Nuclear power is safe and efficient, but not cheap.

[SarahD]

There is a big push on to build more nuclear electricity capacity. This article is just one example of the huge public relations blitz. Nukes are a good way to meet our insatiable energy demand and reduce carbon emissions. But it won't be cheap. The whole purpose of the media campaign is to inject huge amounts of taxpayer dollars.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-support-new-nuclear-power-plants-us-2024-05-29/

[Think. Again.]

1. We're going to need every clean technology we have...

...to decrease and stop CO2 emissions, and we need them fast.

[FBaggins]

2. At scale it should be cheaper than other "clean" alternatives

France (and more recently China) make that clear.

What is more - they make for a much more supportable grid.

[PeaceWave]

3. Think nuclear power is safe? Watch The Days on Netflix...

A great documentary (Japanese with English subtitles) regarding the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Think a similar event couldn't happen with Diablo Canyon?

[gab13by13]

5. It doesn't have to be a disaster

they all leak and those who push for nuclear should build down wind from a plant.

[hunter]

9. The failure of the reactors at Fukushima...

... wasn't the worst consequence of the earthquake and tsunami. Not even close.

It wasn't even the worst source of toxins spilled.

We are very well trained to ignore non-radioactive toxins. Many of these toxins have a half life of FOREVER.

I support keeping Diablo Canyon open. If we shut it down now it will be replaced by dangerous natural gas power plants.

There's more than enough "cheap" natural gas in the ground to obliterate the ecosphere as we know it, and our civilization as well. It's best we leave it there.

[FBaggins]

10. No... a similar event can't happen at Diablo Canyon

Notice that Fukushima reactors 5&6 suffered no meltdown?

Take the four units involved in the disaster and put them at the top of an 85 foot cliff… and all anyone remembers about that day would be the tsunami deaths.

[303squadron]

4. Safe?

How about "relatively safe" - pun intended......except for say, 1600 square miles of the Ukraine. You would have to exclude the "safe" moniker there...and a few other places on earth as well. I'm not arguing against it's use, just the syntax we use to describe it because it falsely assumes what history denies.

[lark]

6. They 100% are not safe!

That's just industry lies.

[Bmoboy]

7. Safe forever?

When the reactors age and parts wear out, when the water source for cooling the reactor dries up or changes its channel, when bombs fall or fires or earthquakes or floods or any natural disasters happen near the reactor, then how safe?

Who is going to be the safety officer for these reactors in a hundred years? Homer Simpson?

Where is the depleted fuel (still emitting radiation) going to be stored? Who maintains the storage sites?

Safe forever?

[hunter]

8. The Biden Administration has people who can do the math.

The only reason fossil fuels are "cheap" is that we ignore the true costs of them.

Large scale solar and wind development, which are entirely dependent on fossil fuels for their economic viability, are supported by similar accounting tricks.

Germany is a case in point. They have some of the most expensive electricity in the developed world, they haven't been able to shut down their coal mines, and their dependence on Russian natural gas to support their "green" follies gave Putin both the financial resources and the confidence to invade Ukraine.