
The left's nuclear problem - JumpCrisscross
https://www.axios.com/the-lefts-nuclear-problem-2510379389.html
======
jklowden
Before you decide nuclear power has any place in the future of producing
electricity, consider two facts:

1\. Worldwide, not a single nuclear plant was built with private funds. All
were underwritten with public funds.

2\. US law protects nuclear plants from liability. The risk of any harm they
pose is borne by the government, not the utility.

Nuclear power is and always was uneconomical. It exists out of a combination
of mid-century faith in progress, and to have a nuclear industry to provide
infrastructure and technical expertise (or maybe camouflage) for nuclear
weapons. Behold the military-industrial complex.

Like "clean coal" there are always supposedly designs on the drawing board. I
say, assume full liability, and raise funds on the private market. While I'm
waiting, I'll bet in wind and solar.

------
ASlave2Gravity
Does anyone know of a study/meta-analysis on current fission reactor
safety/standards? I would also like to see research/data on the capacity for
fission to decrease the rate of CO2 emission. It's a question of which risk is
greater. I'm not sure which side is correct in this debate. I think fission is
insanely bad for the climate. There are parts of the world we literally cannot
go because of fission reactor accidents. I'm lacking data to make an informed
opinion and would love some sources. I'm aware modern reactors are safer, but
are they really?

------
woodandsteel
As someone very worried about climate change, I think it would be great if we
could get some significant help from advanced nuclear power.

One reason the left opposes nuclear is that the nuclear energy industry has a
very long history of misleading the country about costs.

Another reason is that the conservative movement supports nuclear very
strongly, and it also claims anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. As a
consequence the left gets the idea that nuclear is just a way of keeping the
country and the world from moving to renewables.

------
abritinthebay
It’s not really a problem if you remove older designs from the picture.

Most of the lefts objections (aside from the knee jerk ones) are about old
designs and that nuclear shouldn’t be the primary solution.

Which is correct - it shouldn’t. Renewable sources plus _some_ investment in
new, better, nuclear plants is all that is required.

~~~
tom_mellior
> Most of the lefts objections (aside from the knee jerk ones) are about old
> designs

The article cites three objections: safety, waste storage, and cost. I think
you're only right about safety being less of a concern with modern designs.

~~~
abritinthebay
Waste storage is much _much_ less of a problem in many newer designs (not
least because they produce less waste and often can _reuse_ their waste) and
power-plants are just plain expensive anyhow (renewables are still expensive
per-watt and take a lot more land area).

Unless we spend all that money on solar panels for peoples homes (and so start
talking about _distributed_ power system) it's always expensive to start a
power plant.

