Posted on 12/12/2025 7:36:07 AM PST by MtnClimber
Thank you President Trump. The democRATs would be following Germany’s example.
These plants create jobs in local communities. And reduce prices which are skyrocketing already.
There is every reason to do this if we want AI and domestic production.
This is a very good thing.
Reluctance to develop nuclear power generation to its full potential over the last half century - has to be the most costly example of mass human retardation since the dark ages.
Well… that and replacing a commodity backed dollar with worthless fiat money.
The future was looking bright a century or so ago.
If you even casually study the energy sector you will be struck by the absolutely massive scale of the industry.
The only way you can make sufficient energy for the future is incorporating nuclear.
Just don’t put the plants in a tsunami zone.
Getting rid of nuclear power was part of the Port Huron Statement agenda, which called for unilateral disarmament. We're in the process of getting rid of that agenda, and when its postwar advocates are finally dead and buried, so will it be.
There has been a revolution in the production of electric energy from nuclear sources. These new small modular nuclear reactors are so compact, they may be manufactured almost on an assembly line in a factory, loaded on freight cars or eighteen-wheel semi trailers, transported to site, and installed up and running in days.
https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/top-5-smr-tech
This means nothing. Virtue signaling. The treehuggers control all building. Get rid of them and you MIGHT be able to get one unit on line in <7 years.
Might.
I personally would like it if we had a bunch of small nuclear power plants spread out all over the country.
This would be the easiest, cheapest and most resilient way to meet our electricity needs.
Not a few big plants but a bunch of small ones.
Many small beats few big every time there are problems.
And there are always problems.
Which is why red states are moving forward and not the Blue states.
We desperately need one in New England.
-SB
50% of my stock market profile is invested in Energy stocks. From oil companies to those who provide electricity, I have a wide range of stock devoted to this sector.
The democRATs would be following Germany’s example.
—
Have no fear, these plants take years to build, and before then, the Dems will be back in power - just in time to cancel all the contracts/permits.
Even better, though I’m weirdly fond of the giant cooling towers.
Note:
What you see, are massive cooling towers.
Nukes generate lots of heat, so the power plant main work is cooling.
The “smoke” is water steam.
Certain people often darken the steam, to scare population and show supposed pollution.
April 16, 2018, The senior vice president and chief strategy officer at Exelon predicts there will be no new nuclear plants built in the United States. Because of the plants' size and security needs, the costs become prohibitive.
Only a decade ago, nuclear reactors were cash cows. But a combination of low natural gas prices and a boom in solar and wind power has rendered them unable to compete in states with price competition for power. Five of the country’s nuclear plants have shut down in the past decade. Of the remaining 99, at least a dozen more may close in the next. ...The average American operational nuclear plant is 37 years old. -https://theconversation.com/the-demise-of-us-nuclear-power-in-4-charts-98817
List of cancelled nuclear reactors in the United States..By the end of the 1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as dramatically as once believed. This was particularly galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were ultimately cancelled[2] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States
Nuclear energy is one of the largest sources of emissions-free power in the world. It generates nearly a fifth of America’s electricity and half of its clean energy. During this process, it creates spent or used fuel (sometimes incorrectly referred to as nuclear waste) but it’s not the green oozy liquid you might be thinking of when watching "The Simpsons." In fact, some in the industry actually consider it a valuable resource.
1. Commercial spent nuclear fuel is a solid Spent fuel refers to the nuclear fuel that has been used in a reactor. The fuel used in today’s commercial reactors is made up of small ceramic pellets of low-enriched uranium oxide. The fuel pellets are stacked vertically and encased in a metallic cladding to form a fuel rod. These fuel rods are bundled together into tall fuel assemblies that are then placed into the reactor. The fuel is a solid when it goes into the reactor and a solid when it comes out.
2. The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce. The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. And, the clean energy generated from this fuel would be enough to power more than 70 million homes—avoiding more than 400 million metrics tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
If we take that a step further, U.S. commercial reactors have generated about 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel since the 1950s. If all of it were able to be stacked together, it could fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. The nation’s spent nuclear fuel is initially stored in steel-lined concrete pools surrounded by water. It’s later removed from the pools and placed into dry storage casks that are made of steel and concrete or other materials used for protective shielding.
5. Spent fuel can be recycled That’s right! Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts. More than 90% of its potential energy still remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor. The United States does not currently recycle spent nuclear fuel but foreign countries, such as France, do.
There are also some advanced reactor designs in development that could consume or run on spent nuclear fuel in the future. Learn more about our work with spent nuclear fuel.Finally,
Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology that takes full responsibility for all its waste and fully costs this into the product.
Electing Democrats has to be the most costly example of mass human retardation since the dark ages!
Or, allow them to keep stealing elections!
Texas could use a few more to solidify it’s grid. Get rid of those fugly wind turbines that ruin the landscape and stop building solar farms on viable agricultural land.
Forget subsidising new PWR or BWR plants. Those are dead end technology.
The U.S.Gov needs to subsidize a huge spent fuel reprocessing plant post haste. That single plant solves the “nuclear waste” problem and the fuel cycle problem forever.
Spent fuel is 96% good fuel and 4,% ish fission products. Only the fission products need to be turned to glass and put down borreholes into stable , granite, shale or salt. A salt mine works too you only need 500 years not a million for all but 4 of the fission products to decay below natural uranium ore levels.
We need fast breed reactors like the Russians BM600 , BN800 and China CFR-600 and soon to be CFR-1000 both of them have reprocessing plants and are kicking our butts in nuclear tech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.