I used to be very bullish on nuclear power, but after Fukushima I have become much more dubious (not to mention the current state of nuclear waste disposal).

What I was told was the case was that a modern reactor was incapable of failing in the way that Chernobyl failed. And that all modern reactors were designed to fail safe, so even if things did go awry, the reaction would stop because of structural constraints. Then Fukushima failed, and the story changed; that particular reactor was not designed for the particular disaster that struck, and did not fail safe.

I live near three nuclear plants (Indian Point, Tom's River, and Limerick), all of which are huge producers of cheap power for the grid. But what assurance do I have that these plants are not susceptible to a catastrophic failure due to some unexpected event? The answer is that I do not have the information to judge, but I have no reason to believe that they are resistant to local low-probability events than the residents around Fukushima did.

If someone were to try to build a new nuclear plant anywhere near me, I would oppose it as much as I could because I no longer have faith that the engineers designing these plants have taken sufficient precautions.

Nuclear is a source of energy, fossil fuels are both a source and a compact & relatively lightweight means of packaging it. Purely electric-powered cars have only relatively recently become viable for general use, and it's still not viable for aircraft. Building nuclear power plants doesn't solve that problem on its own.

Not super viable though, as it's more expensive than renewables and the Western world no longer seems to be able to complete construction within 2x of dollar budget, or 1.5x of schedule. That's a huge problem on a reactor that's supposed to only take $10B and 5-7years.

If we started planning a new nuclear reactor in the US today, by the time it completed, a wind farm with 3+ days of storage attached will be cheaper than that nuclear plant.

Nuclear's days are done. We could have avoided massive amounts of CO2 emissions if we had been able to build them in the 80s (which is a pig-headed and poorly innovating industry's fault just as much as anti-nukers), but we can't go back in time unfortunately.

The problem with nuclear plants is approval time, and that takes forever and a half because nobody wants one in their backyard. When one does get approved everyone dogpiles on it trying to get concessions.

Nuclear isn't done, it's just having a PR problem.

That’s simply untrue. Look at VC Summer and Vogtle, both approved, both with willing and suppprtive neighbors. One abandoned at a cost of $7-$10B, the other at 2x budget with more cost overruns likely.

Well, when they're the subject of a federal racketeering lawsuit, this could very well have been a casino or a stadium.

You're ignoring the fact that spent nuclear fuel storage is still a long-term problem.

Perhaps, but it's an orders of magnitude smaller problem than climate change promises to be.

It is - but anyone who thinks that it can be solved right now for all eternity is a fool - all we can do it keep it stable for 500 years (which is doable) and then let our descendants figure it out from there.

We can't assume that advanced civilization will survive another 500 years. There's a whole art project dedicated to the problem of how we communicate to our stone-knives-and-bearskins descendants that the place where we put the nuclear waste is bad and not to be trod on.

I think thats actually a worthy goal, presume the worst, hope for the best. But still, its safe to presume that we have a better than 80% odd of having an advanced civilization still in 100-500 years, when newer, more advanced technology may be able to mitigate to stabilize the problem better. If not, those warning signs for cave men saying "keep away" will probably be helpful. Either way, the costs of continuing to burn fossil fuels is very high - I can't decide if its too high or not - thats for people smarter than I to ponder upon.

We haven't done diddly on nuclear storage for about 40 years, maybe more. Still stored onsite in infrastructure not designed for long term storage.

Fuel reprocessing can make use of this spent fuel and cycle it back in for more power generation, but the problem here is the processors have a horrendous safety record compared to the plants themselves. They're often trying to squeeze every nickel out of their operations.

If it was a non-profit/federal program that could do things properly you'd have far less material that you had to bury in the desert.

I'm hoping LFTR reactors can make it to production.

> "I'm hoping LFTR reactors can make it to production."

Have you heard of Flibe Energy [1]? They are working on LFTR technologies. The founder (Kirk Sorensen) is an outspoken nuclear energy advocate, I'd definitely recommend checking out his work/lectures [2].

[1] http://flibe-energy.com/

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg

Nope. My understanding is India and China are pursuing this. I think it's political poison in the US.

Not sure I can fit one in my car, sadly.

The batshit insane nuclear products of the 1950s never cease to blow my mind. I'm still discovering new ones, like how the US built not one but two different kinds of nuclear powered aircraft, neither of which proved to be viable in the end for reasons that should have been blindingly obvious.

The idea of a B-36 nuclear bomber loitering around for potentially years and years without landing is awesome and terrifying.

Given that one of the aircraft designs had the reactor exposed to ambient air, you probably don't want that.

The idea was that after they dropped the bombs they'd simply fly around over enemy territory just to spew radioactive garbage all over the country.

If you're riding hybrid or electro, you should be already fitting it.