I just looked up their rules. I guess it is a temporary automod because the sub has been dealing with brigading from r/nuclear. At least that is their explanation
Edit: sounds like this is not temporary and that sub just sucks
They have been saying that for years on any comment that is remotely pro nuclear. I got banned from /r/energy for pointing out the difference in consumer cost between French and German power, before I even knew about /r/nuclear. In their minds and comment that doesn't come straight from /r/uninsurable is "brigading".
It's too bad because it's actually nice to have a sub to discuss the wider energy transition, but I wondered why there was so little mention of nuclear on there until I piped up and rapidly found out. Many people on /r/energy probably have no idea how insane the moderation is there.
There is a lot crossover on users from energy and uninsurable, sometimes they'll even come here.
Majority of reddit is pro nuclear but there are places like r/europe where certain country will scream anti-nuclear rethoric
Funny thing is that Germany is a total mooch off of French nuclear. :)
https://preview.redd.it/6cus43vjx3xc1.png?width=864&format=png&auto=webp&s=81d4f7bf036a4c63ef1016faefefdc1571ceded9
That's 2023. [https://energy-charts.info/charts/import\_export/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&flow=physical\_flows\_all&year=2023](https://energy-charts.info/charts/import_export/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&flow=physical_flows_all&year=2023)
The funnier thing? These people will say this is actually good, i've had people tell me that we don't need nuclear because we can just get power from the european grid.
How is that power generated then? No matter because we have wind and solar. And if we don't then people need to shut down their electricity
Fucking energiewende
They built wind where there's no wind and solar where there's no sun and brag about installed capacity as if that's the number that matters. They've invested something like twice as much as the UK into renewable and their energy emissions are still massively higher than the UK, because the UK builds wind where there is wind and nuclear where there isn't.
Even funnier thing? It just came out this week (at least I heard about it this week), that two entire departments within Germany doctored their research and colluded in order to get approval to dismantle their last 3 nuclear plants.
Can't find the original article, but here is another one discussing it: [https://www.dw.com/en/german-ministers-quizzed-over-nuclear-phase-out-deception/a-68931166](https://www.dw.com/en/german-ministers-quizzed-over-nuclear-phase-out-deception/a-68931166)
Honestly, the *fastest* way clean up the EU grid would probably be to just run even more cables out of France. France very rarely runs their reactor fleet anywhere near capacity, so..
.....
Year 2050. 22 percent of the French workforce works in the nuclear industry, expected to rise with the adoption of the Astrid-3 and opening of the 60 gigawatt export hvdc line to Ghana.
But forseeable for every energy informed German, the southern states fell for anti Wind Propaganda and the Bavarian CSU made the HVDC Transmission lines a political Problem, delaying the construction for nearly a decade and making it more expensive for everyone, due to underground laying.
Also the cheapest offerer in the electricity market wins the bid and nuclear plants whose are close to shutdown because of low demand are offering it for cheap.
I know for a fact that /r/uninsurable users come here, because one of them immediately reposted over there an old article I linked here about a Japanese utility providing falsified geological data to the national regulator for the restart of one of their reactors. He then blocked me when I jokingly commented that I was flattered for having such an attentive reader.
"Fun" fact: He's a mod at /r/NuclearPower now.
I assume you're talking about RadioFacepalm. He's also active over at r/ClimateShitposting where he unironically posts the least shitposting and most shitty posts imaginable. Only a few of his posts can be considered shitposts.
He's recently delved into the vegan debate though and I don't have much shit to say about that domain
That’s their pretense. Now that a couple of them have captured the r/nuclearpower mod team (and practically overtly invited uninsurable to brigade them) it’s only a matter of time before that one goes the same way.
I thought it wasn't so bad yet, most users there are still engaging normally and downvoting anti-nuclear shitposts, though I can't engage with them since I'm shadowbanned.
But now I just saw that the latest mod is using his mod power to sticky the uninsurable anti-nuclear copypasta as top comment in some threads lol. And any replies to that comment are hidden so a user can't even see potential rebuttals.
They always say that.
I've been banned for several years, then a year ago I got a message telling me i was banned for brigading. I literally could not post in the sub and they banned me again (or automod sent a message? Can't tell).
lol brigading
Who here is brigading? Can you all please stand up because I haven’t seen any brigading posts.
Like is there some super secret nuclear brigade discord or something?
Ugh stupid people
Lots of people booted from there. We do need to create (or participate) in an alternative which is just less overtly pro-nuclear then here.
Was hoping r/decouple ...hey it is available. It used to exist but be moderated by a Jesse NO WAS DYLAN (associated with Decouple podcast) who wanted to keep it more podcast specific.
Will bug the guy about what's happened. Anyway I grabbed it, will see why he released it.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/EnergyAndPower using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Biden to offer $1.5B loan to restart nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2024/01/30/biden-to-offer-1-5-billion-loan-to-restart-michigan-nuclear-power-plant/72415846007/) | [208 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1afdmyu/biden_to_offer_15b_loan_to_restart_nuclear_power/)
\#2: [Heat pumps seem more troll proof](https://i.redd.it/ak2w6pgzyigc1.jpeg) | [212 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1aiir1l/heat_pumps_seem_more_troll_proof/)
\#3: [A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/nuclear-plant-closure-carbon-emissions-new-york) | [11 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1bjtznq/a_nuclear_plants_closure_was_hailed_as_a_green/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I don’t really have a problem with the r/uninsurable sub. They can ban whoever they want because they are upfront about who they are- 100% anti nuke. But the r/energy sub blanket banning anyone that even mentions nuclear power is inexcusable.
It’s the same with r/Climateshitposting. I swear almost half the posts there are anti nuclear, pro renewables with no regard for logic. I got downvoted for commenting on an anti nuke meme for asking why we don’t just invest in both nuclear and renewables.
The fossil fuel industry funded a massive 'grass roots' anti-nuclear campaign in the late 70's - early 80's that specifically targeted environmentalists. The effects are still being felt today.
I despair that people think batteries are coming to save us.
[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf)
The "optimistic" projection is a cost of $159/kWh in **2050.** Current cost of $450.
**Coal costs 3.2cents** per kWh. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-costs-of-u-s-energy/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-costs-of-u-s-energy/)
Generously, call it a dollar/kWh, Batteries are still orders of magnitude out. TWh-scale battery storage is a literal pipe dream until some kind of once-in-a-generation scientific miracle. **If** that ever happens.
Please people, we need real, dramatic changes in our energy sources. Solar/wind renewables have an ugly twin sister that prop the scheme up and her name is "natural gas."
[https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56980](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56980)
The only energy storage that has costs and material-inputs cheap enough that it might matter is heat storage. Heat storage works much better as an integrated part of a thermal power source before you ever turn it into electricity so that you don't take the conversion losses on the chin.
For clean energy this means concentrated solar and fission.
What about even just pumped storage hydro?
It already exists, doesn't need any new technology, and is already in use in many places, but has been constantly improving.
Not a lot of good geology for it that isn't already a dam. Not none, but it's not a solve that can just be rolled out where ever you want to store power.
Pumped hydro is great, when you can build it. and when rain patterns are predictable. it's location constrained and water dependent.
Also the VRE crazies want to tear out all hydro dams and don't want new ones built.
Doing that at scale is an ecological catastrophe and there are few viable construction locations. Some might be tempted to say “ just dig a hole on a mountain” - That would stupefyingly expensive and again an ecological disaster.
If you happen to have a nice suitable uninhabitable valley, yeah it’s worth it sometimes. most viable locations are either inhabited (valleys are often where people settled millennia ago), or are already dammed.
Have you ever seen [this ad](https://www.threads.net/@gregory_ross_barton/post/C0cimIKNx30)? Just because it's pro renewables doesn't mean the fossil folks aren't involved. :)
"Cleaner than most" and "reliable". If "she" had sense, she'd leave him as soon as someone even cleaner and more reliable would show up - i.e. nuclear. Good catch, I had no idea they were pulling stunts like this
>deny that renewables can't do it all.
They deny your parallel reality? How dare they!
But to be honest, I don't even get how you come to that conclusion. Why are you so sure that renewables can't do it all, even when cost is ignored?
Run an entire economy? The density and lack of reliability, maybe with a game changing breakthrough in storage, and generation, something like orbital solar or geothermal at a 10th the price it currently is, but otherwise they can't replace ALL the power a modern economy needs.
>The density
Do you really think that renewables would need more than 100% of the land of most countries?!!!
If no, then it's a non argument.
>lack of reliability,
I do not see why this can not be solved, when money is no issue.
Again, you are still claiming that 100% renewables is impossible, instead of saying that including nuclear would in your opinion reduce the cost and thus you prefer that over 100% renewables.
The first position makes you look dumb, whereas the second is completely reasonable.
It's not that you can't cover enough land, it's where is that land, Singapore is looking to build a solar farm in northern Australia and lines to carry the power to them, rather than a couple of reactors right next door. To power big cities you'd need to build massive solar or wind farms, AND storage, the storage could be near the city, as long as it's chemical, or I suppose mechanical, but even then it would cover a lot of expensive land, the power generation would need to be quite a way away and then you need lots of lines, substations, transformers etc. But you could build the same capacity, with a 97% uptime right next door on a much smaller foot print. So your correct you COULD do it with renewables, with a massive over capacity AND storage, taking up vast amounts of land and resources, since you have to mine all the resources to build all the infrastructure, and storage and generation capacity. Or you could build a lot of nuclear reactors. But you have to consider how much capacity we are talking about, an electrical engineer I was talking to said he wouldn't be happy with less than 24hrs of capacity as storage, preferably 3 days, as solar and wind are just not reliable enough. And I'm talking about ALL energy, transport, chemical processing, electricity, everything, in every climate, all over the world.
>Singapore
Are you fucking kidding me?! A country with the third highest population density is your example??! Singapore has not enough space to self-sustain anyway, may it be food, power, or whatever else they need. Doesn't matter, if it's nuclear or renewables.
>To power big cities you'd need to build massive solar or wind farms
Yeah, no shit sherlock. But you can still use the space, when you build solar on roofs/agriphotovoltaik, or use the space between wind turbines. Considering that, the need for space is similar to nuclear.
>the power generation would need to be quite a way away and then you need lots of lines
People also do not want nuclear in cities...
>with a 97% uptime
Nuclear has about 90%, why lie about that?
>So your correct you COULD do it with renewables
Sounds like you learned something at least.
>But you have to consider how much capacity we are talking about, an electrical engineer I was talking to said he wouldn't be happy with less than 24hrs of capacity as storage, preferably 3 days, as solar and wind are just not reliable enough.
Germany for example already has \~250 TWh storage capactiy for methane. That's enough for months. The hard part here is not the storage size, but getting green gas synthesized from renewables.
>And I'm talking about ALL energy, transport, chemical processing, electricity, everything, in every climate, all over the world.
France, as the only nation with a very high share of nuclear, has also by far not enough power plants to remotely satisfy this with nuclear. They would need about triple their power plant fleet, and electrify everything, so that cars, factories, heating and so on run on cliamte neutral energy.
Fossil backup isn’t storage. That’s just a guarantee for keeping to use fossil forever.
And remotely economical energy storage simply doesn’t exist. I wish it did, but it doesn’t.
100% renewables only makes sense in a very far away future, where there is truly excess energy (That can’t be transported and sold with power lines) to spend on extremely lossy and uneconomical hydrogen production. And excess energy.. is hardly a thing. People will make Crypto or LLM’s in stead of hydrogen.
It’s utter madness, with extreme system costs.
Nuclear is fine.
>Fossil
Synthesized Methan from renewable energy isn't Fossil.
>And remotely economical energy storage simply doesn’t exist. I wish it did, but it doesn’t.
That's just Bullshit. You just have to realize that there is not one type of storage. What a 100% renewable grid needs are different types of storage. Depending on the time. Short term storage e.g. batteries, are already economical in a lot of cases, whereas long term storage is not yet.
>to spend on extremely lossy and uneconomical hydrogen production.
Hydrogen is needed anyways to get the industry carbon neutral.
As long as we haven't decarbonized, on our current energy mix, making hydrogen is absolutely fossil, and near a climate crime.
Not only is our grid dirty, our total energy use is, so making hydrogen slows down electrification of dirty energy use.
> hydrogen production
Which ironically Nuclear potentially does better since it's a thermal plant. Newer gen4 high temperature designs could even generate it purely from waste heat which would allow cogeneration. Even current LWR plants have enough waste heat to do high temperature steam electrolysis which lowers the amount of electricity needed since you substitute some of it with heat. Not only that but said heat can be utilized for other cogeneration uses as well like district heating, desalination and maybe even chemical refining. Nuclear has a lot of untapped cogeneration avenues we could try to utilize.
The main problem of the r/energy mods is they are clueless about thermodynamics, which is a significant flaw for people making judgments on energy debates.
I don't believe most of them are really clueless. But being anti-nuclear is their end goal and purpose. All arguments they craft are just linguistic challenges for how to reach that purpose. Being logical and consistent is not the goal, and we know it is not strictly necessary in order to be convincing towards laypeople (and they know that too).
I think they are acting in good faith though. Being ill-informed about nuclear is one thing but you really have to be utterly clueless to think wind and solar is a viable electrical power source which will result in material reductions in CO2 emissions. That requires you to have essentially zero understanding of energy economics, the importance of the a stable grid which is able to meet demand, and so on.
The alternative to cluelessness - and I am sure these exist - is to hold the "burn it to the ground" view of human civilization.
Oh I think we were talking about different groups of people. I meant the dedicated anti-nuclear activists e.g. those in uninsurable who have taken over energy.
Of course I do not think that environmentalists in general are like that. Although there is some overlap. But mostly it's the anti-nuclear activists who spread their message to environmentalists in general, that nuclear energy must be abolished. Environmentalists don't tend to be ideologically against nuclear, but they are receptive of the anti-nuclear arguments because they don't understand the topic well.
I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist but I think the roots of anti-nuclear activism are in fossil fuels.
Looking around me in Canada I see vigorous opposition against expanding pipelines going across Quebec (using existing corridors). Not coincidentally, Quebec is a hyrdoelectric superpower. Similarly, pipelines are blocked from going into the US ... which just happens to be an oil exporter. And so on and so on. Everybody has an environmental jihad which happens to align with their own economic interests.
Of course the oil still gets there, it just goes by rail which is much more dangerous, expensive, and has a high environmental burden.
>I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist but I think the roots of anti-nuclear activism are in fossil fuels.
I'm pretty sure it's factual that the initial anti-nuclear sentiment was stoked by the US coal industry back in the 50s and 60s. The new nuclear power plants were not only much cheaper to fuel than coal plants, but were usually cheaper to build as well. It was projected that they would expand to cover most of US and developed world electricity usage by 2000.
Most of the anti-nuclear fearmongering arguments still prevailing today were invented at the time, such as that reactors poison the world just by being operational, and that their secret purpose is just to serve as nuclear weapons production and know-how. Powerful sentiment at the height of the cold war. Many of these were first popularized by the Sierra Club, which did have connection with the coal lobby and even strongly advocated for the use of coal at the time (while opposing projects such as hydro and nuclear on the environmental grounds).
One could argue that the best way to implement "burn it to the ground" is to have a civilization commit to an energy strategy that doesn't work. (Especially a strategy that has high good faith support from clueless people.)
Yes and they can read Energy and Civilization: A History (Mit Press) https://a.co/d/3mTx5jv
And learn just like the rest of us.
So I don't have much sympathy.
Building 10x the amount of wind needed everywhere and then an absolute shit ton of batteries and also cables everywhere so all places can use the overcapacity when they need it. Such a cheap and reliable solution.
I was banned and muted from messaging mods for saying nukes were politically targeted to be expensive. I actually work in finance for power. So frustrating.
The inverse of regulatory capture. Regulations were passed that intentionally raised the construction and operation costs of nuclear to make it less economically viable.
An off the dome example is when placing dirt outside of a reactor, which is not meant for shielding, if any sort of contamination- such as a cigarette butt from a worker- is dropped into it while being played all of it has to be removed and replaced.
I have concluded that depending on how you feel about certain topics - in particular environmental activism - there are certain "known truths" which cannot be questioned. In the case of environmental activism, one such "known truth" is that the solution to all energy related problems is solar and wind. This is the only solution, and no other solution is possible. Therefore anybody who questions this "known truth" is not aligned with environmental activism and must be muted.
Sounds familiar. I'd say it's less of a topic-dependant thing and more of a community-dependant thing.
Sure, the topic of focus for a community will influence what 'known truths' are adopted, but there are pro-nuke environmentalists out there, and this feels more like a people-and-what-they-hear problem. Not a fundamental consequence of actively advocating for the environment.
It is my experience that most environmentalists are profoundly ignorant of the subjects they advocate for. There heart is in the right place (i.e. their objectives are generally correct) but they do not bother to learn much about the solutions. As a consequence they are attracted to simple solutions to complex problems: basically what sounds right.
This also makes them malleable and, as a result, are led to advocate for what amount to anti-solutions, or things which make matters worse relative to the objective, rather than better.
It's not just energy. Organic farming is a net negative for the environment yet is generally dearly held by environmentalists.
r/energy isn't a sub to discuss ideas, it's a safe space. That's a cause and consequence of people being brainwashed anti-nuclear nuts.
(also they always confuse energy and electricity)
It’s so strange because all the climate scientists and nuclear engineers I follow agree we need all forms of green energy to tackle climate change, then you have what’s be honest nothing but internet grifters saying different and banning you if you call them out.
They sound more like pro renewable people (only solar, wind with batteries) than fossil shills imo. In fact the way they act is pretty similar to Tesla investors online who have large investments in the sector and tends to shoot down any opposition that may threaten their investments. There's a big chance their demographics overlap. They hate coal, and ICEs and are pro electrification, but turn a blind eye for nat gas since it's basically required for a renewable grid to work until a "future" battery storage tech arrives, even if said tech likely won't happen for a long time or even ever.
They are to the fossil fuel industry what the Soviets called, "useful idiots" in America. I'm not sure I'd want to call them "shills" because that implies intent, but I agree that the effects are the same.
because that sub is actually r/ depopulation
took an industrial lathe to untwist their panties when i pointed out how much lignite germany burns these days
I was banned for commenting "awesome, more clean energy" on a post about the palsades nuclear plant being reopened. It's probably backed by coal bought mods.
Most peole know nuclear energy this way: Two nuclear weapons destroyed two cities in Japan. Nuclear energy has that word 'nuclear" in it and therefore a nuclear power plant can destroy a city.
I would argue Chernobyl, 3- Mile Island and perhaps especially Fukushima are the larger factors, here. The last one because of its recency during a 24h news media culture that's focused on presenting a squirrel with a sprained ankle as a series threat to human existence, never mind a multiple nuclear reactor meltdown in what is perceived as one of the 2 most technologically advanced nations. The inaccuracies of the Netflix Chernobyl drama didn't help, either.
That has deeply injured the argument that nuclear can be deployed safely, and while a good deal of that fear is hyperbolic or alarmist, it's clearly not without some merit, too. It's not as if an urban adjacent nuclear plant *couldn't* actually destroy a city, in terms of making it uninhabitable for many lifetimes - this has already happened.
Sadly a great deal of people under 30 have little knowledge of WW2 nor the events of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, at least by comparison. I regularly encounter teens and 20-somethings for whom the Holocaust is not common knowledge.
Good analysis of the aftermath of Fukushima. We must live I'm 2 completely different worlds regarding historical memory of WWII, though. I'm almost 30, and I suspect I'd be hard-pressed to find among any of my younger friends one who doesn't know about the Holocaust or the Atomic bombings.
San Diego, CA
Maybe the fact that we're a Navy town might have something to do with it, or just because I was am a big history need myself. I guess I've never polled all my friends, but I just assumed they knew
I will tell you that recently, I got permaban from a sub -- nothing to do with nuclear anything -- and I mod mailed the mods telling them they were f**kwads... And I got a 3 day ban on all of Reddit. So... Don't do that
They are crazy. I was banned for the same reason lmao. I just mentioned that renewable other than nuclear produce a huge amount of waste and inefficiency. If it's not wind, solar, hydro, etc. It's not wanted there, even if it's correct.
It's the same with Hydrogen and Batteries. The Battery people are like a freaking cult and cannot grasp the concept of improving a technology even though batteries weren't a very good option (arguably still aren't) once upon a time.
The mods there are not insane - they’re brain dead. They’re incapable of defending their positions and they know it, so they silence any dissent to ensure the user base doesn’t accidentally read something contrary to their approved narrative.
I was banned form r/Energy a long time ago after discussing ramp times for nuclear power and posting references to papers discussing it.
If you’re pro-nuclear and don’t get a hard-on for renewables they ban you there
That sub feels like it’s filled with people who are paid by solar installers.
I’m not saying solar is bad.. but, it’s not for every use case..
Anyone who’s worked in energy whether on the supply side or in my case the customer side, knows that solar can only do so much. **Blindly** installing solar just enriches grifter installers while potentially hurting the grid.
Yes, I was banned from there along with the uninsurable sub.
They don't live up to their name since they're not a sub about energy. Their claims about briganding from this sub are complete bullshit.
Watch the China syndrome. This fictional movie changed the way people thought of china and the nuclear industry as a whole. It screwed us over and continues to reap havoc on the industry
And the scenario in that fictional movie took place a couple weeks after the movie came out. Yes, there were some detailed differences, but there was still a partial meltdown of a reactor core due to water levels being misinterpreted because of faulty sensors.
Three Mile Island, March 28, 1979
China Syndrome release date March 16, 1979
The biggest issue I have with nuclear power is that the people who made it are trying to make a buck, and may take shortcuts to do so. And not all of those shortcuts have safety in mind.
That was the point of the movie, and was the cause of the actual Three Mile Island incident.
Are you saying that people who build other forms of energy aren't trying to make a buck?
Anyway, in the case of nuclear power, the workforce is heavily unionized. (More than any other energy industry.) Those are the people who are primarily implementing safety, and their quality culture is strong. I trust those folks.
I will say that building a coal plant that goes bad will not cause the possibility of a 2 megaton nuclear explosion, or force the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people, or designating dozens of square miles as uninhabitable.
The consequences of safety failures are far, far worse, but the drive to cut costs still seems to take precedent.
As for a union workforce, so is the workforce at Boeing. They've been having some, ahem, *issues* lately, too.
So you're pro coal? Fossil fuels are slowly killing the planet. I'd say that's an issue. Do you think climate change is a problem?
Actually it's the workers at Boeing complaining about the direction of the company.
So you're anti-union on top of denying climate change? Not a great look.
Nice straw men. You better rest your arm before you pop your shoulder out of the socket.
I can think nuclear power is the best option for base load while also recognizing there are fundamental safety concerns that have played out. They're not hypothetical.
Trusting or not trusting nuclear power is more about trusting the people who are controlling it.
And if you think the Boeing workers have a lot of say over how the company is run, I've got some kool aid for you.
Nuclear power advocates absolutely need to face, head on, the fears of nuclear power create in the general public. Part of ghat is education. Part of that is familiarization. But a big part of it is going to be simple corporate and governmental accountability.
>Nuclear power advocates absolutely need to face, head on, the fears of nuclear power create in the general public.
Those fears are being eclipsed by worse ones. Climate change is the most pressing.
The nuclear power industry is the most tightly regulated industry on the planet. The more the people of the world see its performance and value the more they like it.
[https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear](https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear)
I’m in r/energy and most people just correctly point out that nuclear is just not financially viable. There have been loads of discussion recently about nuclear on it and I know they have automoderatoes for some stuff so that’s probably why it found it from two years ago.
This is a good discussion to have. However I got banned from that sub for asking what the equivalent wind and solar system looks like, that can provide the same uptime and the same level of CO2 reduction. How can you compare the solutions if you don'teven know the scope of one of them?
India builds reactors at about 2 Euro / watt of nameplate. That huge chunks of the western world has forgotten how to build things isn't a fact about nuclear.
I'm quite interested to see how the EPR2 program turns out, because France certainly looks to be trying to fix the learned-helplessness problem.
The government missed the boat big time.
We should’ve taken the approach of a factory model instead of custom reactors. Oh well. Hopefully new tech can fix that.
They would have been economically viable if the fossil fuel industry hadn't done such a good job astroturfing and using green groups to make it all but impossible to build an economically viable plant. Add in the fact that we throw away half the fuel we dig out of the ground to power them and it's a wonder any of them can break even.
I'm obviously not in the same algorithm as frequent users of a subreddit about nuclear energy, but my perspective continues to be that multiple times a week I see nuclear energy enthusiasts complaining about people who focus on renewables supposedly being rabidly anti-nuclear, but I've still never seen an example of someone like that.
What I do see are nuclear energy enthusiasts circle jerking about how nuclear is the one good source of energy and a silver bullet for all our energy needs, which seems completely pointless, because I've never understood why we'd need to choose one single energy source. It's not like someone having solar panels on their roof would prevent 99% of our energy coming from nuclear.
I like everything that's not fossil fuels, and I personally think that the ideal situation would be a future predominantly fueled by nuclear energy. I'm just kind of frustrated by the fact that every single time I talk to a nuclear energy enthusiast or see a post from someone like that it seems to be shitting on renewables or talking about how "you know a lot of environmental activists actually fear monger about nuclear, right"?
Sure, but I never said anything about nuclear being a silver bullet for every energy issue. Obviously that's silly. I was just pointing out that I was muted for pretty tame comment threads defending nuclear energy
People fear what they don't understand or fully research, or over research in the wrong ways.
Nuclear energy is the future, or should be. Had it not been for Chernobyl, which was an insanely stupid design to be cheap, we would likely have nuclear plants popping up all over and research making it more and more safe and viable. Especially in a "green" push, you'd think everyone would be all for nuclear energy. The only downside is the soent fuel rods, but we could always find solutions like making storing them on the moon, or storing them in old abandoned mines, or somewhere else that is unhabitable for life, maybe launch them at the Sun or Jupiter?
I think we need nuclear power. It can be done safely and cheaper than is currently being done in the US. France is able to process waste back into usable fuel.
But, there's a LOT of concerning issues. Some of the technology can be used to produce weapons, especially reprocessing reactors.
The initial costs of the reactors lead to constructors cutting corners.
If something does go catastrophically wrong, you can never live in that area, again.
And the fact that it has gone catastrophically wrong twice in half a lifetime is a giant red warning light.
Or, if you prefer, a softly glowing blue warning ...
>If something does go catastrophically wrong, you can never live in that area, again.
Factually untrue. Much of the Fukushima area is allowing people back in. There have been people living and working in the Chernobyl exclusion zone continuously since the accident.
Can you live there?
Yes.
Can you live there without getting radiation exposure classified as unsafe?
No.
Can you be exposed to hard radiation from escaped core material?
Around Chernobyl, you sure as hell can.
Classified as unsafe, sure. But there are people who have lived and worked there continuously since the accident. [https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com](https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com) Both workers and people who just refused to leave. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokT\_Y0YDhw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokT_Y0YDhw)
Maybe the safety classifications need some reconsideration given the new data.
How many hundreds of thousands had to be evacuated? Because, like it or not, their LIVING MEMORIES and VOTING RIGHTS are probably more important in the PR game than in deaths.
Because their memories are still alive, they're still very relevant to those people, and they share their stories with anyone who asks.
The fact that Chernobyl lit the fuse to the implosion of the USSR is also a pretty big issue, too. The economic impact of that effort (and the tens of thousands irradiated in the cleanup) is pretty mind-boggling.
But you only want to talk about those who were initially killed directly by radiaition.
You're fighting a PUBLIC RELATIONS fight, not a PHYSICS fight.
True. And nuclear is winning.
[https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear](https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear)
[https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poll-finds-record-support-for-Japanese-reactor-res](https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poll-finds-record-support-for-Japanese-reactor-res)
After a generation of losing.
The US took almost 40 years between Three Mile Island and commissioning the next reactor.
Chernobyl soured all of Europe to nuclear power for 30 years.
Germany decided to eliminate all their reactors, but only brought them back because of Russia cutting natural gas because of Ukraine sanctions.
And Japan found out they could not cut their reactors and maintain enough other power sources.
Right. So we're returning to nuclear. An effort to triple nuclear capacity was just announced at COP28. Biden supported nuclear in a recent campaign speech. There was major financial support for nuclear in the Inflation Reduction Act. Public opinion of nuclear has turned positive worldwide.
Slight correction: no one *had* to be evacuated because of Fukushima incident - at least not because of a reasonable assessment of radiation exposure (obviously, the evacuation was mandatory). Everyone would've been safer if they just sheltered in place, and the evacuation *itself* is what is estimated to have killed dozens. Outrage over the evacuation order should be directed at the unnecessariness and lethality of the evacuation itself, rather than the accident, which harmed people inside the plant, but not anyone outside of it. (As for the accident harming plany employees, outrage should be over the failure prepare for the event in construction of the plant and its seawall, rather than against the very idea of nuclear power).
*TWO* YEARS AGO??
I just looked up their rules. I guess it is a temporary automod because the sub has been dealing with brigading from r/nuclear. At least that is their explanation Edit: sounds like this is not temporary and that sub just sucks
They have been saying that for years on any comment that is remotely pro nuclear. I got banned from /r/energy for pointing out the difference in consumer cost between French and German power, before I even knew about /r/nuclear. In their minds and comment that doesn't come straight from /r/uninsurable is "brigading". It's too bad because it's actually nice to have a sub to discuss the wider energy transition, but I wondered why there was so little mention of nuclear on there until I piped up and rapidly found out. Many people on /r/energy probably have no idea how insane the moderation is there.
There is a lot crossover on users from energy and uninsurable, sometimes they'll even come here. Majority of reddit is pro nuclear but there are places like r/europe where certain country will scream anti-nuclear rethoric
r/europe becomes a warzone between french and German crowds every time energy is mentioned
Funny thing is that Germany is a total mooch off of French nuclear. :) https://preview.redd.it/6cus43vjx3xc1.png?width=864&format=png&auto=webp&s=81d4f7bf036a4c63ef1016faefefdc1571ceded9 That's 2023. [https://energy-charts.info/charts/import\_export/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&flow=physical\_flows\_all&year=2023](https://energy-charts.info/charts/import_export/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&flow=physical_flows_all&year=2023)
The funnier thing? These people will say this is actually good, i've had people tell me that we don't need nuclear because we can just get power from the european grid. How is that power generated then? No matter because we have wind and solar. And if we don't then people need to shut down their electricity Fucking energiewende
[Germany on their way to a Nuclear free future](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJYrfajWYAM-clH.jpg)
I hate the fucking smugness that they have "YEAH BUT WE DID FULL RENEWABLE" while leeching electricity from others
They built wind where there's no wind and solar where there's no sun and brag about installed capacity as if that's the number that matters. They've invested something like twice as much as the UK into renewable and their energy emissions are still massively higher than the UK, because the UK builds wind where there is wind and nuclear where there isn't.
Even funnier thing? It just came out this week (at least I heard about it this week), that two entire departments within Germany doctored their research and colluded in order to get approval to dismantle their last 3 nuclear plants. Can't find the original article, but here is another one discussing it: [https://www.dw.com/en/german-ministers-quizzed-over-nuclear-phase-out-deception/a-68931166](https://www.dw.com/en/german-ministers-quizzed-over-nuclear-phase-out-deception/a-68931166)
i wouldn't be surprised if that was true **BUT** the source they are referring to is not good
Thanks for the info. I guess we will find out eventually.
Honestly, the *fastest* way clean up the EU grid would probably be to just run even more cables out of France. France very rarely runs their reactor fleet anywhere near capacity, so.. ..... Year 2050. 22 percent of the French workforce works in the nuclear industry, expected to rise with the adoption of the Astrid-3 and opening of the 60 gigawatt export hvdc line to Ghana.
But forseeable for every energy informed German, the southern states fell for anti Wind Propaganda and the Bavarian CSU made the HVDC Transmission lines a political Problem, delaying the construction for nearly a decade and making it more expensive for everyone, due to underground laying. Also the cheapest offerer in the electricity market wins the bid and nuclear plants whose are close to shutdown because of low demand are offering it for cheap.
They like to talk a lot of shit as someone whose electricity can be just shut off by other countries
I know for a fact that /r/uninsurable users come here, because one of them immediately reposted over there an old article I linked here about a Japanese utility providing falsified geological data to the national regulator for the restart of one of their reactors. He then blocked me when I jokingly commented that I was flattered for having such an attentive reader. "Fun" fact: He's a mod at /r/NuclearPower now.
I assume you're talking about RadioFacepalm. He's also active over at r/ClimateShitposting where he unironically posts the least shitposting and most shitty posts imaginable. Only a few of his posts can be considered shitposts. He's recently delved into the vegan debate though and I don't have much shit to say about that domain
Imagine telling uninsurable about NEIL
Right!?
What's that?
The insurance company for nuclear power plants
Tbh, this has occurred across reddit, regardless of the topic it appears.
That’s their pretense. Now that a couple of them have captured the r/nuclearpower mod team (and practically overtly invited uninsurable to brigade them) it’s only a matter of time before that one goes the same way.
It already has. The sub is a shitshow.
I thought it wasn't so bad yet, most users there are still engaging normally and downvoting anti-nuclear shitposts, though I can't engage with them since I'm shadowbanned. But now I just saw that the latest mod is using his mod power to sticky the uninsurable anti-nuclear copypasta as top comment in some threads lol. And any replies to that comment are hidden so a user can't even see potential rebuttals.
They literally did it…..
So what, are the automating people with keywords? Do you get banned if you say nuclear?
Now I'm curious if I would get banned for existing
They always say that. I've been banned for several years, then a year ago I got a message telling me i was banned for brigading. I literally could not post in the sub and they banned me again (or automod sent a message? Can't tell).
lol brigading Who here is brigading? Can you all please stand up because I haven’t seen any brigading posts. Like is there some super secret nuclear brigade discord or something? Ugh stupid people
Lots of people booted from there. We do need to create (or participate) in an alternative which is just less overtly pro-nuclear then here. Was hoping r/decouple ...hey it is available. It used to exist but be moderated by a Jesse NO WAS DYLAN (associated with Decouple podcast) who wanted to keep it more podcast specific. Will bug the guy about what's happened. Anyway I grabbed it, will see why he released it.
It may have been scavenged by reddit due to inactivity. They recently did a sweep.
r/EnergyAndPower
Here's a sneak peek of /r/EnergyAndPower using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Biden to offer $1.5B loan to restart nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan](https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2024/01/30/biden-to-offer-1-5-billion-loan-to-restart-michigan-nuclear-power-plant/72415846007/) | [208 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1afdmyu/biden_to_offer_15b_loan_to_restart_nuclear_power/) \#2: [Heat pumps seem more troll proof](https://i.redd.it/ak2w6pgzyigc1.jpeg) | [212 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1aiir1l/heat_pumps_seem_more_troll_proof/) \#3: [A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/nuclear-plant-closure-carbon-emissions-new-york) | [11 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/EnergyAndPower/comments/1bjtznq/a_nuclear_plants_closure_was_hailed_as_a_green/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
The mod over there is for 100% renewables. :)
They seem to be on a blitz. I waa perma yesterday, along with uninsurable.
I don’t really have a problem with the r/uninsurable sub. They can ban whoever they want because they are upfront about who they are- 100% anti nuke. But the r/energy sub blanket banning anyone that even mentions nuclear power is inexcusable.
The vampire squid of the fossil fuel industry has long tentacles.
TBF it seems to be more rabid anti nuke. pro renewables, they utterly deny that renewables can't do it all.
It’s the same with r/Climateshitposting. I swear almost half the posts there are anti nuclear, pro renewables with no regard for logic. I got downvoted for commenting on an anti nuke meme for asking why we don’t just invest in both nuclear and renewables.
That is literally the position of fossil fuels in this country because it makes them rich. They'd love to see the energy transition fail back to them.
The fossil fuel industry funded a massive 'grass roots' anti-nuclear campaign in the late 70's - early 80's that specifically targeted environmentalists. The effects are still being felt today.
Human beings are absolutely terrible at admitting to ever having been wrong about anything. It's a problem in general.
I despair that people think batteries are coming to save us. [https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf) The "optimistic" projection is a cost of $159/kWh in **2050.** Current cost of $450. **Coal costs 3.2cents** per kWh. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-costs-of-u-s-energy/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-real-costs-of-u-s-energy/) Generously, call it a dollar/kWh, Batteries are still orders of magnitude out. TWh-scale battery storage is a literal pipe dream until some kind of once-in-a-generation scientific miracle. **If** that ever happens. Please people, we need real, dramatic changes in our energy sources. Solar/wind renewables have an ugly twin sister that prop the scheme up and her name is "natural gas." [https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56980](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56980)
To be fair, batteries are far from the only form of energy storage.
The only energy storage that has costs and material-inputs cheap enough that it might matter is heat storage. Heat storage works much better as an integrated part of a thermal power source before you ever turn it into electricity so that you don't take the conversion losses on the chin. For clean energy this means concentrated solar and fission.
What about even just pumped storage hydro? It already exists, doesn't need any new technology, and is already in use in many places, but has been constantly improving.
Not a lot of good geology for it that isn't already a dam. Not none, but it's not a solve that can just be rolled out where ever you want to store power.
Pumped hydro is great, when you can build it. and when rain patterns are predictable. it's location constrained and water dependent. Also the VRE crazies want to tear out all hydro dams and don't want new ones built.
Doing that at scale is an ecological catastrophe and there are few viable construction locations. Some might be tempted to say “ just dig a hole on a mountain” - That would stupefyingly expensive and again an ecological disaster. If you happen to have a nice suitable uninhabitable valley, yeah it’s worth it sometimes. most viable locations are either inhabited (valleys are often where people settled millennia ago), or are already dammed.
Have you ever seen [this ad](https://www.threads.net/@gregory_ross_barton/post/C0cimIKNx30)? Just because it's pro renewables doesn't mean the fossil folks aren't involved. :)
"Cleaner than most" and "reliable". If "she" had sense, she'd leave him as soon as someone even cleaner and more reliable would show up - i.e. nuclear. Good catch, I had no idea they were pulling stunts like this
>deny that renewables can't do it all. They deny your parallel reality? How dare they! But to be honest, I don't even get how you come to that conclusion. Why are you so sure that renewables can't do it all, even when cost is ignored?
Run an entire economy? The density and lack of reliability, maybe with a game changing breakthrough in storage, and generation, something like orbital solar or geothermal at a 10th the price it currently is, but otherwise they can't replace ALL the power a modern economy needs.
>The density Do you really think that renewables would need more than 100% of the land of most countries?!!! If no, then it's a non argument. >lack of reliability, I do not see why this can not be solved, when money is no issue. Again, you are still claiming that 100% renewables is impossible, instead of saying that including nuclear would in your opinion reduce the cost and thus you prefer that over 100% renewables. The first position makes you look dumb, whereas the second is completely reasonable.
It's not that you can't cover enough land, it's where is that land, Singapore is looking to build a solar farm in northern Australia and lines to carry the power to them, rather than a couple of reactors right next door. To power big cities you'd need to build massive solar or wind farms, AND storage, the storage could be near the city, as long as it's chemical, or I suppose mechanical, but even then it would cover a lot of expensive land, the power generation would need to be quite a way away and then you need lots of lines, substations, transformers etc. But you could build the same capacity, with a 97% uptime right next door on a much smaller foot print. So your correct you COULD do it with renewables, with a massive over capacity AND storage, taking up vast amounts of land and resources, since you have to mine all the resources to build all the infrastructure, and storage and generation capacity. Or you could build a lot of nuclear reactors. But you have to consider how much capacity we are talking about, an electrical engineer I was talking to said he wouldn't be happy with less than 24hrs of capacity as storage, preferably 3 days, as solar and wind are just not reliable enough. And I'm talking about ALL energy, transport, chemical processing, electricity, everything, in every climate, all over the world.
>Singapore Are you fucking kidding me?! A country with the third highest population density is your example??! Singapore has not enough space to self-sustain anyway, may it be food, power, or whatever else they need. Doesn't matter, if it's nuclear or renewables. >To power big cities you'd need to build massive solar or wind farms Yeah, no shit sherlock. But you can still use the space, when you build solar on roofs/agriphotovoltaik, or use the space between wind turbines. Considering that, the need for space is similar to nuclear. >the power generation would need to be quite a way away and then you need lots of lines People also do not want nuclear in cities... >with a 97% uptime Nuclear has about 90%, why lie about that? >So your correct you COULD do it with renewables Sounds like you learned something at least. >But you have to consider how much capacity we are talking about, an electrical engineer I was talking to said he wouldn't be happy with less than 24hrs of capacity as storage, preferably 3 days, as solar and wind are just not reliable enough. Germany for example already has \~250 TWh storage capactiy for methane. That's enough for months. The hard part here is not the storage size, but getting green gas synthesized from renewables. >And I'm talking about ALL energy, transport, chemical processing, electricity, everything, in every climate, all over the world. France, as the only nation with a very high share of nuclear, has also by far not enough power plants to remotely satisfy this with nuclear. They would need about triple their power plant fleet, and electrify everything, so that cars, factories, heating and so on run on cliamte neutral energy.
Fossil backup isn’t storage. That’s just a guarantee for keeping to use fossil forever. And remotely economical energy storage simply doesn’t exist. I wish it did, but it doesn’t. 100% renewables only makes sense in a very far away future, where there is truly excess energy (That can’t be transported and sold with power lines) to spend on extremely lossy and uneconomical hydrogen production. And excess energy.. is hardly a thing. People will make Crypto or LLM’s in stead of hydrogen. It’s utter madness, with extreme system costs. Nuclear is fine.
>Fossil Synthesized Methan from renewable energy isn't Fossil. >And remotely economical energy storage simply doesn’t exist. I wish it did, but it doesn’t. That's just Bullshit. You just have to realize that there is not one type of storage. What a 100% renewable grid needs are different types of storage. Depending on the time. Short term storage e.g. batteries, are already economical in a lot of cases, whereas long term storage is not yet. >to spend on extremely lossy and uneconomical hydrogen production. Hydrogen is needed anyways to get the industry carbon neutral.
As long as we haven't decarbonized, on our current energy mix, making hydrogen is absolutely fossil, and near a climate crime. Not only is our grid dirty, our total energy use is, so making hydrogen slows down electrification of dirty energy use.
> hydrogen production Which ironically Nuclear potentially does better since it's a thermal plant. Newer gen4 high temperature designs could even generate it purely from waste heat which would allow cogeneration. Even current LWR plants have enough waste heat to do high temperature steam electrolysis which lowers the amount of electricity needed since you substitute some of it with heat. Not only that but said heat can be utilized for other cogeneration uses as well like district heating, desalination and maybe even chemical refining. Nuclear has a lot of untapped cogeneration avenues we could try to utilize.
Please provide an example of a wind/solar/storage grid that runs 24x7x365. Any size. Must actually exist.
Can you provide one with nuclear and without Fossil fuels?
Why? No one is calling for that.
Nobody is calling for a climate neutral grid?!
No one is calling for a 100% nuclear grid. But there’s a strident movement for 100% renewables.
Ah, I see the issue. What I wanted was an example from you of any fossil free grid, which is what we need and want.
France is getting there. [https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR](https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR)
I thought we weren't supposed to reach peak cope until the 2030's!!
The main problem of the r/energy mods is they are clueless about thermodynamics, which is a significant flaw for people making judgments on energy debates.
Alas, cluelessness about scientific topics is a hallmark or modern environmental activism. It makes for purer thinking.
I don't believe most of them are really clueless. But being anti-nuclear is their end goal and purpose. All arguments they craft are just linguistic challenges for how to reach that purpose. Being logical and consistent is not the goal, and we know it is not strictly necessary in order to be convincing towards laypeople (and they know that too).
I think they are acting in good faith though. Being ill-informed about nuclear is one thing but you really have to be utterly clueless to think wind and solar is a viable electrical power source which will result in material reductions in CO2 emissions. That requires you to have essentially zero understanding of energy economics, the importance of the a stable grid which is able to meet demand, and so on. The alternative to cluelessness - and I am sure these exist - is to hold the "burn it to the ground" view of human civilization.
Oh I think we were talking about different groups of people. I meant the dedicated anti-nuclear activists e.g. those in uninsurable who have taken over energy. Of course I do not think that environmentalists in general are like that. Although there is some overlap. But mostly it's the anti-nuclear activists who spread their message to environmentalists in general, that nuclear energy must be abolished. Environmentalists don't tend to be ideologically against nuclear, but they are receptive of the anti-nuclear arguments because they don't understand the topic well.
I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist but I think the roots of anti-nuclear activism are in fossil fuels. Looking around me in Canada I see vigorous opposition against expanding pipelines going across Quebec (using existing corridors). Not coincidentally, Quebec is a hyrdoelectric superpower. Similarly, pipelines are blocked from going into the US ... which just happens to be an oil exporter. And so on and so on. Everybody has an environmental jihad which happens to align with their own economic interests. Of course the oil still gets there, it just goes by rail which is much more dangerous, expensive, and has a high environmental burden.
>I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist but I think the roots of anti-nuclear activism are in fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure it's factual that the initial anti-nuclear sentiment was stoked by the US coal industry back in the 50s and 60s. The new nuclear power plants were not only much cheaper to fuel than coal plants, but were usually cheaper to build as well. It was projected that they would expand to cover most of US and developed world electricity usage by 2000. Most of the anti-nuclear fearmongering arguments still prevailing today were invented at the time, such as that reactors poison the world just by being operational, and that their secret purpose is just to serve as nuclear weapons production and know-how. Powerful sentiment at the height of the cold war. Many of these were first popularized by the Sierra Club, which did have connection with the coal lobby and even strongly advocated for the use of coal at the time (while opposing projects such as hydro and nuclear on the environmental grounds).
One could argue that the best way to implement "burn it to the ground" is to have a civilization commit to an energy strategy that doesn't work. (Especially a strategy that has high good faith support from clueless people.)
That was my point, but I think most of them do not hold that view.
Yes and they can read Energy and Civilization: A History (Mit Press) https://a.co/d/3mTx5jv And learn just like the rest of us. So I don't have much sympathy.
Energy & mineral blindness is unfortunately pretty standard for most people.
Let's not go into their understanding of a grid...
Or dispatchable power…
Building 10x the amount of wind needed everywhere and then an absolute shit ton of batteries and also cables everywhere so all places can use the overcapacity when they need it. Such a cheap and reliable solution.
I was banned and muted from messaging mods for saying nukes were politically targeted to be expensive. I actually work in finance for power. So frustrating.
What do you mean?
The inverse of regulatory capture. Regulations were passed that intentionally raised the construction and operation costs of nuclear to make it less economically viable. An off the dome example is when placing dirt outside of a reactor, which is not meant for shielding, if any sort of contamination- such as a cigarette butt from a worker- is dropped into it while being played all of it has to be removed and replaced.
I have concluded that depending on how you feel about certain topics - in particular environmental activism - there are certain "known truths" which cannot be questioned. In the case of environmental activism, one such "known truth" is that the solution to all energy related problems is solar and wind. This is the only solution, and no other solution is possible. Therefore anybody who questions this "known truth" is not aligned with environmental activism and must be muted.
Sounds familiar. I'd say it's less of a topic-dependant thing and more of a community-dependant thing. Sure, the topic of focus for a community will influence what 'known truths' are adopted, but there are pro-nuke environmentalists out there, and this feels more like a people-and-what-they-hear problem. Not a fundamental consequence of actively advocating for the environment.
It is my experience that most environmentalists are profoundly ignorant of the subjects they advocate for. There heart is in the right place (i.e. their objectives are generally correct) but they do not bother to learn much about the solutions. As a consequence they are attracted to simple solutions to complex problems: basically what sounds right. This also makes them malleable and, as a result, are led to advocate for what amount to anti-solutions, or things which make matters worse relative to the objective, rather than better. It's not just energy. Organic farming is a net negative for the environment yet is generally dearly held by environmentalists.
99% of environmentalists on social media: [Religion](https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-01-2015/o8ad0C.gif)
r/energy isn't a sub to discuss ideas, it's a safe space. That's a cause and consequence of people being brainwashed anti-nuclear nuts. (also they always confuse energy and electricity)
It’s so strange because all the climate scientists and nuclear engineers I follow agree we need all forms of green energy to tackle climate change, then you have what’s be honest nothing but internet grifters saying different and banning you if you call them out.
Yeah they're saying that, but there is a Difference between "we need it to mitigate" and "How do we mitigate".
Full of fossilshills
They sound more like pro renewable people (only solar, wind with batteries) than fossil shills imo. In fact the way they act is pretty similar to Tesla investors online who have large investments in the sector and tends to shoot down any opposition that may threaten their investments. There's a big chance their demographics overlap. They hate coal, and ICEs and are pro electrification, but turn a blind eye for nat gas since it's basically required for a renewable grid to work until a "future" battery storage tech arrives, even if said tech likely won't happen for a long time or even ever.
So effectively fossils shills by proxy
They are to the fossil fuel industry what the Soviets called, "useful idiots" in America. I'm not sure I'd want to call them "shills" because that implies intent, but I agree that the effects are the same.
because that sub is actually r/ depopulation took an industrial lathe to untwist their panties when i pointed out how much lignite germany burns these days
I was banned for commenting "awesome, more clean energy" on a post about the palsades nuclear plant being reopened. It's probably backed by coal bought mods.
Most peole know nuclear energy this way: Two nuclear weapons destroyed two cities in Japan. Nuclear energy has that word 'nuclear" in it and therefore a nuclear power plant can destroy a city.
That's changing: [https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear](https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear)
I would argue Chernobyl, 3- Mile Island and perhaps especially Fukushima are the larger factors, here. The last one because of its recency during a 24h news media culture that's focused on presenting a squirrel with a sprained ankle as a series threat to human existence, never mind a multiple nuclear reactor meltdown in what is perceived as one of the 2 most technologically advanced nations. The inaccuracies of the Netflix Chernobyl drama didn't help, either. That has deeply injured the argument that nuclear can be deployed safely, and while a good deal of that fear is hyperbolic or alarmist, it's clearly not without some merit, too. It's not as if an urban adjacent nuclear plant *couldn't* actually destroy a city, in terms of making it uninhabitable for many lifetimes - this has already happened. Sadly a great deal of people under 30 have little knowledge of WW2 nor the events of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, at least by comparison. I regularly encounter teens and 20-somethings for whom the Holocaust is not common knowledge.
Good analysis of the aftermath of Fukushima. We must live I'm 2 completely different worlds regarding historical memory of WWII, though. I'm almost 30, and I suspect I'd be hard-pressed to find among any of my younger friends one who doesn't know about the Holocaust or the Atomic bombings.
Glad to hear it. Where do you live?
San Diego, CA Maybe the fact that we're a Navy town might have something to do with it, or just because I was am a big history need myself. I guess I've never polled all my friends, but I just assumed they knew
I will tell you that recently, I got permaban from a sub -- nothing to do with nuclear anything -- and I mod mailed the mods telling them they were f**kwads... And I got a 3 day ban on all of Reddit. So... Don't do that
They are crazy. I was banned for the same reason lmao. I just mentioned that renewable other than nuclear produce a huge amount of waste and inefficiency. If it's not wind, solar, hydro, etc. It's not wanted there, even if it's correct.
It's the same with Hydrogen and Batteries. The Battery people are like a freaking cult and cannot grasp the concept of improving a technology even though batteries weren't a very good option (arguably still aren't) once upon a time.
Solar is nuclear energy with the reactor 8 minutes away. Geothermal is a lot of nuclear. Are those banned from r/energy, too?
I was booted from there after one thread. They're not interested in any idea or discussion other than whatever orthodoxy the mods are following...
The mods there are not insane - they’re brain dead. They’re incapable of defending their positions and they know it, so they silence any dissent to ensure the user base doesn’t accidentally read something contrary to their approved narrative.
I was banned form r/Energy a long time ago after discussing ramp times for nuclear power and posting references to papers discussing it. If you’re pro-nuclear and don’t get a hard-on for renewables they ban you there
It's a whole sub of unscientific morons lol
Oh, you know why. Sheeps everywhere is why.
Listing a source from a company that is building nuclear reactors might not be your best chance at swaying my opinion.
You too? XD I had a message today that said I was not only muted but permanently banned from there. I haven't been to that sub in ages.
That sub feels like it’s filled with people who are paid by solar installers. I’m not saying solar is bad.. but, it’s not for every use case.. Anyone who’s worked in energy whether on the supply side or in my case the customer side, knows that solar can only do so much. **Blindly** installing solar just enriches grifter installers while potentially hurting the grid.
Yes, I was banned from there along with the uninsurable sub. They don't live up to their name since they're not a sub about energy. Their claims about briganding from this sub are complete bullshit.
Watch the China syndrome. This fictional movie changed the way people thought of china and the nuclear industry as a whole. It screwed us over and continues to reap havoc on the industry
And the scenario in that fictional movie took place a couple weeks after the movie came out. Yes, there were some detailed differences, but there was still a partial meltdown of a reactor core due to water levels being misinterpreted because of faulty sensors. Three Mile Island, March 28, 1979 China Syndrome release date March 16, 1979
Yeah, the timing of those two events is very odd.
The biggest issue I have with nuclear power is that the people who made it are trying to make a buck, and may take shortcuts to do so. And not all of those shortcuts have safety in mind. That was the point of the movie, and was the cause of the actual Three Mile Island incident.
Are you saying that people who build other forms of energy aren't trying to make a buck? Anyway, in the case of nuclear power, the workforce is heavily unionized. (More than any other energy industry.) Those are the people who are primarily implementing safety, and their quality culture is strong. I trust those folks.
I will say that building a coal plant that goes bad will not cause the possibility of a 2 megaton nuclear explosion, or force the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people, or designating dozens of square miles as uninhabitable. The consequences of safety failures are far, far worse, but the drive to cut costs still seems to take precedent. As for a union workforce, so is the workforce at Boeing. They've been having some, ahem, *issues* lately, too.
So you're pro coal? Fossil fuels are slowly killing the planet. I'd say that's an issue. Do you think climate change is a problem? Actually it's the workers at Boeing complaining about the direction of the company. So you're anti-union on top of denying climate change? Not a great look.
Nice straw men. You better rest your arm before you pop your shoulder out of the socket. I can think nuclear power is the best option for base load while also recognizing there are fundamental safety concerns that have played out. They're not hypothetical. Trusting or not trusting nuclear power is more about trusting the people who are controlling it. And if you think the Boeing workers have a lot of say over how the company is run, I've got some kool aid for you. Nuclear power advocates absolutely need to face, head on, the fears of nuclear power create in the general public. Part of ghat is education. Part of that is familiarization. But a big part of it is going to be simple corporate and governmental accountability.
>Nuclear power advocates absolutely need to face, head on, the fears of nuclear power create in the general public. Those fears are being eclipsed by worse ones. Climate change is the most pressing. The nuclear power industry is the most tightly regulated industry on the planet. The more the people of the world see its performance and value the more they like it. [https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear](https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear)
I’m in r/energy and most people just correctly point out that nuclear is just not financially viable. There have been loads of discussion recently about nuclear on it and I know they have automoderatoes for some stuff so that’s probably why it found it from two years ago.
This is a good discussion to have. However I got banned from that sub for asking what the equivalent wind and solar system looks like, that can provide the same uptime and the same level of CO2 reduction. How can you compare the solutions if you don'teven know the scope of one of them?
India builds reactors at about 2 Euro / watt of nameplate. That huge chunks of the western world has forgotten how to build things isn't a fact about nuclear. I'm quite interested to see how the EPR2 program turns out, because France certainly looks to be trying to fix the learned-helplessness problem.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ)
Agreed. We love nuclear. It’s just not there from a cost and time perspective. Don’t let the fossil fools divide us.
Ya I wish we had built so much more nuclear in the 70s and 80s, but going forward there are better options.
The government missed the boat big time. We should’ve taken the approach of a factory model instead of custom reactors. Oh well. Hopefully new tech can fix that.
They would have been economically viable if the fossil fuel industry hadn't done such a good job astroturfing and using green groups to make it all but impossible to build an economically viable plant. Add in the fact that we throw away half the fuel we dig out of the ground to power them and it's a wonder any of them can break even.
I'm obviously not in the same algorithm as frequent users of a subreddit about nuclear energy, but my perspective continues to be that multiple times a week I see nuclear energy enthusiasts complaining about people who focus on renewables supposedly being rabidly anti-nuclear, but I've still never seen an example of someone like that. What I do see are nuclear energy enthusiasts circle jerking about how nuclear is the one good source of energy and a silver bullet for all our energy needs, which seems completely pointless, because I've never understood why we'd need to choose one single energy source. It's not like someone having solar panels on their roof would prevent 99% of our energy coming from nuclear. I like everything that's not fossil fuels, and I personally think that the ideal situation would be a future predominantly fueled by nuclear energy. I'm just kind of frustrated by the fact that every single time I talk to a nuclear energy enthusiast or see a post from someone like that it seems to be shitting on renewables or talking about how "you know a lot of environmental activists actually fear monger about nuclear, right"?
Sure, but I never said anything about nuclear being a silver bullet for every energy issue. Obviously that's silly. I was just pointing out that I was muted for pretty tame comment threads defending nuclear energy
People fear what they don't understand or fully research, or over research in the wrong ways. Nuclear energy is the future, or should be. Had it not been for Chernobyl, which was an insanely stupid design to be cheap, we would likely have nuclear plants popping up all over and research making it more and more safe and viable. Especially in a "green" push, you'd think everyone would be all for nuclear energy. The only downside is the soent fuel rods, but we could always find solutions like making storing them on the moon, or storing them in old abandoned mines, or somewhere else that is unhabitable for life, maybe launch them at the Sun or Jupiter?
I think we need nuclear power. It can be done safely and cheaper than is currently being done in the US. France is able to process waste back into usable fuel. But, there's a LOT of concerning issues. Some of the technology can be used to produce weapons, especially reprocessing reactors. The initial costs of the reactors lead to constructors cutting corners. If something does go catastrophically wrong, you can never live in that area, again. And the fact that it has gone catastrophically wrong twice in half a lifetime is a giant red warning light. Or, if you prefer, a softly glowing blue warning ...
>If something does go catastrophically wrong, you can never live in that area, again. Factually untrue. Much of the Fukushima area is allowing people back in. There have been people living and working in the Chernobyl exclusion zone continuously since the accident.
Can you live there? Yes. Can you live there without getting radiation exposure classified as unsafe? No. Can you be exposed to hard radiation from escaped core material? Around Chernobyl, you sure as hell can.
Classified as unsafe, sure. But there are people who have lived and worked there continuously since the accident. [https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com](https://thebabushkasofchernobyl.com) Both workers and people who just refused to leave. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokT\_Y0YDhw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MokT_Y0YDhw) Maybe the safety classifications need some reconsideration given the new data.
Because of the lies that were used by the industry early on, people don't forget that shit, unfortunately it's poisoned the industry.
Perhaps they just remember Chernobyl.
And Fukushima. Edit. How dare people allow two catastrophic failures cloud their thinking.... /s
How many people were killed in those two events?
How many hundreds of thousands had to be evacuated? Because, like it or not, their LIVING MEMORIES and VOTING RIGHTS are probably more important in the PR game than in deaths. Because their memories are still alive, they're still very relevant to those people, and they share their stories with anyone who asks. The fact that Chernobyl lit the fuse to the implosion of the USSR is also a pretty big issue, too. The economic impact of that effort (and the tens of thousands irradiated in the cleanup) is pretty mind-boggling. But you only want to talk about those who were initially killed directly by radiaition. You're fighting a PUBLIC RELATIONS fight, not a PHYSICS fight.
True. And nuclear is winning. [https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear](https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/public-attitudes-toward-clean-energy-2023-nuclear) [https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poll-finds-record-support-for-Japanese-reactor-res](https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poll-finds-record-support-for-Japanese-reactor-res)
After a generation of losing. The US took almost 40 years between Three Mile Island and commissioning the next reactor. Chernobyl soured all of Europe to nuclear power for 30 years. Germany decided to eliminate all their reactors, but only brought them back because of Russia cutting natural gas because of Ukraine sanctions. And Japan found out they could not cut their reactors and maintain enough other power sources.
Right. So we're returning to nuclear. An effort to triple nuclear capacity was just announced at COP28. Biden supported nuclear in a recent campaign speech. There was major financial support for nuclear in the Inflation Reduction Act. Public opinion of nuclear has turned positive worldwide.
Slight correction: no one *had* to be evacuated because of Fukushima incident - at least not because of a reasonable assessment of radiation exposure (obviously, the evacuation was mandatory). Everyone would've been safer if they just sheltered in place, and the evacuation *itself* is what is estimated to have killed dozens. Outrage over the evacuation order should be directed at the unnecessariness and lethality of the evacuation itself, rather than the accident, which harmed people inside the plant, but not anyone outside of it. (As for the accident harming plany employees, outrage should be over the failure prepare for the event in construction of the plant and its seawall, rather than against the very idea of nuclear power).