It's really a pity that we missed the boat on large nuclear reactors. So much more power would enable so many use-cases and cheap electricity would have enabled us to have much less gas heating. Massive damage to the climate caused by misguided regulation. I tried to write to deregulation.gov on reducing the fund allocation required for fission reactor cleanup but c'est la vie. Death by a thousand cuts and then a few big rocks, I suppose. We lost half a century, but so it goes. Now we should be able to do large-scale solar and wind, and if it weren't for the Burning Man people we could have geothermal too, but we'll get there.
They blocked geothermal drilling in the desert. After multiple years of blocking it with use of environmental law they finally managed to preserve it as a conservation area for sustainable tourism:
> Organizers of the Burning Man festival in northwest Nevada have reached a settlement with a geothermal energy developer that cancels an exploratory drilling project that some feared would ruin the ambiance of the counter-culture event.
That's so weird. I have never seen more fossil fuels and wood burned just for art, than at burning man.
They should have had an artist work with them to make whatever the exploration gear was, look like a permanent installation. It might not have even required actual changes, just a label.
In addition to the sibling comment, I'll say that environmentalists have opposed nuclear energy for half a century, despite it being far better than coal or ng in terms of emissions. I'd say that the venn diagram intersection of burners and opposition to nuclear is significant.
Environmentalism comes in at least two forms. IMO they are entirely different things.
One form is science-based and concerned with finding out how to engineer our civilization to be more sustainable and compatible with the Earth's ecosystem. That faction has been mostly either pro-nuclear or at least open to it when renewables aren't enough or aren't ready.
The other form is a romantic back-to-the-land anti-industry or even anti-civilization movement. It's opposed to nuclear because it's a "techno-fix" when the real answer must be abandonment of high technology and advanced civilization and a return to pre-industrial (or even pre-civilization Paleolithic) ways of life. For this group that's the only acceptable answer. Finding a solution to climate change that didn't involve abandoning industry or growth would be bad, since it would allow "business as usual" to continue.
Returning to pre-industrial or pre-civ times would require the deaths of billions of people, since you can't support these populations without industry, but they don't mention that. That's the quiet part.
The second group is mostly the group that has opposed nuclear power. A few have even opposed wind and solar power, believe it or not. It sounds ridiculous but look it up. You can find cases, albeit more fringe than anti-nukes.
The second group also horseshoes around to the far right in some cases. Anti-vax and general anti-medicine ideology and the idea that we need to be "natural" in everything was originally something more associated with these types of greens, but today it's part of MAGA. There'a also an offshoot known as ecofascism. Look it up, it's also a thing. Also search up "Savitri Devi," a very odd crossover figure here.
The second type is also inherently misanthropic. Their ideal is some Eden without humans at all. _Any_ human impact is morally wrong to this type of environmentalist.
Contrast that with the conservationist hunters, sportsman, fisherman, etc. who wish to conserve natural environments with a keen eye towards sustainability and ecosystem health. Human intervention in culling herds can actually be a kindness to animals whose predators have been eliminated, yet some will oppose it regardless of what the Department of Fish and Game and other scientists suggest simply because it involves hunting and eating meat.
Cutting off the nose to spite the face... which rhymes with the nuclear debate here.
I'm pretty sure the actual second group is vanishingly small, it just seems larger because people in general don't know anything about anything so they will be vehemently against nuclear simply because they don't actually know that it's clean energy.
Similar to the "data centers use all the water" people. I saw a Facebook post with thousands of people raging against Nevada/Las Vegas data centers because they were being blamed for the region's dwindling water supplies - googled it and less than 1% of the water used in the area goes to the several dozen data centers. Seems to me like there's probably a lot of bigger fish to fry but I didn't look into it any further.
People are sheep. They jump on whatever bandwagon that happens to cross their path at the right moment. Almost everything people complain about they're just wrong about. It's actually insane scrolling on Facebook these days, it's just an endless stream of bullshit with hordes of NPCs raging about shit they know nothing about and every now and then there's a person with a functioning brain trying to spread some knowledge but it's obviously futile.
Most people can't tell you how taxes work even though they have been paying them their whole lives and complain about them constantly. They will happily tell you a bullshit story about "their friend" who passed on a pay bump because it would increase their taxes and reduce their after-tax income.
It's honestly so fucking frustrating. I mean nobody knows everything but as someone who has a decent overview of how the world works, who understands most important things at at least a basic level, it's just blisteringly obvious that the average person does not understand almost anything. They just got hooked into something at some point, somehow, and now that's their identity. Pretty much exactly like religion. Whatever cult they happened to be born into is obviously the only correct one, they'll ignore any and all evidence and arguments because it has nothing to do with reason. It's their identity and that's that.
Nuclear power has never been cheap and never will be. Every country that has tried has failed, and that included the Russians, the Chinese, South Koreans, French and the Japanese. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in Russia and China.
All the cost were hidden off the balance sheet 40 years ago. They can't build them cost effectively (or on schedule) now that there's more scrutiny on where the money comes from.
And the cost of fossil fuels is future (not to mention current and recent past, I believe Germany has had over 15k heatwave related deaths this summer) human lives, you wanna calculate those into your little napkin math there?
Unfortunately they have to shut down their nuclear reactors when it gets too warm in the summer, which is only going to get worse. Since nuclear isn't capable of generating baseload, we should instead invest into solar & batteries.
Except some of them are still building new plants today (large ones cause higher efficiency, unsurprisingly). For China and Russia those are entirely separate from the kind of reactors used for plutonium reprocessing or medical isotopes or whatever else, they only exist to boil water at the end of the day. The only incentive here is electricity, and both have plenty of other options available.
Bit of a paradox isn't it? They'd just burn coal or gas instead if that was much cheaper.
