People Would Rather Have Nuclear Power Plants In Their Area Than AI Data Centers

Because eventually the grid electricity costs too much. If you consume more than the community, then the prices will be astronomical. Then it is profitable to build a power plant. If they are generous, they could even sell some electricity to the community for a “reasonable” price.

All sorts: the Epstein Class, corporations like Blackrock or Blackwater, the Heritage Foundation, cults, corrupt government officials, grifters, and so forth. They might not be physically in our rooms, but their influence colors our everyday life, in ways great and small, often beyond our perception.

Fact of the matter is that there are many forms of power and methods of applying it - AI is no different. Like any tool, it doesn’t care about how it is used or abused. Humans have to decide whether they wield the power of the tool, and to what end.

A shovel can dig gardens and mass graves alike. A good person tries to prevent whatever causes the latter outcome, and encourage the former.

twice as large as manhattan.

There’s a huge anti-nuclear crowd

Which was grass-rooted by oil companies back in the 70s.

Nuclear is THE single most expensive source of electricity on this planet. So economically it makes zero sense to switch to nuclear. Other than that I agree with you.

I’m anti-nuclear, but it’s because nuclear is so much slower to build and more expensive than solar or wind so the fossil fuel industry is pushing for nuclear to delay the transition away from fossil fuels and use up all the funding.

If you have nuclear plants, you’ve paid to build them and you’re on the hook for decommissioning costs, sure, keep running them. Starting construction on new nuclear in 2026? That’s a terrible idea.

You won’t be up and running before 2040 and you’re not going to be competitive against 2040’s renewables and batteries, never mind 2070’s.

Given the massive amount of land we have renewables are the clear winner. Densely populated countries, with little to no coastline, would get better use out of nuclear.

Even if/when we replace fossil fuels with renewables, we still need a solution for surges, and nuclear would fit that very well

And also really depends on the needs of the community. Solar, especially, can be deployed cheaply and relatively quickly, and may meet the needs of the community while phasing out oil and gas. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build and take a really long time, but provide a large amount of power. A local community may not need a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear power plants are also expensive to maintain and tend to attract questionable investors.

Great Bubble 2: Meltdown

Same reason we don’t have wind powered cars.

You can probably name every major nuclear accident or incident that’s ever happened. Not because they were all major catastrophes that caused mass loss of life. But because they happen so infrequently and blown out of proportion.

Fukashima was the worst accident in the last 30 years with 0 fatalities. In the US alone over 100 people died due to wind turbines from things like falling ice or structural integrity failure. None of those people worked on turbines and happened to be bystanders to the incident.

Things like fossil fuels have thousands of deaths. But you’re trying to say nuclear is dangerous?

I know how safe they haven’t been

No, you really don’t.

Compare what you think you know with the reality of how nuclear power is used all over the world and safely.

Even Fukushima wasn’t that bad in terms of human casualties. It was the tsunami that caused all the loss of life and damage.

Not to say that the Fukushima nuclear incident wasn’t a disaster. But there were no direct deaths from it, and as far as anyone knows, no one has died of even indirect causes.

And there are a LOT of operating nuclear plants all over the world.

Edit: nuclear power generation has the 2nd least amount of deaths attributed to it out of all energy sources, beaten only by solar and only by a small margin.

I know how safe they haven’t been - so that’s something.

do you? Nuclear, Solar, and Wind are all roughly equally safe.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Ok, how safe haven’t they been? How many were worse than deepwater horizon?

I’m guessing you’ve happily consumed what was given to you on a spoon and accepted that it was representative of the bigger picture.

I grew up an hour from a 1GW reactor that got shut down in part due to “concerned citizens” like yourself. The site it stood on is still periodically checked by the DOE but is now a recreational area. How often do old coal plants do that?

Hydropower causes more deaths than nuclear reactors

sauce

Edit: sorry, changed the link because I had copied the wrong one. New one is not AI slop, I apologize

I still remember learning that and about breeder reactors (they produce fissile material from common isotopes) and feeling so betrayed by the common zeitgeist

They could also use geothermal for significantly cheaper and environmentally friendly long term climate control but they don’t want to pay the up front construction costs.