35
Why California Is Reconsidering Its Decision to Shun Nuclear Power
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2026
35 points (94.9% liked)
News
39156 readers
2541 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There is no reality in which nuclear is economically viable when solar, wind and hydro power as well as batteries exist, all with exponentially decreasing costs...
The answer is always the same: people wanting those juicy multi-billion subsidies and politicians paid by them and their lobbyists spend a lot of money (but not that much compared to the amount of taxes you can get with that grift) on desinformation and straight out brain-washing.
No disagreement with the first part, but I feel like shitting on nuclear, especially when it's already built and generating power like the Diablo Canyon facility that's the subject of the article, could be pushing that capacity to other non-renewables. If the question is whether to use X dollars to build renewable capacity or nuclear capacity, i fully agree to always go with the renewable, but if we can have more of a "yes, and" sort of approach that also replaces coal/oil/gas capacity with nuclear, i like the idea of replacing some of the world burning fuels with nuclear.
In before glowing rock fan-boys school us on some new design that will totally be cheaper after the 1000th reactor is built.
A major part of it is that nuclear hasn't been allowed to be cheap.
There's been active sabotage from the oil industry since the beginning, starting with the Rockefeller Foundation sponsoring fraudulent science via their employee, Herman Mueller. To the CEO of Atlantic oil funding the creation of an explicitly anti-nuclear environmentalist group called Friends Of The Earth in 1970 or so.
Which coincidentally was about the time that the Rockefeller Foundation started funneling money to another explicitly anti-nuclear environmentalist group called Greenpeace.
The political pressure from these groups, plus direct pressure from the oil companies, got extremely restrictive regulations passed, with the goal, and result, of making nuclear more expensive to build and operate.
Look up the double guillotine break, which is a nonsense requirement that nuclear engineers have to design around. Nonsense because the equipment required to prevent this impossible scenario make it harder to deal with the actual likely scenario, which is leak before break.