As the saying goes, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today.
THE SAME IS TRUE for nuclear power plants. We should have started long ago, but starting now is still far better than wasting another decade.
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
Global Nuclear Power Boom | FEED DISCUSSION
- Thread starter Publius
- Start date
THE SAME IS TRUE for nuclear power plants. We should have started long ago, but starting now is still far better than wasting another decade.
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
The only issue with what you are saying here is what most people outside of the petroleum industry don’t realize. Oil isn’t just energy. Oil is in EVERYTHING that is produced. There is nothing man-made that doesn’t have an oil fingerprint. Even recycling! You can’t do it without petroleum use somewhere. Same for windmills, solar panels or any other “Renewable energy” you are speaking of. All of it leaves a bigger oil footprint than most people think. And it will not be replaced in our lifetime and most likely not the lifetime of humans being born today. There is no alternative that exists today to replace oil…and here’s a guess: there will be no alternative tomorrow either.
No. Your using this as a excuse not to do it. Your right oil is used in everything. Still. Absolutely ZERO excuses still not to switch to nuclear and renewables for power generation. Period.
Don't let others tell you otherwise. Anything short of "your right" is a tactic used to stall very logical steps for America to take in regards to power generation and to keep us slaved to a volatile market in that aspect. Sure we can never truly rid ourselves off of all fossil fuels, but we certainly can for specifically power generation entirely.
Don't fall for the fossil fuel companies propaganda. They would kill and harvest their own mother's organs to make a quick buck. So...
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
I’m not saying not to do it, I’m just saying you are still using oil in nuclear energy and renewables….theres no way to avoid it.
Even Nuclear power generation and renewables have an oil footprint…you CANNOT do it without oil.
Oh absolutely. Just afraid that might be used against the nuclear push is all. Your point is entirely valid though. No matter what humanity does we're always going to be dependent on it.
But doesn't mean our power generation has to be though. And yes I understand logistics, even building the nuclear plant materials themselves take petrochemicals.
Still. It should not stop us from doing it.
it will take the sting out of global shocks much more dramatically. But not entirely of course.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Location
- England
Biggest expense in any privately funded nuclear build is borrowing the money.
A bipartisan U.S. bill aims to cut nuclear construction costs by letting commercial grade concrete and steel be used in non safety related nuclear plant structures.
Not a reactor approval. Not construction. BUT it targets one of nuclear’s biggest killers which is cost and build time. If passed, of course.
Far cheaper for governments to borrow the money for large infrastructure than getting the private sector to.
Off the top of my head roughly half of the cost of Hinkley C (UK nuclear plant under construction, nearing £50bn/$67bn) was just because of a huge amount of private financing.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Location
- England
It is good to see a new nuclear renaissance (as one of my professors put it) coming about.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2022
- Location
- England
My bad didn't realise there was a separate discussion one for this
Never too much FE!
Never too much FE!
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2025
Just want to say this should have happened half a century ago.
I mean, I am overjoyed the world has gotten over its irrational fear of nuclear energy and is finally going all in on it. But... it still makes me mad that it took decades to get to this point, when we should have been here a long, LONG time ago.
We should already have electricity "too cheap to meter" if it were not for the totally and completely overblown, irrational fear propagated by the media from the 1970s to the early 2000s over simple accidents that did not harm any of the public. Three Mile Island, one of the most overblown accidents in history, or Fukushima? No civilians died. So save it, please.
Funny thing is, nuclear energy has killed fewer people than coal power alone since its birth. In fact, nuclear energy is safer than wind and solar.
But fear porn over nuclear power was much more clickbait and view worthy for the media. So you have the media to thank for high energy prices, solely, in the grand scheme of things. They alone caused the totally irrational fear over nuclear energy, which stopped humanity from achieving true energy independence in a literal meaning.
We have enough uranium to power the entire world's energy needs for quite literally millions of years. So everyone can shut up. Besides, fission is just temporary until we unlock fusion, which always seems to be 20 years away... Regardless, even if we never truly harness fusion, fission has enough to power humanity's needs, from our tiny perspective, literally forever!
I mean, I am overjoyed the world has gotten over its irrational fear of nuclear energy and is finally going all in on it. But... it still makes me mad that it took decades to get to this point, when we should have been here a long, LONG time ago.
We should already have electricity "too cheap to meter" if it were not for the totally and completely overblown, irrational fear propagated by the media from the 1970s to the early 2000s over simple accidents that did not harm any of the public. Three Mile Island, one of the most overblown accidents in history, or Fukushima? No civilians died. So save it, please.
Funny thing is, nuclear energy has killed fewer people than coal power alone since its birth. In fact, nuclear energy is safer than wind and solar. But fear porn over nuclear power was much more clickbait and view worthy for the media. So you have the media to thank for high energy prices, solely, in the grand scheme of things. They alone caused the totally irrational fear over nuclear energy, which stopped humanity from achieving true energy independence in a literal meaning.We have enough uranium to power the entire world's energy needs for quite literally millions of years. So everyone can shut up. Besides, fission is just temporary until we unlock fusion, which always seems to be 20 years away... Regardless, even if we never truly harness fusion, fission has enough to power humanity's needs, from our tiny perspective, literally forever!
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- defconwarningsystem
- DEFCONWSALERTS
- YOUTUBE
- DefconWarningSystem
I think the issue is potential. A meltdown can kill a lot of people and contaminate a large area. A coal plant won't. Plus the waste.
Not arguing for or against nuclear power. Just want to acknowledge a legitimate concern.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2023
- Location
- Georgia, US
I am interested in seeing molten salt reactors (MSR) becoming commercially viable. They have some safety benefits compared to traditional reactors. They run at lower pressure and have some passive safety systems to mitigate disaster. But they come with operational challenges, such as corrosion. These challenges must be addressed in order to improve the commercial viability of the technology.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2025
No. It is a irrational fear propagated by the media. Even chernobyl was blown way out of portion. ONLY 31 CIVILIANS died in chernobyl.
So please save the media anti nuclear power propaganda. You should know better sir. Sir. Please educate yourself on nuclear power. Not just what you hear from people or media click bait.
Nuclear power plants even in a complete failure mode is not as dangerous as people or the media has made you think.
Besides the fact the safety measures taken into account in ALL nuclear facilities that contain a meltdown. Hence why THE WORSE NUCLEAR DISASTER IN HISTORY ONLY KILLED 31 CIVILIANS.
So again. Everyone can save it. Do humanity a favor and stop propagating misinformation.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2025
You know how you get pissed the heck off @DEFCON Warning System when people needless propagate misinformation in regards to "nuclear war not survivable" when you have learn it very much is.
Just hope you understand that is exactly how I feel in regards to your position sir. It is entirely baseless and not based on facts or reality in anyway.
I have many times in past showed you and provided the facts and you still refuse to learn, read, or understand. So at a lost now. Maybe we avoid each other on this subject then. Not going through this song and dance again. Even @Friendly Engineer has said so in the past and backed me up in past on this.
Though doubt he will chime in now after I blew up.
sorry I want to debate this, but not with you. We have done this exact debate at least 6 times in our past here....
Just hope you understand that is exactly how I feel in regards to your position sir. It is entirely baseless and not based on facts or reality in anyway.
I have many times in past showed you and provided the facts and you still refuse to learn, read, or understand. So at a lost now. Maybe we avoid each other on this subject then. Not going through this song and dance again. Even @Friendly Engineer has said so in the past and backed me up in past on this.
Though doubt he will chime in now after I blew up.
sorry I want to debate this, but not with you. We have done this exact debate at least 6 times in our past here....
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2025
The truth over Three Mile Island, not Hollywood, or Fake-Medias story of it:
I also have plenty of government, scientific organizations, international organizations, findings, and declassified materials say this.
Sadly. Sound, logical, fact based, non fear porn content doesn't get elevated in the news. NOR does the news EVER corrects it's mistakes. Media never went back and corrected or highlighted the new data or news that proved them wrong and their fear porn wrong during their IRRESPONSIBLE coverage of ALL nuclear disaster.
I also have plenty of government, scientific organizations, international organizations, findings, and declassified materials say this.
Sadly. Sound, logical, fact based, non fear porn content doesn't get elevated in the news. NOR does the news EVER corrects it's mistakes. Media never went back and corrected or highlighted the new data or news that proved them wrong and their fear porn wrong during their IRRESPONSIBLE coverage of ALL nuclear disaster.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2023
- Location
- Georgia, US
Let's not call low probability high impact events "propaganda". Such a position introduces a degree of arrogance to the discussion of a system that requires objective open-mindedness. For example, some Chernobyl technicians did not believe an RBMK reactor could explode. They did not know what they did not know.
That said, I asked Google AI what would happen if a Chernobyl-scale event occurred at the former Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station near Tom's River, NJ, on the Jersey Shore. It's shut down now, and of course not the graphite-moderated RBMK design. I was more interested impact as this is what is in people's minds. It's very low probability but very high impact.
Snippets From Google AI:
If a Chernobyl-scale event occurred while the Oyster Creek nuclear plant was operating, a massive steam and hydrogen explosion would have destroyed the reactor building, spewing highly lethal, long-lived radiation across the densely populated mid-Atlantic. Millions of residents in New Jersey, Philadelphia, and New York City would have required immediate evacuation.
While a catastrophic meltdown and explosion could occur, it would lack the weeks-long, raging graphite inferno that launched massive radioactive plumes into the upper atmosphere at Chernobyl.
Because the plant is located in Lacey Township (Ocean County, New Jersey), a catastrophic release would contaminate the heavily populated Jersey Shore and fragile estuary ecosystems. Due to wind patterns, dense metropolitan areas—including the suburbs of Philadelphia (50 miles away), New York City (75 miles away), and the remainder of the Northeast corridor—would face immediate fallout, causing acute radiation sickness and long-term increases in cancer rates for surrounding populations.
That said, I asked Google AI what would happen if a Chernobyl-scale event occurred at the former Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station near Tom's River, NJ, on the Jersey Shore. It's shut down now, and of course not the graphite-moderated RBMK design. I was more interested impact as this is what is in people's minds. It's very low probability but very high impact.
Snippets From Google AI:
If a Chernobyl-scale event occurred while the Oyster Creek nuclear plant was operating, a massive steam and hydrogen explosion would have destroyed the reactor building, spewing highly lethal, long-lived radiation across the densely populated mid-Atlantic. Millions of residents in New Jersey, Philadelphia, and New York City would have required immediate evacuation.
While a catastrophic meltdown and explosion could occur, it would lack the weeks-long, raging graphite inferno that launched massive radioactive plumes into the upper atmosphere at Chernobyl.
Because the plant is located in Lacey Township (Ocean County, New Jersey), a catastrophic release would contaminate the heavily populated Jersey Shore and fragile estuary ecosystems. Due to wind patterns, dense metropolitan areas—including the suburbs of Philadelphia (50 miles away), New York City (75 miles away), and the remainder of the Northeast corridor—would face immediate fallout, causing acute radiation sickness and long-term increases in cancer rates for surrounding populations.