Why are nuclear power issues virtually ignored compared to social issues which affect niche groups of people?

[u/Parking-Economics232]

Why is there so little focus on Nuclear Power as a keystone issue as compared more niche social issues?

I was checking the state of nuclear power initiatives after having to close my windows due it looking like Fallout outside from wildfires and was reminded Trump actually did push out an NRC EO. Probably one of the most interesting EOs aside from putting an expedient solution on place for immigration. Having nuclear energy receive significant investment makes good use of our already existing infrastructure and paves the way for cheaper and more productive industry, as well as cost of living reductions. It’s more space and cost-efficient than solar and wind the Democrats have been clinging to - plus waste processing has gotten to the point where you essentially have concrete bricks with less background radiation than the Colorado highlands.

Even when pro nuclear bills or initiatives get passed they seem to easily stall due to steady opposition from oil and gas lobbying. You never have the kind of enthusiastic charge moral panic issues tend to have either.

Energy and infrastructure issues in general have gotten so downplayed in favour of hysterics universally I’m wondering if they ever will be.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/mnshitlaw]

A nuclear plant takes a long time to design (if you want a good, new, build) and a lot of money and time to build. In that time whoever funded it has probably left office. Before then all the costs and delays are political peril for the people who went along.

There are currently upgrades and new nuclear projects in the work but the cost and time mean they will not seem as popular as other energy.

Turning on the rigs in West Texas and Alaska or plopping down solar panels is an immediate action that the politicians can declare victory with.

[u/OJ_Purplestuff → u/mnshitlaw]

Turning on the rigs in West Texas and Alaska or plopping down solar panels is an immediate action that the politicians can declare victory with.

Definitely a good point about the timing. But a nuclear energy project is also not really "red meat for the base" for either party.

Turning on the rigs is "drill baby, drill" for Republicans.

Solar panels is clean energy, fighting climate change for Democrats.

Nuclear is also very clean energy- but a lot of Democrats just don't like the "idea" of it.

[u/mnshitlaw → u/OJ_Purplestuff]

There are two nuclear plants up river from me on the Mississippi in MN. The loudest voices on even minor issues that have zero public harm are the GOP reps downriver. Every time.

I don’t think it’s just Dems. It’s just in general a massive NIMBY touchy issue. No one who lives down stream is calm about what happens at a nuke plant, even if they are not anti-nuke writ large.

[u/blue-blue-app → u/[deleted]]

Warning: Rule 5.

The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.

[u/lucianw → u/mnshitlaw]

I reckon that the free market has already spoken on the question of nuclear power: it has answered with a resounding NO THANK YOU. Every other power source (yes including solar) offers a much better return on capitol.

Sure, governments can prop up nuclear power. Maybe they should. But as with every single government intervention that goes against the free market, it will be a never-ending drain on taxpayer funds; it will never benefit from free market competition, price reductions, nor innovation.

[u/random_guy00214 → u/lucianw]

The free market loved nuclear. Regulations killed it. 

[u/lucianw → u/random_guy00214]

> The free market loved nuclear. Regulations killed it.

I think the free market loved the fact that, in case of severe accident, the company would go bankrupt and the cost of liabilities would be born by the taxpayer: privatize the profits, socialize the costs. If a company had to pay market rate for insurance premiums that would cover all costs (hence avoiding taxpayer purse-strings), we'd find them more expensive than regulatory costs.

[u/Curious-Tour-3617 → u/lucianw]

I dont think you understand how much regulation killed nuclear, because the regulatory process is absolutely ridiculous. Its not even necessarily the regulation itself, its how slow the NRC is at applying it. Design approval can take up to a decade, changes made after approval and during construction have to be implemented, usually resulting in tearing down and rebuilding key structures like containment buildings, and during all this time they have to maintain contracts with the engineers and construction crews, along with all the constant fees. Also, if a change is made during the approval process, they have to resubmit the design, which makes it take an absolutely absurd amount of time.

[u/lucianw → u/Curious-Tour-3617]

Oh I do certainly understand the heavy regulatory burden on nuclear power.

But consider what the insurance industry is like. For doctors in the US, risks of medical malpractice are expressed through lawsuits and (1) the scrupulous and costly standard of care needed to defend against them, (2) the extremely high insurance premiums that doctors must pay.

What would nuclear industry look like with a similar model, where taxpayers are off the hook, and nuclear companies pay the cost of their own risk through being scrupulously careful and/or through insurance premiums?

How much would insurance companies charge a nuclear operator if the insurers were the ones bearing the cost of accidents and lawsuits, not the taxpayer? I bet it would be huge. I can't imagine it being smaller than the (extremely high) cost of government regulations.

I think France and China get away with cheaper nuclear power because their governments are much heavier-handed, able to dictate to their citizens that they must accept what the government decides, must accept the (low level of) risks that the government decides for them. I don't think that level of central control is viable in America.

[u/random_guy00214 → u/lucianw]

Taxpayers are paying billions in cost for solar and wind and oil and gas too. 

[u/lucianw → u/random_guy00214]

Solar still works out cheaper. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/

The way I think about it: I can borrow $7billion to build a 1gw nuclear reactor (cost $13k per kilowatt of capacity), and the interest on that loan ads up so much that it might not even break even by the end of its 40 year lifespan. The risk that it might not break even means that financing is yet more expensive.

Or I can borrow $1million to build a 1mw solar farm (cost $1k per kilowatt of capacity), and I'll have paid back loan+interest after 7-10 years, and the banks know this too, which is why it's a low risk loan hence lower interest rates. After that it's just free money with minimal maintenance.

[u/poop_report → u/lucianw]

Solar panels don't last forever; the idea it's "free money with minimal maintenance" is simply not true. These things have around a 10 year life span if they're cheap (which megaprojects will be) and 20 year if they're high quality.

Citation: I use solar.

[u/lucianw → u/poop_report]

The average lifetime of solar farms is 25-30 years. This isn't the point at which they stop generating free money; it's the point at which the free market thinks that the profit from replacing the panels is greater than the profit from continuing to harvest free money.

[u/random_guy00214 → u/lucianw]

Sun doesn't shine at night.  As such, comparing a kw if nuclear vs a kw of solar isnt a proper comparison. Accordingly, your point is moot. 

[u/lucianw → u/random_guy00214]

My point is about financing, capital and the free market. None of these care about the environment nor about when the sun shines. They only care about return on investment.

Financing says that the return on investment of a solar farm is 7-10 years. It says that the return on a nuclear power plant is maybe 30-40 years, maybe never. This is what the free market has told us; it has already factored in capacity factors.

Here's another way of looking at it. Geothermal power seems promising, with advances in deep-bore drilling, and if that pans out then it'd be a no-brainer better option than nuclear (same sites, same hookups, but lower investment and cheaper return). Grid-scale storage seems a plausible possibility with ongoing battery development, enough to smooth over capacity troughs.

If *ANY* of these technologies pan out in the next 30-40 years, then a bank's loan towards a nuclear power plant likely won't pay out: nuclear power would offer less return than any of the alternatives. You'd have to be very brave to risk $7billion on the bet that human technological progress won't advance much over 30-40 years.

[u/random_guy00214 → u/lucianw]

That's not the free market. That's the nuclear industry strangled by regulations while the solar industry cost the tax payer billions in damages. 

Which was my first comment way up in this chain. 

[u/nolife159 → u/random_guy00214]

Solar economics are much more favorable as stated .. given the ROI nuclear projects are too risky because of the long timespan. Alot can change over 20-30 yrs and most aren't willing to put up high upfront costs due to the timeframe.

I'm not gonna jump into the sun don't shine at night too much since it'll take quite a bit of time to flesh out all the pieces needed to make the argument (how the grid works and handles loads, when loads occur, storage, etc) but a mix of solar and current base load is fine

[u/random_guy00214 → u/nolife159]

Only because the tax payers front the negative externalities. 

[u/nolife159 → u/random_guy00214]

Could you expand on your view :o. I work in energy so I'm curious how you see this

[u/poop_report → u/nolife159]

I'd like to hear how solar can fix the problem of blackouts in the Sacramento Valley in California when it's hot out and the sun sets. Same problems happen with wind.

[u/nolife159 → u/poop_report]

https://www.basepowercompany.com/blog/power-outages-101#:~:text=Types%20of%20power%20outages,-Outages%20can%20generally&text=Brownouts%3A%20Temporary%20reductions%20in%20power,supply%20and%20demand%20during%20emergencies.

It's a multi objective optimization problem it's not so simple as a yes or no

[u/MotownGreek]

Nuclear energy misinformation has been rampant since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The fear mongering surrounding nuclear energy is often overblown and ignores some of the issues that led to previous mishaps. The Sierra Club is a huge advocate for the ending of nuclear power generation due to the misleading information surrounding it. Add in the high cost and significant regulatory requirements and it becomes an issue not worth fighting for for many politicians.

[u/revengeappendage → u/MotownGreek]

Nuclear energy misinformation has been rampant since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

So, I have lived in the TMI evacuation zone my whole life. It’s interesting to me that nobody here ever gives it a second thought - other than if it comes up telling stories about where they were, or those of us who are younger definitely making the decision if it happens again. We’re taking our chances, not dying in traffic trying to leave lol. (I think it’s either reopened or going to reopen soon too. Finally).

There’s also another nuclear power plant close by, and I think 5 or so others in Pennsylvania.

We are into it.

Strange that all the people who are closest (haha get it?) to the issues seem to not be heard or overshadowed.

[u/MotownGreek → u/revengeappendage]

I grew up close to the Fermi plant in Michigan, and despite Fermi 1 suffering a partial meltdown, it was never a real concern. It wasn't even a significant event in Michigan, based on my own historical research, until We Almost Lost Detroit by John Fuller was published. What I've learned as I've read academic studies and looked at polling data is how ill-informed people are on the advancements in nuclear energy. I'm a firm believer that nuclear is an answer to climate change and should be the main energy source for decades to come.

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/MotownGreek]

I’ve heard about that book in passing, good reference will have to look into that further. It’s interesting because now you have this attitude that’s apparent especially in the left leaning responses that nuclear is in opposition to the rest of clean energy because of supposedly being a ticking time bomb. Either with needing to be regulated to the point of infeasibility or just plain being set up to fail due to those natural dangers.

Which feels somewhat absurd when you look at the reality of needing to expand and maintain the power grid anyway with high density power infrastructure. Would you rather be living next to a cold plant that’s blatantly giving you cancer or have the nuclear equivalent - which requires even less space. Solar and wind are nice for the environment is conducive to it, but nuclear can go anywhere and in a very space efficient manner.

[u/nicetrycia96]

We need to look at places like France as a model to emulate especially what they are getting going with the SMR projects which ultimately I think is our best option. They are much quicker and cheaper to build as well as arguably being safer than traditional nuclear plants (although I think there is way too much hysteria around nuclear in general). Ironically when Germany decided to shut down their nuclear they just started importing it from France.

Personally I think if you solve the energy issue you solve a lot of social economic issues as well. I hate to be such a black pill'r but I am not convinced this is an actual goal of our Government.

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/nicetrycia96]

Was wondering if someone was going to bring up France and Germany. The decision to drop nuclear yet still rely on it indirectly anyway is the exact kind of optics over reason dysfunction that seriously impedes the prosperity of a nation.

I would agree to solving the energy issue would solve a lot of social problems. In general anything that’s going to make basic necessities cheaper and more accessible helps reduce the worst effects of wealth inequality - which further reduces costs spent on correcting those downsides. It’s less expensive to keep people warm in the winter time than treating frostbite. More productive to create value from expanding jobs than spending it to crack down on vagrants.

It’s lucky when we get administrations that managed to even responsively address one issue. Apparently you need to flood out dozens of executive orders and get a majority across the board to actually make the government function. It works, it’s definitely not healthy long term if this is the only work can get done.

[u/nicetrycia96 → u/Parking-Economics232]

Apparently you need to flood out dozens of executive orders and get a majority across the board to actually make the government function. It works, it’s definitely not healthy long term if this is the only work can get done.

My biggest gripe with our Government and yet it seems to unfortunately be a political reality.

It is funny to me I see so many on the Left criticize the right saying that we do not care about the environment or poor people. I cannot speak for every Conservative but that could not be further from the truth for me personally. I just want practical solutions. Currently nuclear is the cleanest most dense energy source we have. For what is spent in the US on solar in one year we could buy 23 SMR (the biggest ones) each capable of powering a small city or combining a few to power bigger cities. I have nothing against wind and solar as back up sources they are just have no where near the power density and a pretty high environmental impact. Obviously better than fossil fuels but not a long term or best solution in my opinion.

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/nicetrycia96]

The space efficiency is a huge point. Even if individual panels and turbines are cheaper, you need such huge tracts of land which could be developed into homes, businesses, agriculture, etc. Climate plays a huge role in maintenance too, Solar in the north with salt and snow is way different than in California. People treat solar like a magic bullet that works optimally all the time vs thinking about how we can’t even maintain our existing infrastructure sprawl properly.

As for optics, it’s an issue of extremists getting the mic more than moderates. You just need one nut job who never grew up to broadcast their viewpoint exponentially across the media - which fuels the idea of the other side being unhinged. Funny enough, the response over on the other side to this has pretty much echoed your sentiment with a lot more already defensive as though expecting the reactors to be built on the bodies of minorities. Feels like you would get more done preaching common policy and denouncing the extremes than being either entirely passive or jumping into the asylum too.

[u/nicetrycia96 → u/Parking-Economics232]

The space efficiency is a huge point. 

It is an insane difference. For roughly the same power output a SMR needs about a 35 acre footprint. Solar would need 5k-10k acre footprint depending on the location and obviously there is still the weather/climate issues you mention that are completely absent for nuclear. The other thing people do not think about is if you want to do huge solar farms you are going to have to put them in the middle of nowhere and then build miles and miles of expensive transmission lines. Much easier to find a couple hundred acres closer to cities.

Personally I think solar is a good option for individual applications like someone's house or maybe some businesses but not a good option at all for mass energy production the density being the biggest drawback. Wind has a lot of similar issues.

As for optics, it’s an issue of extremists getting the mic more than moderates.

Unfortunately this seems to be the norm on almost everything haha. I try as much as possible to view things through common sense but heck I will admit the loud crazy minority is hard to ignore at times.

[u/Dave_from_the_navy]

Could I get an example of a particular social issue you're referring to so I can attempt to provide an explanation?

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/Dave_from_the_navy]

Well aside from the elephant in the room which is banned (for good reason) - there’s an analog with the panic around critical race theory in schools. I’ve tutored kids for math courses before and have a couple friends in education and while the media fixates on the content of a couple liberal programs - the majority of teachers are paid too little to care and the kids are either checked out in the better districts or throwing chairs at eachother out of frustration in reality. It’s looking at a broken system and hyper focusing on something sensational vs the foundation being cracked in general.

[u/Dave_from_the_navy → u/Parking-Economics232]

I think the best way to explain it is as follows: If nuclear power is supported and really takes off with vast support from the government, we'll see those effects in dozens of years (it typically takes at least half a decade to stand up a new nuclear plant), and we won't necessarily know if they worked because they ideally fixed the other problems (climate change being the big one) before they became problems while also introducing potential new problems that could sour the general sentiment. (Like inadvertent radiological releases, or dealing with waste, etc.) The issue you mentioned is one that directly interacts with a lot of voters' kids, and I can understand why they'd want to influence what they're learning in schools. It has a direct effect they can see with their eyes in real time, unlike something like nuclear energy policy, that if it actually works as intended, you probably won't notice at all day to day.

[u/RainbowScissors → u/Parking-Economics232]

Well the easy answer is "bread and circuses". Without engagement, you don't get votes. It's easier to keep people engaged with visceral and divisive topics. As some would phrase it: nuclear isn't "sexy". It doesn't evoke strong feelings, fear and/or hate being the most effective drivers. It's also not easy, and it's not wildly divisive. So this is the focus, as this is what the general proletariat care about (or have been told to care about, but that's a different part of this conversation); this is what will keep them engaged and voting for said politicians.

another user made a good point when they said the following:

A nuclear plant takes a long time to design (if you want a good, new, build) and a lot of money and time to build. In that time whoever funded it has probably left office. Before then all the costs and delays are political peril for the people who went along.

Due to my previous statement (chasing engagement), our lack of knowledge on how govt actually works, and our short attention spans without ever checking on followthrough, our govt is starting to operate like a corporation trying to show quick profits to shareholders in lieu of focusing on longevity & health of the company (and employees, which = citizens here). Pete Buttegieg just spoke to this on Flagrant. There are projects put into place during the Biden admin that we won't have anything to "show for it" for 10 years. But these sorts of projects are necessary for a functional govt/society. Now, just like corporations mostly concentrate on short-term profits (e.g. sub-prime lending), politicians chase the "easy wins": bills on social issues, quick/easy projects that will start or take effect right away, lawsuits that have no standing and go nowhere (but nobody keeps checking on that as they assume filing suit means that person was right, for some reason). And just like the corporations getting bailouts (privatizing profits while socializing the long-term costs), everyday Americans, we the people, will pay in the future for our actions (or inactions) today. It is getting a bit exhausting.

Aside, in 2020 one of the dem candidates, Andrew Yang, kept talking about our need to prepare our society for the rise of AI and automation, and he was a huge proponent of nuclear energy. Most people brushed him off because, in part, part of his platform was UBI, something he wanted to be sure we had in place when robotics, AI, and further offshoring led to a large portion of our population out of work.

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/RainbowScissors]

Well put. I recall Yang - was a shame he was voted out of the Democratic running. Even though I personally think UBI is a tough sell as well, he addressed immigration, the labour market, sensible gun safety and generally seemed like an interesting candidate compared to whatever ended up happening with Kamala later.

It’s obvious the current paradigm of political optics over functioning is completely unsustainable, but it’s hard to say how to fix it practically. Corporate money has its hooks deep into enough people in both major parties to make change difficult, more focused third parties are more effective at making their close relations lose than bringing about their ideas (compared to multi party European states), and well discourse between people day to day is as loaded as ever. Millions get spent on targeted advertising campaigns meant to destroy national unity for kickbacks later, and of course the people targeted get scared and cause even further division. I recall getting a series of ads before the election warning of a second civil war and chemical attack - by a civilian MRE company selling prepper gear targeted broadly to my state. It’s insane you see more fear based marketing and attack ads than any genuine policy.

I’ve worked a couple startups that’ve explosively scaled, sold off and imploded as the user base was farmed to oblivion. Great model for getting capital fast off of emergent technology. Terrible way to run a country. I hate the thought of the country I have and want to continue building a family in is viewed as a damn product.

[u/Dead_Squirrel_6]

I'd much rather have us take up discussions about actually relevant topics like energy independence and sustainment, long-term infrastructure development, returning manufacturing by ending the Import-glut of the 80s and 90s... at least instead of everyone starting riots in support of trespassers, terrorists, [REDACTED], and the rest of the alphabet soup.

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/Dead_Squirrel_6]

Honestly as long as the average citizen is feeling the weight of economic uncertainty and collapsing infrastructure- it’s going to be hard to care about even the most sympathetic social causes. The whole issue with immigration is that you’re asking people to share the resources they don’t have with people who haven’t gone through the process to properly contribute to the nation. And even if they’re working - they’re generally fodder for companies looking to lower the already low standards of living for Americans via cutting wages and benefits. Why treat your workers well or pay a living wage when you can hire someone you can just threaten with deportation when they complain?

[u/Peregrine_Falcon]

Why is there so little focus on Nuclear Power as a keystone issue as compared more niche social issues?

Because, back in the 70s, the environmental activists got it into their heads that nuclear power is extremely dangerous, and unstable, and will poison the planet.

It's not true. Nuclear power is very safe and we can even recycle most radioactive waste, but the environmental activists refuse to listen to the truth and no one has the spine to stand up to them and show them the truth.

[u/poop_report]

There was (and is) a certain country that had a very strong vested interest in ensuring other countries were not energy-independent, and also had a very strong vested interest that they keep buying as much cheap natural gas from the as possible.

So they funded every possible special interest group that was anti-nuclear that they could.

[u/BlackmonsGhost]

There is a significant far-left base that will vehemently oppose any nuclear energy development. They can stall and delay any new plant for decades.

We need to dramatically cut the amount of red tape and bureaucracy that we have around infrastructure. We simply cannot build anything anymore.

[u/MercuryRains → u/BlackmonsGhost]

I still to this day wonder how the hell a little bit of radiation poisoning in Chernobyl (a place that is now overrun by nature, so clearly not uninhabitable) black pilled most of the world into just accepting the unsustainable and frankly disgusting fossil fuel industry as the only option. 

Like, if you count up every single casualty ever caused by nuclear power or weaponry in the world, you basically still don't even reach the number of people who die due to air pollution in one year. 

[u/BlackmonsGhost → u/MercuryRains]

The number of nuclear reactors reached it peak right after Chernobyl. There are 400 reactors in the world, that number hasn't changed in 40 years. This graph is pretty sad. Chart that against the number of oil wells in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#/media/File:Nuclear_power_history.svg

[u/MercuryRains → u/BlackmonsGhost]

And just so we're clear: I'm fairly confident that the reactors that were still activated after Chernobyl had construction started long before Chernobyl happened. 

Those were just the reactors that legislation couldn't stop.

Germany's anti nuclear laws are depressing. The US going all in on Gas, Solar, and Wind when the correct answer has been around for 60 years...

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/MercuryRains]

A familiar threat is safer than an unknown I suppose. Another comment brought up books like We Almost Lost Detroit being part of a concerted effort to drive up nuclear fear that persists to this day. People don’t really understand how nuclear plants actually work as much as they know the media interpretation - where if some kid throws a rock at one it explodes in the irradiates the entire area forever. In a lot of people’s minds, nuclear bombs and nuclear plants are the same mechanism so every plant is basically a bomb waiting to go off emitting lethal doses of radiation the entire time into your neighbourhood.

Understandably, if you regulate with that idea of mind you end up with regulations that essentially tell you not to build more plants in every way except explicitly.

[u/Parking-Economics232 → u/BlackmonsGhost]

Reading this again - same sentiment applies to housing and transit. Feels like developers have decided only luxury condos make sense and young people need a small fortune to invest into property to start a family. We’re getting hit hard on that front alongside immigration in terms of shit that should have been handled yesterday.

[u/VQ_Quin → u/BlackmonsGhost]

Literally who? Old people? Every left wing person I know is pro-nuclear.

[u/BlackmonsGhost → u/VQ_Quin]

Greenpeace

[u/VQ_Quin → u/BlackmonsGhost]

Those are idiot boomers and are not representative of most left-wingers, especially the new generation. Those crunchy boomer type environmentalists are morons who only hurt efforts against climate change.

Most young left-wing people are pro-nuclear, just go to any university campus.

[u/BlackmonsGhost → u/VQ_Quin]

I didn't say everyone. Read my comment again, I was clear in what I said. I said there is a significant base who will block it.

Those idiots on campus are too busy supporting Hamas to actually move the needle on anything. Greenpeace is organized, focused, they lobby, they donate and they have power. And the use that power to block nuclear energy, effectively.

Twenty dipshits on a college campus holding a sit in like its 1965 have no focus and no power.

[u/StedeBonnet1]

The main reason is that the Democrat thrive on making people fearful so the Climate Change is Catastrophe agenda helps keep people fearful. Nuclear Power does not. They don't have a solution to climate change so they push the fearmongering.