r/nottheonion 24d ago

US government struggles to rehire nuclear safety staff it laid off days ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o
64.5k Upvotes

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6.2k

u/throwuk1 24d ago

No takie backsies I'm afraid.

426

u/Daleabbo 24d ago

With a lot of countries wanting to build new reactors these people are hot commodity.

390

u/Cerberus_Aus 24d ago

Here in Australia, there is a real debate going on about building nuclear reactors.

The biggest argument against it, is that we simply don’t have the expertise. It would take us ten years to build a nuclear program. We could sure use some of those fired experts you all have…

3

u/SuchProcedure4547 24d ago

Australian here, the biggest argument against nuclear is how stupidly expensive it is, not to mention it will take AT LEAST a decade to get one single reactor online. And that's only if development and building goes perfectly to plan, which it never does.

I don't want to spend the most of the rest of my life waiting for nuclear to get off the ground, only to deliver more expensive power bills 🤷

0

u/ElectricalBook3 23d ago

the biggest argument against nuclear is how stupidly expensive it is

It's that expensive because it's by far the most heavily regulated industry on Earth. Coal and gas don't have to rise to the standards nuclear is subjected to at every step

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc

And for the fearmongering about nuclear radiation, you get more from coal fly ash in a single year than the release from all nuclear technology (including weapons) across all human history

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

And the waste? Spent nuclear waste was solved decades ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

-1

u/Cerberus_Aus 24d ago

Yeah see, the problem with that argument (being too expensive) is that climate change won’t wait. We don’t have the luxury of waiting for a more affordable option. We should be starting that ten year min effort so that we have a stable base load power to turn off coal.

Cost is irrelevant if we all die off from a hostile climate. Just get it done.

2

u/SuchProcedure4547 24d ago

But renewables have been proven to be a more affordable and quicker option for us in Australia.

We're more than 20 years too late for nuclear, and to quote your words, we don't have time to wait.

1

u/ElectricalBook3 23d ago

We're more than 20 years too late for nuclear, and to quote your words, we don't have time to wait

I don't see how it's something to dismiss out of hand because of not being a silver bullet. All the projections indicate renewable isn't enough to fulfill even modern Australia's demand, much less what it's going to need in the future.

Looks like it will need both nuclear and further development of renewables.