So Iran can’t but the US can? Is this plant going to be an acceptable target now that the US has entered the war?
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
84 points (98.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8196 readers
276 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
There is only one side here that is obsessed with terror attacks on civilian nuclear facilities and it's not Iran
that’s right. how ironic is it that Iran can’t but US can.
Have you considered the following:
this is what american fascists do, yeah. it’s deplorable.
What is “one of the first” supposed to mean? It’s definitely not the first. Weird way to put it.
I endorse nuclear power and am enjoying the second look it is getting now but as a geologist I ask where the nuclear waste will go. No one ever wants to talk about it and there is really easy solution, the deep subsurface (miles below the ground). It’s safe, cheap, and Finland has shown how it’s done.
This is part of a broader issue in preparing our next generations for jobs of the future. To build out this infrastructure you need smart technical people to make it work and ask the tough questions, but I know this administration doesn’t care about that.
The solutions exist and the USA has been aware of those solutions since they invented nuclear power in the 50's. Unfortunately Capitalism doesn't allow long-term planning so almost every time a long-term storage solution has been proposed, or ever funded, a few elections later it get's defunded to the praised of misguided environmentalists and the green-washing fossil fuel lobby.
The one I know about the most was Yucca Mountain which got defunded. But at least WiPP is back open. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
Yea Yucca mountain is a sad tale. A lack of community engagement and politics ruined what was other wise a geotechnically sound design. Having a national repository for a nation as large as the US might be impractical in retrospect especially involving interstate rail transport. I think local containment of waste is key to reduce shipping costs and trailing the waste through developed areas. That requires planning a nuclear site near a geological repository which might not be part of design plans.
Also that NM repository I haven’t heard of, will be reading more
Look I hear you, the way the US does nuclear power has a lot of issues, it's really an industry that requires strong state backing like what China and Russia have going on.
Nuclear waste is not and has never been an issue worth discussing. It's almost exclusively invoked by antinuclear advocates.
Is it all for an AI computer?
Yeah isn't this the reactivation of Three Mile Island and it's specifically being pushed for by meta for their AI
Looks like it was Microsoft https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20/nx-s1-5120581/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-microsoft-ai
But this seems actually different.
Seems like the governor just wants to push forward with new nuclear planets since the last one was shutdown only a few years ago. Apparently this severally effected the energy prices in NY.
Its still probably being pushed by AI companies but we (the us) don't really produce enough power for everything thats up and coming like electric cars.
Of course that's how to make economy 🙂
It's for the Micron fab being built there.
For TMI, yes. You could say that it's all computer!
Building a nuclear reactor in the current day is a massive waste of money. Instead get solar and wind energy which directly work and have about the same cost.
Nuclear used to have a big performance to price advantage over solar and wind, but not anymore. It only takes 10 years longer before it can actually do something.
You need stable base load which solar and wind cannot provide.
Battery storage is a direct medium.
Nuclear is fine and dandy but it used to be popular because the long term cost was lower. Despite long investments.
Nowadays you can get direct solar and wind benefits at the same price without having to wait literally 10 years.
This is why conservatives love nuclear projects, it gives the fossil fuel industry a way to keep profiting for 10 years. Then they will cancel the project and there will be nothing in return.
Except battery storage costs a fortune and isnt ideal for cold climate regions.
Plus the excessively long timespans & project costs of nuclear should wind up being curbed by things like small modular reactors and boilerplate pre certified designs.
And trying to make nuclear projects a conservative bait and switch is one hell of a reach.
And trying to make nuclear projects a conservative bait and switch is one hell of a reach.
You have not noticed the conservative agenda to push nuclear instead of renewables? Once again, it allows us to keep using oil for 10 more years.
Nuclear has been neglected for 50 years while renewables have advanced at lightning speed. There was a case for nuclear in the past. There no longer is. I believe it is even way more expensive to build nuclear these days.
Besides being cheaper, there is no more nuclear explosion risk, and can be deployed right now instead of in 10 years. Renewables are obviously the way to go. This was different in the past. It no longer is.
Once again, SMRs. Quite cheap, easy to deploy and due to their modular design wont take a decade.
Nuclear has also advanced significantly in safety in that time, along with finding cheaper sources for the fuel and fuel recycling.
On top of that bleeding edge thorium reactors literally cannot have a run away reaction as they are designed with the ability to drain the fuel into a safety tank should a temperature threshhold be exceeded.
Reactors are also expensive these days due to constantly using bespoke one off designs, if you production line a reactor like the Souuth Koreans and French have done and what SMRs will also be able to do the initial capital cost looks far less horrifying.
And no I havent really noticed Tories pushing that narrative, in America its all about oil and outside of America they're generally far more open to a mixture of power sources.
Can...can we build it after Trump leaves? I'd rather not have a target here.
Trump reduced the “red tape” to build this so it might just be dangerous on its own
Assuming it comes online in less than a decade and not drastically over budget
Eh, the newest generation of reactors are actually really safe. It's been a while since I've read up on them, but I believe that it's impossible for some of them to meltdown.
The red tape for building nuclear plants was based on the first few gen reactors, and needed to be reduced.
Thoughtfully reduced and changed. I don't trust that the red tape reduction in this case was thoughtful, though I will admit I haven't looked myself. With all the shit being thrown at the wall it's impossible to keep up, even though nuclear power generation is one of my areas of interest.
A grift for the technocrats.
building nuclear power plants take so long that he probably will be dead when it is done
Burkina Faso will have gone nuclear by the time they finish this shit
You realize all power plants are a "target" right?