually know, that the fossil fuel companies (and these days probably "green" energy companies too) have lobbied against nuclear power pretty hard as well.)

Fun little side story. About 11 years ago when NASA began Project Prometheus, they went right to Naval Reactors for the design for it. They didn't even fool around.

Project Prometheus was a NASA plan to develop a fission reactor for propulsion and power of space vehicles and probes by teaming a multi-megawatt reactor (very powerful as far as space is concerned) with an ion engine.



One day... hard to imagine that had it continued to be funded after 2006, it would be entering orbit around Jupiter around now.

[Bathory]

If it weren't you, I would go in on ripping this copypasta apart. But since it is you and I know that you aren't interested in facts, I'll just give you a LUL.

Since it's me? What are you referencing exactly? I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Osmeric]

Fun little side story. About 11 years ago when NASA began Project Prometheus, they went right to Naval Reactors for the design for it. They didn't even fool around.

US naval reactors are water cooled thermal reactors. Space reactors aren't; they operate at higher temperature (so they can reject heat more easily through higher temperature radiators). I believe space reactors are also all fast reactors, not thermal.

[RaoBurning]

When the inherent risk is a nuclear explosion, followed by decades of radioactive fallout, yes.

Nuclear reactors don't explode in a mushroom cloud if they go south. Different material from bombs and dramatically different environment. So, not all that bad, really.

[PC2]

Gen IV reactors look interesting, apparently they are optimizing them for more hydrogen production.

[breadisfunny]

i am against it unless they can prove their safety and reliability.