News

Nuclear power is the most energy dense and efficient

It's certainly dense, in terms of output relative to geographic footprint. I'm not sure how you're measuring efficiency.

In terms of capital costs and build times, I would not describe the Vogtle 3 & 4 as efficient. The promise of SMRs is, similarly, far more focused on density than cost or reliability.

If your goal is a large scale rapid to expansion of production and you aren't worried about physical space, you can stand up wind turbines in months and solar farms in a couple years. Then you'll generate ROI that pays off the hardware investment in 2-5 years, pretty consistently.

By contrast, nuclear plants take decades to come online and generations to pay themselves back. They're very slow and expensive per MWh.

But if you're space constrained because your are - say - a massive naval floating fortress or orbital space station or arctic research base? There's a value in a physically compact system

Okay, I'll admit I was being a facetious when I said nuclear explosion.

That being said, it's still a non-renewable energy source that produces incredibly toxic waste that lasts tens of thousands of years that nobody wants to keep or store nor has any way of effectively making safe except storing it in bunkers underground for tens of thousands of years, which is stupid, impractical, short-sighted at best and incredibly dangerous at worst.

Also, Absolutely nobody wants to live near a nuclear power plant. Why bother having them take up room if you can't live or farm near them.

Why leave the means of production in the hands of capitalist scum that will ask for billions to keep the plants maintained on top of the energy tarrifs we pay, only keep the money, and still let the facilities crumble, when I can just install solar panels in my own house and not pay for any electricity? Sounds kinda dumb to go for nuclear at that point.

I can't confirm if it's the most energy dense, but even if that's true, it can still trigger meltdowns that leave kilometer-wide radii of uninhabitable radioactivity dead-zones like around Chernobyl.

As far as I'm concerned, anybody still promoting this technology is so deeply entrenched in their own self- aggrandizement because nuclear energy sounds cool that they can't grow up and realise other technologies outcompeted nuclear on a number of metrics, decades ago.

Also, I know that this will continue to get downvoted because there are so so so many people who have made nuclear energy part of their personality and absolutely cannot critically self-reflect on the topic.

Nuclear fusion or no nuclear at all.

efficient electrical energy source

Not even close after you factor in the cost of decommissioning and storage of forever radiation. And before you reply with "next gen" don't forget that you replied to the comment about "nuclear fission plants".

it amazes me how many people drink the Kool aid of conservative propaganda, and misleading research done by parties with conflict of interest.