They won't build any. It will have the same outcome as the last one where they were supposed to build 2 reactors and basically filled some holes in the ground with concrete to the tune of $25+ Billion dollars.
Coincidentally I was listening to a podcast today discussing nuclear power and their opinions were that there will never be a big reactor built in the US again. There might be these new style micro reactors though.
The waste can stay close to the reactor for literally the few 100 years in most cases, its not actually a problem. The zone where you can't live anyway around a reactor has enough space for local waste storage.
And if in the next 100 years or so there is some natural change that makes that location a problem, you move it to another already existing nuclear reactor and leave it there.
If society collapses to such an extent that you do not have the capability to move around some nuclear 'waste' every couple 100 years then your society has much, much bigger problems anyway.
The idea that we can't or shouldn't build nuclear reactor because we don't have a location where we can put things in one place that is safe for 100000 years is just so fucking absurd if you actually think about it. But its not really about thinking, its all just political theater for uniformed people.
It’s a “Trump deal” with absolutely zero information. It’s probably not going to amount to anything. Solar + battery is eating everybody’s lunch, and nuclear was way too expensive even before that.
nocoiner|4 months ago
citizenpaul|4 months ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nukegate_scandal
Coincidentally I was listening to a podcast today discussing nuclear power and their opinions were that there will never be a big reactor built in the US again. There might be these new style micro reactors though.
mpweiher|4 months ago
"Westinghouse announced in July it plans to open 10 new plants in the U.S., with construction starting in 2030." -- https://www.ans.org/news/article-7499/westinghouse-signs-80b...
cyanydeez|4 months ago
First is easier: where to build it.
The second is where the waste goes.
Historically, the second issue is not resolved.
panick21|4 months ago
And if in the next 100 years or so there is some natural change that makes that location a problem, you move it to another already existing nuclear reactor and leave it there.
If society collapses to such an extent that you do not have the capability to move around some nuclear 'waste' every couple 100 years then your society has much, much bigger problems anyway.
The idea that we can't or shouldn't build nuclear reactor because we don't have a location where we can put things in one place that is safe for 100000 years is just so fucking absurd if you actually think about it. But its not really about thinking, its all just political theater for uniformed people.
jdlshore|4 months ago
nasmorn|4 months ago