I wouldn't say I'm pro or against it. It's quite expensive and politically controversial so I doubt building more of it will help us decarbonize. But I don't support closing any plants that are currently running either, at least until we've fully decarbonized electricity production.

I'm unsure how this relates to anarchism though. Other than, if communities have control over what gets built near them I think it will be even more difficult to build more of them than it is now.

Pro, but as a temporary measure to eliminate fossil fuel usage, and it should be replaced with renewable energy later. But I doubt anything like that will ever happen.

I am against the idea "factorio" type people seem to see in nuclear in that it could solve our problems with endless energy, no politics needed.

It is an ideology that is dangerous if nuclear power can't fulfill that promise and its even more dangerous if it can.

I am not entirely against the technology itself however.

Indeed, it would be a good temporary solution if we had started 30-40 years ago.. I'm afraid that where we'll past the point of a well thought of transition to renewable energy sources.

Also its a pretty outdated technical principle of boiling water with heat. Sun, wind and hydro has become way more efficient since then.

Aside from it being simply outdated and uneconomical, and given the community you are asking this in: there is an well studied argument that nuclear power is inherently authoritarian because of the necessary security requirements (and to a lesser extend centralisation of power production).

Pro. One of the cleanest energy sources you can get. Highly reliable. Fear about waste is vastly overblown which becomes apparent when you spend even a second researching it.

It is one of the only viable energy sources for space travel, which means it's not something we should phase out or stop researching. The only real alternative at this time is hydrogen fuel cells, which are explosive, and a lot more complicated. Solar is only viable at a certain distance to the sun. Nuclear energy is the clear winner by almost every metric.

Think about how basic of a concept nuclear is. You have a spicy rock heat up fluid. The rock stays spicy for a long time and you rarely need to change it. That's it. You're not burning anything. You aren't using overly complicated electrical equipment and membranes. You don't need specific weather conditions or specific geological features like rivers or geothermal vents. It's a rock that gets hot and can stay hot.

I love it! I don't trust my government to build it. We have solar now and we can't even do that.

Within the current capitalist system, it no longer makes sense to build them. They are too slow to come online, and they're more expensive than renewables. It would have been an ideal solution had the rich and powerful cared for even their own children. With that said, it still makes sense to maintain them, as they're actively keeping fossil fuels at bay to some degree.

If the world suddenly and magically became an anarchist utopia, I'd say it makes sense to build them going forward. We need to transition as much as possible as quickly as possible, and that means doing parallel efforts where the resources needed are different, which is to a degree the case with nuclear vs renewables. We are in a crisis and should act like it.

In a magical, pretend, ideal future where climate change is no longer an issue, I don't think it would make sense to have them. They require a lot of centralization, and renewables don't. We should opt for less centralization.

Against. 20 years ago I would have been for.

Highly centralized systems have always gone against my basically anarchist, emergent, bottom up approach I try to take to all things. At the same time, by the numbers, nuclear just makes more sense for the climate.

Solar or wind or hydro with battery, especially with the more modern batteries, fits both my general philosophy and the overall approach for the climate far better. It requires less technical skill (anyone here could install basic solar plus battery), its more modular, it allows for emergent systems; everything about it makes more sense.

If you believe we should make decisions collectively at the scale of a society, we shouldnt spend any money building nuclear at this point. And if you don't believe we should make decisions collectively at the scale of a society, you probably already didn't agree with the philosophy required to support nuclear.

I'm in favor of the cheapest and quickest to build means of power generation. That's renewables and storage.

Nuclear is a massive waste of money.

I love the nuanced and well thought answers this question generated!

I am mostly pro nuclear. It’s safe, great at scale (renewables aren’t), it’s a long term commitment (renewables and in particular solar aren’t), and requires relatively few rare materials (in particular compared to solar). It also avoids the battery problem.

This being said, it’s absurdly slow to come online and economically not as viable as renewables. So I wouldn’t support building new nuclear power plants over renewables. I would support going back in time and build them 20-30 years ago.

I'll take renewables over nuclear, but I'll take nuclear over fossil fuels.

People who think nuclear can solve all our problems with endless energy clearly never actually played Factorio.

BUT RADIATION BAD

Pro. Clean and safe energy. I say that as someone that was told one of my chronic conditions is because I was downwind of Chernobyl as a child.

I dunno the whole narrative framing of the game seems to be thematically lost on people obsessed with the game in my experience but a huge number play it so I know I have only experienced a small slice.

Boiling water to spin turbines is so last century. We can generate electricity directly through the wind blowing and the sun shining now and it's way less expensive.

To be fair, wind turbines are also just spinning turbines.

The next generation of nuclear is supposed to be small, movable shipping container sized plants, could be great for small independent communities. Though they're yet to be commercially demonstrated.

True but you get to skip the heating up some water bit.

I shared an office building with nuScale. I"m not interested.

We have solar and wind. We have batteries, they are getting better every year, and now with sodium replacing lithium, storage and the associated risks are effectively solved. Don't waste resources, our time, the environment, or peoples mental bandwidth on this.

We can and should transition towards fully decentralized non-centrally owned or managed systems.

Wind turbines don't work in space.

Do you live in space? I don't.

Pro in general as a technology, it's likely necessary for long term space flight like probes, satellites, and devices that need to run for decades or longer with little to no maintenance. For powering facilities that need consistent, high energy especially in remote areas it should be an option. Homes and most facilities should use renewables as preferred means of generating power outside of fairly limited uses for nuclear.

I mean, even ignoring narrative framing, nuclear power generation is kind of pain in the ass to manage in Factorio. Of course, it's also a massive step up compared to fossil fuels, so maybe some players just ignore the obvious downsides.

PRO: For use on Pioneer 10 and 11; Voyager 1 and 2; Galileo; Ulysses; Cassini; New Horizons; as RTG power sources.

ANTI: Terrestrial use that needs 10,000 years of safe storage considerations for spent fuel and waste.

Pro. The waste storage required per kilowatt is tiny compared to the waste storage of coal. The all-told, long-term investment to power ratio is far better than fossil fuels in general. The death-print is safer than even solar.

Caveats

• Strong and competent regulation is required. No plants should be built under Trumpism.
• Our primary focus should be renewable sources of power and improved batteries to make them more reliable.

Mostly anti since renewables are cheaper. I would be OK with nuclear used for filling the dips in renewable output. The SMRs proposed by all these startups seem like a very bad idea to me, but IDK. If fusion ever brings all that they promise, I could be pro.

Anti-nuclear. Used to be pro-nuclear because the energy density would allow for very compact energy production, but I don't trust the government (or corporations) to have any meaningfully concentrated nuclear material. Maybe solid-state nuclear batteries can be made to work and we can use that to dilute the nuclear material -- not sure about that yet.

These days I favor local solar and wind.

Pro-nuclear as long as the engineering focuses on decentralization and safety. I favor renewables like kites over nuclear however.

Anti. I really think we should figure out the waste first. I know there are arguments that it's better even with the waste, but you know that's how we get ourselves into bad situations down the road. Meanwhile there seem to be a lot of buildings around that could house wind and solar without even consuming more landscape.

All of their pro points were about space travel explicitly

Better than burning fossil fuels, which we should have stopped fifty years ago. That’s the debate, not whether we should be using renewables as much as possible.

I'm pro nuclear because it's orders of magnitude better than the shit we're already doing and it turns out you can basically just put the spent fuel back where you found it yes I know that's a little reductionist but you get my point.

That said I also think renewables are a good idea and we need a mix but there's been so much damage done to nuclear image when it's a perfectly good power source

Anti:

• It relies on Fuel that is limited (Like fosil Fuels)
• It relies on Fuel that is dangerous
• Proper constructed Reactors might be safe in peace times, but when war comes they become targets
• The Costs for the high Reactor Construction Standards make them unprofitable
• The Costs for waste Storage/Recycling make them unprofitable
• The Waste needs to be stored in an isolated Environment for THOUSANDS of Years.
• Some Countries don't have Uranium and have to buy it from Countries like Russia

Anti, but only because it's far too late. Nuclear energy should have been the transitional technology that helped us move off fossil fuels and into renewables.

But due to a massive smear campaign in the 60's and 70's, and some unfortunate material circumstances, everybody began equating nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

Renewables are totally viable now, as China has most prominently shown in recent years. The damage that fossil fuels have done to our climate and environment are so extreme, and the political and economic entrenchment has grown so deep, that spending money and resources trying to get nuclear energy popular again is a waste.

It's less efficient compared to more decentralized renewable energy; it's ok to keep the working centrals but I'm against new ones.

Realistically though you should compare the waste it produces to the waste from coal plants, which produce about half a billion tons of fly ash per year. I'd argue this is order of magnitude more harmful than nuclear waste. New (read: worked out in the 1960s and then forgotten) nuclear tech also uses the waste to produce more energy. The waste also doesn't fly into the air like coal waste.

Context: I'm currently doing a PhD in nuclear engineering

Hard-line advocates of nuclear power usually point to its role as a 'baseload' generation, but this term is often misused. A lot of people use it as if it means "reliable power on demand" as opposed to wind and solar which is not (without batteries). But baseload generation generally refers to plants with unvarying output that provide the minimum energy consumption of the grid, so that other (varying output) energy sources can be turned up or down to make up the deficit.

The "unvarying" part is very important for nuclear power. Conventional nuclear plants (PWRs/LWRs) really hate when you vary their power output. This is because varying heat and radiation flux through the fuel rod cladding causes a "racheting" effect which accelerates the swelling of fuel pellets against them leading to formation of cracks in the surface oxide, which can propagate into the bulk metal if power goes up and down too often, leading to rupture of the fuel rod cladding (which is bad). Anything below 85% power output for longer than 2 weeks is classed as extended reduced power operation (ERPO) and should be minimised - typically it is done for maintenance purposes.

This is important because it influences how much of your energy production can actually come from nuclear. France for example generates something like 75% of its electrical power from nuclear, but this is only possible because they are surrounded by countries which import a lot of energy (i.e. Germany and the UK), so they can offload excess power there and avoid putting their plants into ERPO. If Germany and the UK had similarly high amounts of nuclear, the system would not work and a lot of plants would experience reliability issues.

All this is to say, nuclear is an excellent energy source for making up a large, unvarying chunk of energy production (say, ~30%) but anything much more than that can cause more problems than it solves. One power source which can provide reliable on-demand time-varying energy is... batteries! Which is one of the reasons that recent advances in battery + solar are so exciting to me. A power grid made up of solely nuclear and renewables working together to meet time-varying demand is now completely plausible. So we dont have to choose between nuclear or renewables per se, we just have to deploy each in a way that suits its own merits.

Some Countries don’t have Uranium and have to buy it from Countries like Russia

It's actually the urainium processing that is outsourced to Russia. The nuclear fuel processing is complicated and basically only makes sense to have if you need it for nuclear weapons production.

But another issue is that urainium mining is quite damaging to the environment, so countries like France like to outsource it to former colonies like Niger, which tells a lot of about power dynamics at play. Germany for example has sufficient uranium deposits that were mined in the past, but they abandoned that long before shutting down their reactors.

it turns out you can basically just put the spent fuel back where you found it

Can you explain what you mean by this? I study Chemistry and am from a Uranium producing country and this frankly just seems wrong.

Realistically though you should compare the waste it produces to the waste from coal plants,

Why? Nuclear is not competing against coal, it's competing against renewables

Anti, pro arguments only work in comparison to coal which is a low bar.
We frankly simply have not solved the waste issue. I study chemistry and yes, the amounts are tiny, but some isotopes in waste have half lives longer than any structure we can build would last and scaling up nuclear would scale up this problem before it's solved (just like we did with greenhouse gases).
Also it's objectively more expensive than any renewable source, as multiple independent studies have found.

Deep geological disposal in underground mines or stable rock formations 200 to 1,000 meters deep is the globally accepted standard for isolating high-level nuclear waste.

I did say that I was oversimplifying it radically. We don't literally just put it back in the ground it needs to be in a smart place.

This is true. We hear about it happening a lot in mainland europe because there are a lot of inland reactors relying on rivers/reservoirs, however coastal reactors aren't vulnerable in the same way. Climate change certainly isn't making nuclear obsolete, but it definitely changes the way we need to think about cooling systems

It is in developing economies. India and China are still building coal plants in addition to renewables.