Oddbean

Nuclear is back. 1. Google backs the construction of seven small nuclear-power reactors in the U.S (500 megawatts) 2. Microsoft struck a deal to restart a reactor at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island (835-megawatts) 3. Earlier this year, Amazon purchased a data center at another Pennsylvania nuclear plant (960 megawatts)

Cheap, abundant energy is great, but given our time in Earth's history of disaster cycles, the expansion of nuclear couldn't come at a more detrimental time for humanity's long term survival. Pole shift, solar flares, possible micronova. Natural disasters are only increasing.

Nuclear power isn't cheap. It's not economically viable at all. Anywhere. There's plenty of cheaper alternatives that are as green as, or more green than nuclear power that are a fraction of the cost to build and operate. However, you can't build nuclear weapons without a nuclear industry. Nuclear power is nothing more than the first step you need to take if you want nuclear weapons. Just like Iran, North Korea, first you start with nuclear power, then you build the nuclear bombs.

Why aren't you supporting coal then? It's way cheaper than nuclear power. Please explain why you want the most expensive means to generate electricity if you don't believe in global warming? Why waist that much money on nuclear? There's plenty of coal still in the ground. I'll bet you're already complaining about high energy costs. Why do you want to pay even more than you already are for energy? Did you think this through or was it more of a flippant comment about a subject you know nothing about, but wanted to pretend you're one of the smart kids?

> We are at a dangerous point in Earth's disaster cycle to be building out nuclear. Ahh, I see. You're one of the tinfoil hat brigade. And you're throwing around the words ignorant and agenda too. Everyone has an agenda to you lot. https://media.tenor.com/XQT81JhtwH8AAAAC/american-history-x-hidden-agenda.gif

Nuclear energy done right is the cheapest, most reliable, most environmental friendly power source. E=mc^2 is unbeatable in all terms. Happy that many industries and societies working in direction 'done right', again. It's stupid to build nuclear power plants to get the bomb. There are more efficient ways and most new bomb nations have done without. #thereisnotenoughnuclearonnostr

Where do you get this cheap crap from? Every country on the planet that has nuclear power has to use taxpayers money to subsidize the cost because it's so expensive. Every government, without exception. Because nuclear power is the most expense way to generate power that exists. So, when you say it's cheap, are you saying that because you're ignorant about the true cost, or are you intentionally lying?

Nuclear is one of the safest, cleanest, least environmentally burdensome and — ultimately, over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant — one of the cheapest sources of energy available. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/nuclear-energy-transistion-climate-change/

Yes well, any website you link can be counted by linking to government websites where they have to subsidize nuclear power to the tune of billions of dollars that could be better spent on cheaper alternatives. The reason why private companies are not investing their own money building nuclear power is because it's not economically viable. The reason why there are companies milking billions of taxpayers money building nuclear power stations that will never be economically viable is because governments are corrupt. And companies are getting rich. And we working class suckers pay for this corruption. Anyone can make a bullshit website with all sorts of outrageous claims. The only truth, is the billions of waisted taxpayers money on a corrupt industry by corrupt governments building nuclear power plants. As I said before, if they really were profitable, private equity would be building them rather than taxpayers. Unless you're going to argue that governments subsidizing nuclear power construction aren't corrupt, but are in fact honest decent people working for the betterment of us all. Because that's what you're saying when you support nuclear power. Simply put, nuclear power is a scam. And, as with all scams, there's plenty of shills. Stop being a shill for a corrupt system.

Come on.... There's no reason to be nasty and engage in personal attacks just because you disagree on an issue. I shared factual information. I'm sorry that it conflicts with your beliefs but that doesn't mean it's wrong, and it doesn't mean I'm a shill. This is no way to conduct yourself.

Nasty, Personal attacks? Ok, I'll bite. Why are you saying that when I've never said anything personal about you? Are you deflecting? Are you unable to name any governments that aren't corrupt so you've changed the subject and accused me of personally attacking you? I guess you can't really say that nuclear power isn't funded by corrupt governments across the planet, so, deflect. But really, I seriously am curious which government on this planet can be trusted to do an honest job of building a nuclear power plant? I really do want anyone to answer that question. Come on all you nuclear shills. Name the honest government the world could trust with nuclear power!!! You can't. Because like unicorn shit and man loving lesbians, honest governments that can be trusted with nuclear power don't exist. It's not the nuclear technology that's the problem. It's having to trust governments to run them, that's the problem. Tell me how to fix the problem of corrupt governments and I'll support nuclear power. Nuclear power will never be economically viable because there's too much profit to be made from government corruption. And, why do all you conspiracy nuts trust governments with nuclear power, but nothing else? I mean, I can understand if you're an unemployed bum, or a billionaire that doesn't pay taxes, but, us taxpayers don't want our money wasted on nuclear bullshit. Get back to me when you've fixed the corruption problem and I'll have another look at your figures. Until then, nuclear power is not economically viable.

Shill? That's a pretty lame excuse to not answer the question. I guess you're one of those smart people that just has copy/paste answers but no actual knowledge of the subject. But, you were keen to post your smart statement, then fell apart when asked a simple question. And now, you're just completely ignoring your original statement and instead deflecting by making up lies about me. So, you're a liar, and you're ignorant, but like to pretend you're smart and you get all butthurt when questioned on your supposed knowledge. There you go, how's that for nasty? Truth hurts the most. You're a liar, and an ignorant coward.

Nuclear power done right is like a unicorn breeding program. How do you fix world wide government corruption? You show me the government on this planet that isn't corrupt, and I'll support that governments nuclear program.

It is a very centralized energy source and involves many risks, such as leaks of radioactive material or waste, or the construction of secret nuclear bombs. Residential energy sources such as gas, solar panels or micro wind generators seem to me to be more dynamic, safe and private.

O que vocês acham de energia nuclear? Acho uma fonte de energia muito centralizada e com muitos riscos envolvidos, como vazamento do material ou do lixo radioativo, ou a construção de bombas nucleares secretas. Fontes residenciais de energia como gás, placa solar ou micro geradores eólicos, me parecem mais dinâmicas, seguras e privadas. nostr:nevent1qqszq9uf5zhdlmx33m4uu97yx0gvvyqa0hazspsfm7ma9s8y6dh50tqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgsyvrp9u6p0mfur9dfdru3d853tx9mdjuhkphxuxgfwmryja7zsvhqrqsqqqqqpa6f2f4