Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear accident in US history. Was mainly caused by poor design of human feedback systems which caused operational confusion and lead to a catastrophic failure.

  • andyburke@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    All of which ignores lots of real world factors that aren’t being included in the costs the commenter outlines.

    Again, if nuclear were cheaper, you wouldn’t all be here downvoting my comments, you’d be discussing all the great new nuclear being onlined.

    Renewables have won. They’re cheaper and easier to deploy, they’re distributed rather than concentrated, and they have lower impacts on the environment.

    FWIW: I thought thorium reactors might have had some legs in the 00s, but it became clear those didn’t make fiscal sense, either.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It does not ignore any information.

      The cost per kWh is the totality of all information. It is the end product. That is the total costs of everything divided by the number of kilowatt-hours of electricity produced.

      I understand that you’re deeply invested in this argument, but you’ve lost. You’re repeating the same claim over and over, and when proven wrong, you just said “nuh uh” and pretended that nothing I said is true.

      Nuclear energy can be cheaper than solar or wind. It is more reliable than solar and wind. It uses less land than solar or wind. All of these are known facts. That’s why actual scientists support expanding nuclear energy 2 to 1.

      But people will still dislike it because they’re scared of building the next Three Mile Island or Fukushima. That, as I explained, is the reason why fewer nuclear plants are being built. Because the scientists, the ones who know the most about these, are not in charge. Instead, it’s the people in the last column that are calling the shots. Do not repeat this drivel of “iF nUcLeaR pOweR PlanTs So Good WhY aRen’T tHerE moRe of ThEM??”. I have explained why. It is widely known why. Your refusal to accept reality does not make it less real.

      That is the end of the argument. I will not respond to anything else you say, because it is clear to me that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. So go ahead, post your non-chalant reply with laughing emojis and three instances of “lol” or “lmao” and strut over the chessboard like you’ve won.

      Because I don’t give a pigeon’s shit what you have to say any more.

      • andyburke@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Show me the line items for long term handling of the waste, please. I am curious how much they allocated.

          • andyburke@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            You don’t have to convince me, if you think it’s such a great power source with such low costs you should pitch some investors.

            I would think you would be the one trying to understand why nuclear plants aren’t being built if their costs are lower and benefits are higher. 🤷‍♂️

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              We understand already. The reason is that people are scared by "omg nukes!'. It’s the stigma, not unlike that against LGBTQ+ parlors, immigrants, anarchism, and putting dishes in the dishwasher without rinsing them first.

              • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                “The people” don’t build NPPs, risk-adverse utility companies do. And while public opinion might matter in some countries, nuclear power is just 5% in China, compared to renewables at around 30%.

                • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Yes, and that’s my point: companies get significant pushback from people with internalized nucleoelectrophobia. I’m also not sure why we’re comparing to China.

                  • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Because they don’t give a shit what their people think. Yes, they are still building new coal and nuclear power plants, but it’s being outpaced by renewables.

    • tee9000@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      So many twists and turns here!

      Its alright i wasnt going to tell anyone i knew the best energy solution after reading lemmy comments. I haven’t voted at all in this thread.

      Nuclear definitely has a ton of commitment. It takes like 60 years to decommission one right?

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The Trojan Nuclear Plant near my city was closed in 1992. They started moving stuff away in 2003. The cooling tower was demolished in 2006. The various other buildings were demolished in 2008. All that remains are some security posts and abandoned office buildings and empty tool sheds.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah. Minimum is like 20. Note that stopping it from generating power is quite early in the decommissioning schedule.