Can I ask, pointblank, what is the most serious argument against nuclear and can it be mitigated either at all or in part to the extent it is defacto practical for universally-lateral domestic energy purposes?
Besides safety concerns, the biggest impediment to nuclear is simple economics. These are massive, capital intensive projects, with very long timelines. I wish I could dig it up easily but in the nuclear thread the other day an engineer posted an interesting retrospective analysis of what sort of engineering projects were likely to go massively over time and budget. Guess what was at the top of the list.
While nuclear proponents would like to place blame solely on what they consider excessive regulation or by demonizing environmental activists, the reality is that investment dried up for nuclear because the bean counters saw the ROI and timeline was bad compared to alternatives.
When you ask this same faction how to fix that they'll say small modular reactors, etc. That would be great if it existed. It doesn't. People have been trying to make it work for decades, NuScale the latest. I was bullish on NuScale when they started; it really looked like they'd cracked the code. Now they're floundering too.
I would be ecstatic if someone creates these great SMR's that are economic, but I'm not holding my breath.
There's no doubt nuclear needs to be part of the future energy mix, but the idea that all we have to do is get aggressive with nuclear and our problems are solved is navie nonsense imo.
Do they just need a tad more leverage in material terms to ensure future moron governments' feet are held to the fire to the extent they cannot escape rare or what do you think is the ideal enforcement mechanism?
So I guess the dozens of military nuclear submarines and a dozen or so advanced aircraft carriers in the world are powered by unicorns and leprechauns?
I don't know the advanced mechanics of navy reactors, but something that generates 165 megawatts, while fitting inside a 360-foot-long, 35-foot-wide tube and still leaving room to house 130 people comfortably along with all their life support for weeks seems pretty usable as a small reactor. (the A1B reactor on the latest USN carriers takes things up to 700MW of thermal power.)
That's why they're cheap.
Here's a timely podcast on the matter from a very very favorable audience:
http://link.chtbl.com/wGGIOQ5_
For a more realistic view of the problems, I'd recommend this podcast:
https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-209-end-of-the-nu...
Safety, waste, public opposition don't really rate as the reasons that we are not seeing more nuclear. It's just super hard to build and tends to make utilities go bankrupt. So if you're a utility CEO putting in an order for a nuclear reactor is basically suicide.
* fissile waste that lasts centuries (or more)
* potential for meltdown or other accidental release of radiation
* major military target, a threat not just for loss of generation but
for deliberate release of radiation (by attacker)Better than waste from carbon based power which can't even be contained in the short run.
> potential for meltdown or other accidental release of radiation
Releases less radiation than coal plants
> major military target, a threat not just for loss of generation but for deliberate release of radiation (by attacker)
If an attacker wants to release radiation they can just do it directly wherever they want instead of being limited by where a power plant is.