Nation states will choose uranium / plutonium reactors so that they can abuse nuclear power for weapons grade material generation. But we already have nuclear proliferation. Cat's out of the bag. Given that nuclear is a huge win in almost every other way, I'm pro-nuclear even in the context of nation states.

Mostly anti since renewables are cheaper. I would be OK with nuclear used for filling the dips in renewable output. The SMRs proposed by all these startups seem like a very bad idea to me, but IDK. If fusion ever brings all that they promise, I could be pro.

Pro in general as a technology, it's likely necessary for long term space flight like probes, satellites, and devices that need to run for decades or longer with little to no maintenance. For powering facilities that need consistent, high energy especially in remote areas it should be an option. Homes and most facilities should use renewables as preferred means of generating power outside of fairly limited uses for nuclear.

Anti:

• It relies on Fuel that is limited (Like fosil Fuels)
• It relies on Fuel that is dangerous
• Proper constructed Reactors might be safe in peace times, but when war comes they become targets
• The Costs for the high Reactor Construction Standards make them unprofitable
• The Costs for waste Storage/Recycling make them unprofitable
• The Waste needs to be stored in an isolated Environment for THOUSANDS of Years.
• Some Countries don't have Uranium and have to buy it from Countries like Russia

I'm pro but think it needs to be replaced over time

not shut down and replaced by non renewables like it's now sometimes the case

Expensive, takes forever to build, produces shit ton of waste. Also ugly as sin.

Fossil fuel companies want you to support it because it takes a really long time to set up and they can turn a profit during that time.

I think it works great in other places, but it is dangerous for America, where they will be built and maintained by bureaucratic Sociopathic corporations who will cut corners at every opportunity, until they fail, and kill millions.

Maybe someday America will evolve to the point where opportunities like this won't be automatically hijacked by financial psychopaths.

At this rate, I’m grateful for anything that isn’t burning fossil fuels.

I’d rather see solar and wind power though.

Pro unless you want to build one in a 15 mile proximity of my house then I get cold feet

All reactors are subject to overheat leading to meltdown when suddenly shutdown. They become massive energy vampires, requiring huge cooling power (and manpower) for up to 2 years after to avoid that.

What are the odds that a "social collapse" (war, plague, disaster, etc) leaves some with no workers and no external juice? Not if, when! Meltdowns will occur, some will breach containment. Only fools light an unextinguishable fire that kills them if they ever stop feeding it.

While reactor designs are "safe": this requires that they follow protocols, which often means unplanned downtime. Given the social pressures for energy, it seems that reactor operators will sometimes disobey shutdown requirements. Corruption is real in all societies. With reactors it absolutely includes a non-zero catastrophe chance. Again not if, when!

Reactors are safe, for a pre-designed lifespan. Often 50 years. To decommission properly is massively expensive and takes years of labour, and requires a replacement plant. Are operators actually squirreling away the funds to have this all saved up 50 years later (by "overcharging" now)? Or are the future governments just gonna keep patching a pig... not if, when!

What kind of containment system will work for 10s of thousands of years? What does that cost, or even look like?

https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/

As someone in Singapore where our land space constraints us from deploying large scale solar to fully meet our needs, nuclear (SMRs / Nano Reactors) is the next best solution without having to give up our energy independence to other countries.

Currently in reality? Under capitalism, genocide, planetary annihilation, etc? I'm opposed. It will absolutely be used as a tool of violence and exploitation like every other "technology" developed under capitalism.

In an imaginary world... It depends on the imaginary situation, etc. But that's largely irrelevant to actual reality.

I was pro for a long time until I read Nassim Taleb on the tail risk associated with nuclear power.

Look at Fukushima.

Look at nuclear power plants becoming targets in war.

Look at how the capitalists who will be running these things treat risk generally.

There are better options available.

I'm pro nuclear-power technology, but anti nuclear power as a capitalist or state-owned tool. And unfortunately, it's only ever going to be the tool of states in the current world, so functionally I'm against it.

But if small groups could be setting up SMRs for their communities, that would be awesome.

I love it! I don't trust my government to build it. We have solar now and we can't even do that.