53
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
53 points (93.4% liked)
News
39156 readers
2763 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
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.
If you think it's about the restrictive regulation being a result of lobbying and not the state taking over all the risk, you can try to find anyone willing to insure your private reactor (yes, very low chance of an accident but immensely constly) or make a business plan how you guarantee the save storage of waste for a few millenia.
My long term plan for the waste? Chuck it literally anywhere in its sarcophagus. An old salt mine, a random field, literally dump it in the ocean. Do that, and then sleep soundly knowing that whatever environmental impact you create from doing that with all waste ever created from nuclear power pales in comparison to what we currently do with a single year of coal plants.
The amount of waste from nuclear power is miniscule, and the radiation it gives off is not as high as people imagine. Like yes, it's still dangerous, but not nearly to the levels decades of oil-industry fear mongering has led the public to believe.
Been there, done that. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine)
Sure... (https://www.earth.com/environment/scientists-found-200000-barrels-of-leaking-radioactive-waste/)
Good idea! (https://en.as.com/latest_news/in-1977-the-us-buried-120000-tons-of-radioactive-waste-in-a-pacific-nuclear-tomb-almost-50-years-later-the-ocean-is-threatening-to-expose-the-runit-dome-f202608-n-2/)
Any more ideas that are proven to not work without risk of contaminating the environment with uncalculable consequences?
The miniscule amount of 200,000 tons was already dumped into the ocean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste#History) leaking radioactivity there.
Wow look at that! We did all that and no one died! Nor have there been any significant negative effects! Looks like you're proving my point.
You do know that Uranium oxide is water soluble right?
There are literally billions of tons of the stuff in the ocean already.
https://farmonaut.com/mining/amount-of-uranium-in-seawater-billions-of-tonnes-revealed
And the effects of all of it are easily calculable, because it's been done.
I mean, the political sabotage has been out in the open?
https://reason.com/video/2024/03/05/the-political-sabotage-of-nuclear-power/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279723004544
https://blog.rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/3376034
Also, Onkalo is a perfectly safe waste storage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
But reprocessing it would be orders of magnitude better. Every single element produced in a reactor has a valid use, especially the short lived radioactive ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv-mFSoZOkE