The state is the problem. Where government and regulation are not in the way, nuclear is the obvious choice. IAEA: since the start of 2016 China has connected 28 reactors, 29.6 GW. The West in the same window is a handful -- Vogtle 3 and 4 in the US, Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France. Same physics.
why. because state used a lazy proxy, people bricked the windows, tax did not even catch the rich, and now the houses are worse. wrong conclusion, wrong metric, wrong incentive, new problem, old problem still there. same move as number of jobs or number of reactors approved. you count the easy thing, then everyone games the count. also soulreaver reads like llm.
The Policy: King William III introduced the Window Tax in England and Wales in 1696 to tax people based on the number of windows in their homes as an indicator of wealth. [1, 2, 3original ↗]
The Evasion: Property owners and landlords bricked up window openings to reduce their tax liability, giving rise to "blind windows". [1, 2, 3]
The Impact: The lack of light and fresh air caused severe health problems, leading critics to dub it a tax on "light and air". [1, 2, 3]
The Repeal: Public outcry finally forced the government to abolish the tax in 1851. [1, 2, 3]
No! The issue is not the state/govt. It is always too easy to blame someone else. The issue is people not being able to take responsibility and thinking with their own brainwashed Mind. Act with values and ethics before personal interests and profits. Wannaanexample?
Instead of complaining about it, let's educate ourselves on how to get out of that corrupt enslaving system. At the end of the day it has been designed to serve us, not the other way around. We just need to know to play the game for the benefits of free men and women, not fight against it.
I think nuclear power in all forms is the premier solution to emissions whether you believe in anthropomorphic non-localized climate change or not. Even without that belief the improvement in smog reduction, safety (oil power generation is not very safe), and base load reliability (this is much more difficult with renewables) is desirable. I suspect a lot of the hate against nuclear is ginned up by PR generated from oil companies honestly. Waste is a largely solved issue if I remember correctly and a lot of the issues with past leaks and meltdowns are widely overblown (the Japan meltdown was due to a ridiculously foreseeable oversight, Chernobyl was due to the failing mechanics of the bureaucracy of the soviet union, nobody actually died from three mile island). A great way to alleviate concerns around living nearby is to force the primary investors, engineers, and management to live nearby therefore putting skin in the game (#339697).
Also, SMRs have been a thing for a long time and can be used safely. Nuclear submarines all essentially run off of SMRs.
yay. except everyone wants nuclear and nobody wants to live next to the plant. my cousin’s wife made it an ultimatum after they got engaged. move further away. they did not even live that close. she still insisted. so yay to clean abundant energy. just not near people. some remote site. desert maybe.
Remote reactor can turn into 2 projects. The reactor is your project. You control the site, contractors, design, schedule, financing etc. Remote transmission is a can of worms where your budget and schedule depends on landowners, governments, environmental reviews, permits, grid operators and protestors. They're basically your unintended shareholders in a project you never intended to take on.
Say the reactor is 200 miles from the grid. You might think ~$400M and a few years for the transmission line. Add right of way, substations, land acquisition, environmental review, permits and grid upgrades and you're potentially at $1B+ and 8-10+ years. For Northern Pass, a proposed 192 mile high voltage line that would have brought hydroelectric power from Quebec into New England Eversource ultimately spent $318M before the project was killed in 2019, mostly on engineering/design, siting, permitting, legal work and land acquisition. $318M just to hear "Sorry, you can't put a single cable here!" lol.
And this isn't just a nuclear problem. Right now ~2,060 GW of generation and storage projects are sitting in US interconnection queues, roughly twice the country's entire existing generating capacity. Projects that actually get built take a median of about 5 years to go from requesting a connection to operating, with studies and potentially huge grid upgrade costs along the way. Only about 13% of the capacity that entered queues from 2000-2020 was operating by the end of 2025. Interconnection uncertainty is one major reason why projects die, alongside the project's broader economics, permitting and financing.
This's probably unintuitive for people unfamiliar w/ electricity markets. Transmission is technically one of the simplest parts of the whole system, yet getting a new line built can become a huge project in itself. All those extra costs, delays and things outside the developer's control make the whole investment materially harder to underwrite. So if there's already a nuclear/industrial site w/ a big grid connection, that's a pretty meaningful advantage even w/ the obvious downside of being closer to population.
the plant still needs workers. workers have to live somewhere. their families want to live further. that is the fight. unless at some point it is 100% robots. until then someone has to be the person who lives next to it.
I am not a nuclear expert; I only have a basic understanding of nuclear technology. However, I believe nuclear energy holds the key to the future. It encompasses more than just nuclear fission—which carries risks like nuclear waste and leaks—and includes nuclear fusion technology, which is clean and free from such hazards. While current nuclear technologies do indeed present significant challenges (primarily regarding waste and leaks), the field is not standing still; it is constantly advancing, and humanity’s ability to harness nuclear energy will continue to progress.
Potential waste and leaks are solvable engineering problems, not reasons to sit in the dark while the alternatives stay worse... Progress doesn’t wait for perfect.
I support the development of nuclear energy technology—undoubtedly the future of humanity—but that does not mean we should tolerate negligence regarding nuclear waste and leakage issues; nuclear energy companies must treat these two major drawbacks of current technology with the utmost seriousness.
However, those are issues associated with nuclear fission. Humanity also possesses a safe, clean alternative: nuclear fusion technology (which operates on the same principle that generates the sun's heat). This is absolutely the most critical factor for a major leap forward in human civilization.
The tritium and deuterium required for nuclear fusion are abundant in seawater; the energy generated via fusion from the tritium extracted from a single bottle of mineral water is equivalent to that of 500 liters of gasoline. Tritium is ubiquitous in the oceans—an inexhaustible resource sufficient to power humanity for billions of years.
The key to nuclear energy lies in miniaturization and portability, rather than remaining stuck at the stage of building massive nuclear reactors.
A Chinese company has reportedly developed a "Carbon-14 nuclear battery" dubbed "Zhulong-1" (though I suspect there is a fair amount of hype involved). Consider that the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years; theoretically, this battery could last for 5,000 years... Not five years, or fifty years... but five thousand years. 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
Miniaturizing, simplifying, and making nuclear energy storage devices portable is what holds truly extraordinary significance for humanity. Massive nuclear reactors primarily benefit large corporations and governments, not the average individual.
Once nuclear energy storage technology (especially fusion technology) achieves miniaturization, simplicity, and portability: You could buy a single battery for your mobile phone—essentially a "mini-sun," given that the sun also relies on fusion—that lasts for centuries. A car could be fitted with a nuclear battery at the factory and driven for hundreds of years without ever needing to refuel. An aircraft equipped with a nuclear power unit could fly for years or even decades without refueling... Perhaps a nuclear power unit the size of a computer tower could meet your household's energy needs for centuries. You would no longer need to rely on municipal power grids, heating systems, or water supply networks (as you could employ a self-contained water purification system, given the virtually limitless energy supply). With a portable nuclear power unit in hand, you could live in almost any corner of the globe for centuries—or even longer—without ever worrying about energy needs. This holds unimaginable significance for humanity’s ability to break free from the control of governments and major corporations. Perhaps only then could human beings truly be considered "free."
At present, our mastery and utilization of nuclear energy remain at a very primitive stage—perhaps representing only one ten-thousandth of our potential capability.
The level of advancement our civilization achieves depends entirely on our ability to harness and control nuclear energy. The oil and coal we currently use are low-grade energy sources; they offer absolutely no possibility of propelling a great leap forward for human civilization.
While I support the development of nuclear energy and am convinced it is the core engine of humanity's future progress, this does not mean that developing nuclear technology justifies sacrificing the lives and health of people today. Nuclear energy must be developed, but human well-being and health must also be safeguarded. Should the two come into conflict, I believe the development of nuclear energy should be paused.
The state is the problem. Where government and regulation are not in the way, nuclear is the obvious choice.
IAEA: since the start of 2016 China has connected 28 reactors, 29.6 GW.
The West in the same window is a handful -- Vogtle 3 and 4 in the US, Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, Flamanville 3 in France. Same physics.
YES! state is ALWAYS the problem!
https://stasher.news/uploads/649
*I’ll tip the best reply on why you think I posted this image here ;)
why. because state used a lazy proxy, people bricked the windows, tax did not even catch the rich, and now the houses are worse. wrong conclusion, wrong metric, wrong incentive, new problem, old problem still there. same move as number of jobs or number of reactors approved. you count the easy thing, then everyone games the count.
also soulreaver reads like llm.
No! The issue is not the state/govt. It is always too easy to blame someone else. The issue is people not being able to take responsibility and thinking with their own brainwashed Mind. Act with values and ethics before personal interests and profits. Wanna an example?
Instead of complaining about it, let's educate ourselves on how to get out of that corrupt enslaving system. At the end of the day it has been designed to serve us, not the other way around. We just need to know to play the game for the benefits of free men and women, not fight against it.
Based
https://stasher.news/uploads/641
I think nuclear power in all forms is the premier solution to emissions whether you believe in anthropomorphic non-localized climate change or not. Even without that belief the improvement in smog reduction, safety (oil power generation is not very safe), and base load reliability (this is much more difficult with renewables) is desirable. I suspect a lot of the hate against nuclear is ginned up by PR generated from oil companies honestly. Waste is a largely solved issue if I remember correctly and a lot of the issues with past leaks and meltdowns are widely overblown (the Japan meltdown was due to a ridiculously foreseeable oversight, Chernobyl was due to the failing mechanics of the bureaucracy of the soviet union, nobody actually died from three mile island). A great way to alleviate concerns around living nearby is to force the primary investors, engineers, and management to live nearby therefore putting skin in the game (#339697).
Also, SMRs have been a thing for a long time and can be used safely. Nuclear submarines all essentially run off of SMRs.
I'm all for nuclear. No strong opinions on it, I just don't get the fear/opposition to it.
yay. except everyone wants nuclear and nobody wants to live next to the plant. my cousin’s wife made it an ultimatum after they got engaged. move further away. they did not even live that close. she still insisted.
so yay to clean abundant energy. just not near people. some remote site. desert maybe.
IMO the fear is louder than the actual risk, but if the deal is "abundant power, just not next door", that part is easy.
Remote reactor can turn into 2 projects. The reactor is your project. You control the site, contractors, design, schedule, financing etc. Remote transmission is a can of worms where your budget and schedule depends on landowners, governments, environmental reviews, permits, grid operators and protestors. They're basically your unintended shareholders in a project you never intended to take on.
Say the reactor is 200 miles from the grid. You might think ~$400M and a few years for the transmission line. Add right of way, substations, land acquisition, environmental review, permits and grid upgrades and you're potentially at $1B+ and 8-10+ years. For Northern Pass, a proposed 192 mile high voltage line that would have brought hydroelectric power from Quebec into New England Eversource ultimately spent $318M before the project was killed in 2019, mostly on engineering/design, siting, permitting, legal work and land acquisition. $318M just to hear "Sorry, you can't put a single cable here!" lol.
And this isn't just a nuclear problem. Right now ~2,060 GW of generation and storage projects are sitting in US interconnection queues, roughly twice the country's entire existing generating capacity. Projects that actually get built take a median of about 5 years to go from requesting a connection to operating, with studies and potentially huge grid upgrade costs along the way. Only about 13% of the capacity that entered queues from 2000-2020 was operating by the end of 2025. Interconnection uncertainty is one major reason why projects die, alongside the project's broader economics, permitting and financing.
This's probably unintuitive for people unfamiliar w/ electricity markets. Transmission is technically one of the simplest parts of the whole system, yet getting a new line built can become a huge project in itself. All those extra costs, delays and things outside the developer's control make the whole investment materially harder to underwrite. So if there's already a nuclear/industrial site w/ a big grid connection, that's a pretty meaningful advantage even w/ the obvious downside of being closer to population.
the plant still needs workers. workers have to live somewhere. their families want to live further. that is the fight. unless at some point it is 100% robots. until then someone has to be the person who lives next to it.
I am not a nuclear expert; I only have a basic understanding of nuclear technology. However, I believe nuclear energy holds the key to the future. It encompasses more than just nuclear fission—which carries risks like nuclear waste and leaks—and includes nuclear fusion technology, which is clean and free from such hazards. While current nuclear technologies do indeed present significant challenges (primarily regarding waste and leaks), the field is not standing still; it is constantly advancing, and humanity’s ability to harness nuclear energy will continue to progress.
Potential waste and leaks are solvable engineering problems, not reasons to sit in the dark while the alternatives stay worse... Progress doesn’t wait for perfect.
I support the development of nuclear energy technology—undoubtedly the future of humanity—but that does not mean we should tolerate negligence regarding nuclear waste and leakage issues; nuclear energy companies must treat these two major drawbacks of current technology with the utmost seriousness.
However, those are issues associated with nuclear fission. Humanity also possesses a safe, clean alternative: nuclear fusion technology (which operates on the same principle that generates the sun's heat). This is absolutely the most critical factor for a major leap forward in human civilization.
The tritium and deuterium required for nuclear fusion are abundant in seawater; the energy generated via fusion from the tritium extracted from a single bottle of mineral water is equivalent to that of 500 liters of gasoline.
Tritium is ubiquitous in the oceans—an inexhaustible resource sufficient to power humanity for billions of years.
The key to nuclear energy lies in miniaturization and portability, rather than remaining stuck at the stage of building massive nuclear reactors.
A Chinese company has reportedly developed a "Carbon-14 nuclear battery" dubbed "Zhulong-1" (though I suspect there is a fair amount of hype involved). Consider that the half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years; theoretically, this battery could last for 5,000 years... Not five years, or fifty years... but five thousand years. 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳
Miniaturizing, simplifying, and making nuclear energy storage devices portable is what holds truly extraordinary significance for humanity. Massive nuclear reactors primarily benefit large corporations and governments, not the average individual.
Once nuclear energy storage technology (especially fusion technology) achieves miniaturization, simplicity, and portability:
You could buy a single battery for your mobile phone—essentially a "mini-sun," given that the sun also relies on fusion—that lasts for centuries. A car could be fitted with a nuclear battery at the factory and driven for hundreds of years without ever needing to refuel. An aircraft equipped with a nuclear power unit could fly for years or even decades without refueling...
Perhaps a nuclear power unit the size of a computer tower could meet your household's energy needs for centuries. You would no longer need to rely on municipal power grids, heating systems, or water supply networks (as you could employ a self-contained water purification system, given the virtually limitless energy supply). With a portable nuclear power unit in hand, you could live in almost any corner of the globe for centuries—or even longer—without ever worrying about energy needs.
This holds unimaginable significance for humanity’s ability to break free from the control of governments and major corporations. Perhaps only then could human beings truly be considered "free."
At present, our mastery and utilization of nuclear energy remain at a very primitive stage—perhaps representing only one ten-thousandth of our potential capability.
The level of advancement our civilization achieves depends entirely on our ability to harness and control nuclear energy.
The oil and coal we currently use are low-grade energy sources; they offer absolutely no possibility of propelling a great leap forward for human civilization.
While I support the development of nuclear energy and am convinced it is the core engine of humanity's future progress, this does not mean that developing nuclear technology justifies sacrificing the lives and health of people today. Nuclear energy must be developed, but human well-being and health must also be safeguarded. Should the two come into conflict, I believe the development of nuclear energy should be paused.