Anonymous #3 1w

Why do you think nuclear energy is not a good long term solution?

3

Anonymous #6 1w

not to say i dont like nuclear because i do, but solar is the fastest growing renewable for a reason

2

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s expensive and we have no long-term strategy to deal with waste once we’re done with it. Continuing to build nuclear power plants without a plan to deal with the waste they produce is incredibly short-sighted.

-1

Anonymous #3 1w

You’re just factually wrong on long-term storage of waste, we have extremely robust systems in place for waste storage, that are exceedingly safe.

3

Anonymous #7 1w

We don’t have a permanent storage facility anywhere on earth, that’s just not true

-1

Anonymous #3 1w

Again, you’re wrong. In a couple weeks/months, Finland will be opening a facility capable of permanently storing 6500 tons of nuclear waste in stable bedrock. This facility uses the KBS-3 methodology, which is highly effective.

2

Anonymous #3 1w

the main reason we don’t see much development of permanent facilities is that they’re largely unnecessary. The entire US produces about 6 shipping containers of waste per year, and current encapsulation methodologies are extremely effective.

2

Anonymous #6 1w

Solar is really inefficient and not suited for powering large facilities. I’m all for building solar panels to power a building, car or battery. But when it comes to fueling a town or city, the energy density of nuclear material makes nuclear power a far better solution.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

this is becoming less of an issue as battery tech gets better and capacity increases. i agree with nuclear, i just think its a losing battle at least for now, especially when many places are willing to adopt solar

1

Anonymous #3 1w

The thing is, nuclear power plants produce very little waste compared to their output. Over the last 75 years we’ve had them operate, US plants have only produced enough waste to barely a football field. As of 2024, the US produced 2k tons of nuclear waste. So we’re not dealing with much waste and private disposal has proven more than sufficient for our purposes. Besides, higher level byproducts can be reprocessed into fuel through breeder reactors.

6

Anonymous #6 1w

It doesn’t matter how effective batteries become, that just stretches when we can use solar derived energy. Nuclear fission will always have a higher energy density than solar, meaning we can get more power from less stuff. For example, to produce a similar amount of power as a commercial reactor, you would need more than three million solar panels and 75x the space. Battery advances wouldn’t change the gap in energy production.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

sure i agree with all the technical arguments about why nuclear is better. im just saying that right now it seems like the world just isnt ready for it and in place of it solar is the dominant renewable right now and will likely continue to be dominant

1

Anonymous #6 1w

I’m glad we agree technically. I’d challenge your second statement though. With the rise in AI tech and this current administration’s stance on nuclear energy, the US has significantly warmed to the idea of nuclear power. We’re even planning to install a reactor on the moon and create a nuclear powered rocket in the next few years. As of now, the US seems more than ready for nuclear power and I don’t think solar will enjoy higher yield roles for long

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Permanent facilities are incredibly necessary, they’re just politically unpopular to build. Nuclear waste can be dangerous for thousands of years, if we don’t have a plan for dealing with it we’re just kicking the can down the road for future generations to deal with (which is exactly what happened with fossil fuels).

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The quantity of waste doesn’t matter, it needs to be accounted for and have a long term management plan regardless of how much there is

1

Anonymous #3 1w

What do you mean by permanent facility? Because we have extremely safe, proven methodologies for long term storage of nuclear waste above ground, it’s the development of underground storage facilities that’s not super common, though Finland is an example of one such facility

1

Anonymous #3 1w

The difference you’re glossing over is the quantity because yes, the amount does matter. Fossil fuels waste is an issue because of the sheer amount that piled up over a relatively small period became overwhelming. Nuclear waste is different because the volume is extremely small, contained, and monitored. That doesn’t mean long-term storage shouldn’t exist, but it does mean the scale and urgency of the problem are low, meaning we can afford to push the issue of permanent storage off

0

Anonymous #3 1w

Furthermore, the problem with long-term storage facilities like the proposed Yucca Mountain one is that they rapidly reach capacity, at which point another, very costly one, must be constructed. Our current model, while not ideal for longer periods, is far more flexible and readily-adjusted to meet waste storage needs.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

All of the “long-term storage facilities” you’re talking about require some degree of human maintenance, which isn’t a permanent solution considering we probably won’t be around by the time it reaches safe levels. The one in Finland is an exception, but it can’t handle all nuclear waste on Earth.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The scale and urgency of global warming was also low, until it wasn’t. When we refuse to address compounding problems, we’re guaranteeing that they’ll get worse

1

Anonymous #3 1w

They don’t really require human maintenance though, our current encapsulation methodologies are extremely robust and designed with exactly this kind of longevity in mind. In dry casks, you basically just let it sit there.

2

Anonymous #3 1w

Once again you’re mismatching two very different issues. Global warming is a very large scale problem exacerbated by high waste production. On the other hand, nuclear fission products are relatively low, concentrated, and easily containable in depots already secure and radiation safe. Frankly, nuclear waste is minimal. We do need to consider long term storage, but as I said it is not a pressing issue nor should it prevent us from using nuclear power.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

Global warming is a large-scale problem BECAUSE we let it get large. We’ve known about the impacts of fossil fuels for decades. If we had taken action 50 years ago before it became a major issue, we wouldn’t be facing many of the problems we are today. They didn’t do that because it wasn’t a major issue at the time, which is exactly what we’re doing with nuclear waste today.

1