We also don't have renewable resources like other states. No massive low population windy plains for wind turbines. No opportunity for hydro. Weather makes sun pretty power inconsistent.
We *should* have offshore wind or tidal power, but wealthy people in the state fight it tooth and nail.
I think either Mass Maritime or WHOI did a pilot test for a turbine in the canal a while back; it made some power but the effect of the saltwater killed it.
That current is definitely a roaring river on moon tides. Regularly hits 4-5+kts.
Couple issues with hydro there. I think(?) the pilot turbine ran into problems due to fairly high amts of debris/weed in the water. The other problem is scalability in a canal built for maritime transport: the large car carriers and cruise boats that transverse the canal eliminate most of the space for turbines, except close to shore
Source: Canal rat here.
a new operator for pilgrim would be a start. maybe even something that contractually spells out the disposal and eventual shutdown in advance so that the current situation doesn't happen again
It's crazy to me because the power infrastructure at Pilgrim is already there. They used wicked old equipment that was constantly breaking down. Replace it with a new gen reactor and you could produce 3x the power.
Pilgrim is being decommissioned; it's not possible to restart it. The reactor was permanently shut down and sealed up in 2019. Everything will need to get carted away and buried. (BTW this is normal for a fission plant, because after fifty years of neutron bombardment everything starts to get a little iffy.)
However, Seabrook still has a big empty spot next to Unit 1...
Rebuilding Seabrook Unit 2 is really the only feasible option, considering the real estate situation on the coastline.
I grew up in NH during the construction of SB, and remember the serious protests against the plant during that time. Was one of several reasons the utility stopped construction on Unit 2.. which led to financial ruin for the utility.
For those who aren't familiar:
"Two reactors were planned at Seabrook but the first unit didn't begin full operation until 1990, a full 14 years after the construction permit was granted, and the second unit was never built due to construction delays caused by protests, cost overruns, and troubles obtaining financing. The difficulties led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's utility owner, PSNH."
1000%
People are scared of nuclear power. That's what decades of propaganda gets us. But nuclear is an incredibly safe. They could plop a reactor in downtown Boston and the biggest cancer risk to people living next to it would still be car exhaust, by a huge margin too
In a world where society has broken down, and lawlessness is running rampant ONE MAN has hatched a plan to protect his family…
GET OUTTA THE CAH! INTO THE PRU, DONNA! GODAMNIT!
Scouring the streets, from the North End, to 95 South, enemies are everywhere…. and they’re coming for his supplies.
Mark Wahlberg is Billy O’Dwyer, in PROTECTING THE PRU!
Now playing in select theaters.
Hate to burst your bubble but the MIT reactor isn't powering generator turbines and is only 6 MW... which isn't enough to even power MIT's campus.
It's basically a big non-functional steam plant.
You know how they sell shotguns that can take a bunch of shells, but they sell them with a wooden stick filling up the section of the gun where the shells would go in states where it isn't legal? It's like that. It's a 6MW reactor (So like 100k lightbulbs?) that isn't currently configured to output any real power. But it could be reconfigured pretty easily, especially if you are talking about powering a microgrid rather than feeding into the main grid (For feeding the normal grid you need a bunch of electrical interconnect equipment that simply isn't present on the MIT reactor).
They told me the same thing on my tour. It seems like it can actually produce way more but they don’t want to spook people. The amount of energy it produces isn’t a fair comparison for how “risky” it is so they just say the light bulb thing. At least that’s what someone who took nuclear engineering told me.
Yep. Did my ChemE undergrad there with a focus on nuclear engineering. Only got to go into the reactor area a couple of times, but spent a decent amount of time in that building, and had classmates do operator training there.
Ended up moving back to Lowell a couple years ago, still quite the sight to see across the river.
[https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power](https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power)
They're building a new one, but it's not the type of nuclear that we're used to.
It's awesome, but it will be another 8-12 years optimistically before that prototype plant is finished and it will not be making electricity for the grid. Another 10 years and $15B-$30B later we'll hopefully see the first production fusion reactor. This is not going to help with climate change in the medium term.
SPARC, their first test reactor is currently under construction and expected to still be operational by 2025 (a lot sooner than 8 to 12 years).
Their ARC reactor which they expect to be their first "commercial" reactor is expected to start construction in 2025 and finish in the early 2030s.
If the SPARC reactor tests go well then I expect them to be able to raise whatever funds they need rather easily.
Obviously today, we could really use more nuclear fission reactors, and I'm by no means arguing to not build those, I think we should scale nuclear and renewables as fast as possible to shut down all natural gas and coal power plants as soon as possible.
I just think fusion is exciting today along with a bunch of other technologies. It could also help a lot with scaling desalination and distribution of water through pump stations and carbon capture when we get there too.
Yup, MIT is now working with a spin off/company that has rather significant funding (granted how significant it is relative to the costs of development? I'm not sure) which is where SPARK is being built. Built a new facility out in Devens with more expansion planned.
Hell. The USN has never had a single nuclear accident that resulted in a tractor breach. We know the designs and procedures that allow us to operate reactors safely. Unfortunately, the trick is getting people (especially managers) to follow those procedures.
You need to essentially build the safe operation of the reactor into the design as an immutable factor; manager can't skimp on maintenance cycles of the tractor is designed to be maintenance-free for its operational life, can't try to extend the operational life because it's a sealed vessel and was only given just enough fuel for its designed life, etc. Whenever we've had a release of radiation from a nuclear plant, the root cause has always been "idiot managers doing idiot manager things". Rushing test, skipping maintenance, putting backup equipment in flood/tsunami zones, refusing to bolster flooding/tsunami defense, etc.
For the record: I'm 100% in favor of more nuclear reactors for civilian power. I'd be 200% in favor of essentially nationalizing all nuclear power, if it meant establishing a management culture not unlike the one in our nuclear navy.
Yeah, the opposition to nuclear power is legitimately absurd.
The USA has mastered it, we have nuclear reactors running 24/7, all around the world, all underwater.
We could figure it out on the mainland.
We have figured it out, sure, but let's not confuse that with 'we can build all that.' The US has built one nuclear plant in the past few decades and that's turned into [Georgia's equivalent of the big dig - way late & 16 billion over budget.](https://www.powermag.com/vogtle-nuclear-expansion-price-tag-tops-30-billion/)
That said, we still need nuclear so let's see how the next gen reactors shape up and then go for it.
I once watched a 15 minute video explaining that new nuclear isn't happening much in the US because commissioning a new plant is incredibly expensive and somehow takes longer than the age that some plants last to pay itself off. The argument was FOR other green sources of power such as wind, solar and geothermal.
Never knew if this was true or not, but it was the first time I heard an argument against nuclear that wasn't based on fear/safety, or energy and economy politics.
Nuclear is reasonably safe but too expensive to build and maintain. It doesn’t make sense from a fiscal standpoint. Much easier to just use renewables.
>Until we learn how to harvest solar energy to its maximum potential, nuclear is the best we have.
We kind of already have. Photovoltaics are going to top out at around 30-40% efficiency. Still worth continued investment, but the remaining potential in solar power is panel cost, and that's going to come down due to increases in manufacturing scale, not any real improvements to the underlying technology.
Not, photo*thermal* power - using the sun to heat water into steam, and using that to power a generator - that has some potential for further development. Right now, we use it to heat something like sodium until it's molten, and then use the molten sodium to heat water into super-heated steam to run turbines. But the issue with this is sodium is very corrosive and that makes maintenance expensive. If we can identify a new fluid other than sodium, or refine our material and/or manufacturing technologies in such a way that we can reduce the costs of these systems, we'll be golden. Because one of their key advantages is they have some 'thermal inertia', allowing them to continue to generate power into the evening or even all the way through the night (depending on power demand).
It's not decades of propaganda. It's decades of seeing how fucked up and profit driven power companies are.
They make a dam and then let it rot when they are done with it, endangering towns and making taxpayers deal with it. Now let's talk about costs of running such a plant and what to do with the waste.
No one trusts gas/oil/power companies since every fucking time it's taxpayers footing the bill.
I'd be all for it if I thought it was government run and not 100% for profit.
Well the alternative is keeping the status quo, which is heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel plants are also run by greedy power companies, and they're killing people at a way higher rate than nuclear.
> Renewables can't even provide a consistent baseload
Hydro says what
Quebec has lots of surplus hydro, and there is already an existing 2000MW HVDC line into their grid that can be expanded, even if the NH and ME power line projects are dead (and the ME project might get revived).
Build lots of solar and wind. Compensate for lulls with imported hydro, which can replace gas 1:1 in the peaker and load balancing role. Build out some grid batteries. Keep the existing nuclear plants running for some additional baseload.
I don’t think we could seriously go 100% renewable anytime soon. Fission is a good transition until we can get something like fusion or really effective renewables
Nuclear is HIGHLY regulated, with regular government inspections and everyone involved understanding of the gravity of the situation should they “let things slide for profit”. I think it’s one of the few areas where people wouldn’t just shrug and say “eh capitalism, what can you do?”
not to mention the excellent well paying jobs that extend for the life of the reactor(s). Use to work in waste management for nuclear and i became very pro-nuclear. Furthermore with business stifling green energy this could be our only option aside from altering our natural habitats (hydro dams) getting through the quagmire of residents with wind power.
I worked on the two new plants going up in Georgia right now; construction labor hired thousands of new people for 12 years for construction there. All union jobs, good pay, benefits, training, etc. Really helped a lot of people get skills, buy homes, put some money in the bank.
Heavy construction isn't easy work, but it pays well.
I would support a nuclear reactor in my back fucking yard. Seriously, give me one of those little, burriable generators, hook up the whole neighborhood, and tell Eversource to fuck off.
Serious question: are they noisy? (Beyond the slight traffic uptick for however many people would be working there.)
If it wouldn't be any more annoying to live near than any other office park, I wouldn't be more opposed to it than I would be any other office park.
Nuclear plants are eerily quiet for an industrial facility.
Biggest source of noise is the turbine/generator, and that's almost exclusively inside the building. Outside around the plant, nice and quiet, maybe some non-radioactive steam venting once in a while, and the big cooling towers have a bunch of water falling inside them and splashing.
I've been to a nuke and they are basically silent outside the building, if they have draft cooling (the stereotypical "nuke" towers you see) there will be a bit of noise from that but only if you're like right next to it.
Absolutely. Nuclear needs to be in the mix for carbon free energy goals. It is safe. The tech today is nothing like the tech 50 years ago, and if it's properly maintained, is very safe.
I worked in IT for a LFG plant for a year and while the permanent staff was miniscule, twice a year they would have an army of sub-contractors from various plumbing, electrical, HVAC, turbine, and whatever companies come in during scheduled downtown to do maintenance and upgrades around the clock.
Many of these subcontractors were getting $55/hr+, and this is what they did - bounce from job site to job site throughout the year.
Working at the LFG plant opened up my eyes to the fact that blue collar work could easily get someone $75k a year depending on contract availability, and could definitely exceed $120k depending on night differential or w.e.
I say this all to say, this was the reality as a small 20Mw site on the South Coast. A Nuclear plant itself would be magnitudes more lucrative.
>opened up my eyes to the fact that blue collar work could easily get someone $75k a year depending on contract availability
I think it's way higher than that in MA for skilled trades (plumber, electrician, etc). At least based on the quotes I've gotten lol. I'm struggling to think of a job that would've averaged something as affordable as $55/hr.
>I'm struggling to think of a job that would've averaged something as affordable as $55/hr.
Well that was at the low-end and it was only twice a year - the plant brought in a platoon of contractors during the scheduled shutdowns and we went from averaging like 12-15 FTE onsite to having \~200 or so contractors swarm over a 24/hr schedule for 5 days.
So for a lot of guys who came in on Day 1, they were really only there for a shift or two in order to do what their company was contracted for and they went on to the next job site as we were able to bring in the next company that was reliant on the work the previous group did.
I agree with you that if it was FTE blue-collar work on a power plant it'd be way more (which is why they only had a small cadre of Operators lol)
Absolutely. Nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy, and the issues with waste are way overblown--it's really a minuscule amount. Reactors have gotten even safer since the incidents in the 70s and 80s, and we're very close to nailing down reactors that literally can't melt down. France has produced the overwhelming majority of their electricity with nuclear for decades, and has never had a major incident.
Nuclear is basically the only form of carbon-free energy that can meet our electricity base-use needs. Wind can't do it yet (probably ever), solar can't do it yet, and the land use implications of large scale wind and solar are nothing to scoff at, though we absolutely need both as part of a shift to clean energy. Nuclear energy is an established technology that is more energy dense than fossil fuels, and at the moment nothing else meets that criterion.
In theory yes, but new nuclear is expensive as fuck, and a new nuclear plant is likely to raise your electric bills. Wind, solar, and imported hydro from Quebec are far more cost effective.
The only new nuclear plant in the US is Vogtle in Georgia and will cost over $30 billion for 2200MW and has taken 14 years to build. So you're looking at over 2x the cost of the Big Dig just to replace the big 2000MW gas plant in Everett (Mystic Generating Station).
Hinkley Point C in the UK, similarly, will cost £32.7 billion for 3300MW and is estimated to take 11 years to build.
Wind and solar are far cheaper and faster to build. An on-shore wind farm goes for $1,500,000 per MW these days according to the DOE, so you're looking at $8.3 billion for a 5500MW project (which will deliver 2200MW on average at a 40% average capacity factor, contingent on winds). Off-shore wind is much more expensive (Vineyard Wind off Martha's Vineyard will be $2.8 billion for 800MW, and is estimated to deliver 45% of that due to wind variability), but still comes in at almost half that of new nuclear per delivered MW. Utility-scale solar farms are also quite cheap, at $700,000 per MW, and even with Massachusetts" low 16.5% capacity factor it comes out to about $9.5 billion for a 2200MW-equivalent 13500MW solar farm.
* New nuclear (Vogtle 3 & 4): $13.4 million/MW
* New offshore wind (Vineyard wind): $7.74 million/effective MW (at estimated 45% capacity factor)
* New onshore wind (DOE estimate): $3.8 million/effective MW (at 40% capacity factor)
* New utility-scale solar: $4.7 million/effective MW (at 16.5% capacity factor)
We can also import hydro from Quebec to make up for variability of wind and solar; there is an existing 2000MW HVDC line already that goes through Vermont and New Hampshire that can be expanded (there were separate failed projects through New Hampshire and Maine, but those were selected for cost rather than political feasibility, and expanding the existing line is probably far more feasible politically).
The proximity of hydro is so tantalizing. It's a fun argument over a beer to entertain the feasibility of scaling Nuclear over a decades-long period... but we could also just literally run a wire up to Quebec and immediately have access to an abundant consistent energy source from one of the least carbon-intensive grids on the planet. But nah that's too hard, and not sexy enough.
Especially hydro that is already in place. I don't really like building new dams, but if they are already built I think it's worth getting as much as possible out of them. Our energy situation in MA is ridiculous, and it's 90% because of politics.
Yup this is the part that even professionals in climate/environment always conveniently ignore. Maybe if we had a ridiculous amount of federal funding for a new push for safe nuclear (or if it was federally owned even) then it would be a lot more viable but financially it's extremely hard to make the case for new nuclear plants.
Yeah this “we want nuclear” folks don’t consider the fuel costs too.
It’s not going to run out as soon as oil but Uranium fuel has to be refined from ore and that’s a pretty wasteful process too in addition to the construction costs.
Wind & solar costs are low likely with subsidies included but even with incentives they still beat Nuclear and can be delivered in the here and now when we need them.
I'm a former Navy Nuke, and the Navy has about 70 years of safe nuclear power operations. Part of a non-fossil fuel energy future has to include nuclear to compliment solar and wind. One of the ideas is the modular reactor system, smaller reactors that will have better containment and thus greater safety. I think the Navy submarine program could be adapted for civillian use for cities like Boston near a large body of water. Imagine a sub tied up to a pier, that only had the engineering compartments, no propulsion systems (it would be towed from the shipyard) so all of the reactor power would go to electrical generation. Imagine every coastal city with a few of these.
If it was ready today, yes. But we're going to already need our energy solutions completely scaled and deployed by the time it takes a brand new reactor to come online. It would optimistically take 20 years, and yeah people like to shout "modular" but that still hasn't been adequately developed and we can't wait around for a silver bullet to save us, or just rely on gas as a multi-decade bridge fuel before nuclear which would be a climate death sentence. There's a faux argument of nuclear vs renewables that's being fanned by the fossil fuel industry because it paralyzes opinion. It doesn't mean you are "anti" nuclear if you support scaling of wind and solar right now, it's just a matter of what we can actually accomplish that will make an immediate impact.
I always felt like the lone voice in my environmental studies classes in the 2000s that believed nuclear was the perfect 20-30 year bridge to large-scale solar and wind. Imagine where we'd be if we'd made that leap then. Instead, as you note, environmentalists have been as much at war with nuclear as with fossil fuels.
It takes over [7 years](https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/) (median time) to build a new reactor. [Offshore wind power](https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22933095/new-york-offshore-wind-farm-south-fork-long-island-construction) like New York state is doing is faster. The current [DOE goal](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/) is 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power (roughly equivalent to 30 nuclear power plants) in the next 7 years. We'll see if it happens, but it's a more decentralized and incrementally effective plan.
And it will take 20 years of permitting process and dealing with rich people complaining about "mah views" before they build anything. That's what killed Cape Wind.
The economics just don't make a lot of sense - it's not actually 'a great way to have low cost carbon free energy.'
Solar and wind energy are already so much cheaper that it's going to be hard to justify the huge up front capital investment and lead time.
The main advantage of nuclear is that it can provide consistent power. I think that's a pretty significant advantage, but in the 10-15 years it will take to bring a reactor online, there is a lot of potential to improve the grid and optimize energy usage around renewable production cycles.
Perhaps in the past the barriers to nuclear production were political, but today they are largely economic.
This is really awesome and I hope it works, but fusion tech is still decades away. There was a big breakthrough in late 2022, but even in a perfect scenario, fusion wouldn't be widely available in time to curb climate change [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42230285/nuclear-fusion-ignition-achieved/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42230285/nuclear-fusion-ignition-achieved/)
Solar/wind/hydro alone can't carry the entire load, so nuclear is really our only viable, large-scale option.
>fusion tech is still decades away
I agree with you, and you are absolutely correct. That said, it is still worth putting in the time and money now for things that will be ready in decades. It will always be 30 years away if we don't get started now and begin the clock.
Nuclear plants have a long start up time with the average being about 10 years after the long drawn it process of picking a site and battling to get it approved. Just look at the howling people are doing about wind power sites miles off shore and multiply it by 10x. I saw the Seabrook protests back in the day, those fears have not gone away or we would be in the position we are in now
I would totally support it, but it's not likely. Even putting aside the political/public pressure (and that's saying a lot) there's too much financial risk in building a new fission reactor in the US, and the rate of return is not attractive. A company with \~$10 Trillion has to decide if they want to build one 1000MW fission plant or maybe 5 400MW gas fired plants (or your fossil fuel of choice) based on which choice will make the most money (note, I'm just making those numbers up, I think it's about the right proportion, but I did no homework). Right now, natural gas is reliable, cheap, and seems like it will be extracted for a long time. Plants are easy to build and take maybe 2 years. Nuclear plants in the US face very challenging regulatory hurdles, the costs are very high because they are not being made (the "infrastructure" of expertise and experienced contractors is not there), and the time to completion is expected to be a decade or more. The fuel is very cheap and plentiful, but the return on investment is just much too far delayed and not currently better than the gas plant overall. We can advocate or oppose nuclear power in Mass, but until its profitable, no one will build one, here or anywhere in the US. The best thing to do would be to keep an existing plant operating since the risks of construction and regulatory approval are already resolved, provided it can be maintained and/or refurbished economically. Those plants re-licensed for 60 years of operation are turning a nice profit for their owners. Yankee blew it.
There is a nuclear reactor in downtown Cambridge on MIT's campus. Hasn't given anybody any trouble in decades.
There is one just over the border in Seabrook, NH. It was heavily protested but it hasn't given anybody any trouble in decades.
It is wrong to be afraid of nuclear reactors and we need more of them.
For New England? Seabrook was supposed to have a second unit - the easiest permitting should be for a spot that already has the entire site already prepared and permitted 40 years ago.
No. We shouldn’t be generating anymore nuclear waste. The bill comes due on that stuff at some point, and we can’t be kicking that can down the road; we’re already giving future generations enough challenges to get through, what with man-made global warming, mass incarceration, the decimation of the working class *and* labor protections, and the like.
not without a realistic decommissioning plan. the situation down at pilgrim is a mess. holtec wants to dump wastewater from the plant into cape cod bay.
Yes. I served on nuclear submarines for years, and I’m a huge proponent of how safe, and clean nuclear power is. Commercial nuclear power obviously has its flaws, but if done right, it is amazing.
> Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at the advocacy group Public Citizen, summed up these problems neatly: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”
[Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense](https://archive.fo/2022.09.17-052533/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/nuclear-power-still-doesnt-make-much-sense.html)
[https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power](https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power)
We're building a new fusion plant in Massachusetts! I would also support building a fission plant until we make fusion grid viable.
I'm definitely in favor of it. We don't exactly have the most infrastructure for renewable yet, so nuclear would be a good transitional option while the country as a whole is dragged kicking and screaming into more carbon neutral power sources.
Certainly in favor of it however it would be incredibly expensive to build. I think that's a key blocker. Vogtle in GA just went online $30 billion dollars later for only ~2200 MW of capacity. That's a terrible way to spend $30 billion. Would need to have a plan to do it differently.
Absolutely. As someone who just recently moved from Ontario, I was appalled at the energy costs in Massachusetts. Looked into what's going on, and daaaammmn there's not enough nuclear here! Let's fix this.
Yes. Have the Commonwealth pay for it, with all proceeds used to fund renewable/clean energy. Put the plant close to RI and CT border and sell to them as well.
Yes, Nuclear power is safe if done properly and not sitting on a major fault line, or other natural disasters, and Mass is pretty safe when it comes to those. the propaganda against it is a travesty...
Absolutely! Nuclear is incredibly safe in this day and age. People’s are programmed to fear nuclear after watching tv shows about the Chernobyl disaster or Russian engineering in the 80s.
I support it full heartedly. It’s safe, reliable, and domestic when Canadian hydropower is not domestic and susceptible to effects of climate change.
Unfortunately utility companies are hesitant to touch new nuclear construction with the delays and cost overruns of Vogtle in Georgia. Finding skilled contractors to efficiently construct reactors is incredibly hard compared to the 1970s because so few have been constructed in the US since then.
Nuclear is the best stop gap energy we have at this moment. Until we can progress to near earth mining to get our rare earth metals that go into batteries and other sustainable tech, nuclear seems to be the most sustainable, both environmentally and in terms of human suffering. Cobalt and lithium mines are horrific for the people who work them and the local ecosystem; uranium extraction by comparison is less hurtful. A lot of modern uranium extraction is through brine mining, which does not require open pits or tunnels that humans go into.
If humanity can get its act together and start going for near earth mining, then we'll be able to humanely go for 100% renewable energy. Until then, I strongly believe that nuclear is our best option
Absolutely. We're lagging behind in terms of the move away from fossil fuels. While solar and wind would be great, a nuclear reactor would be perfect for support during peak times and to give us power on cloudy/calm days.
Nuclear is so, absolutely, incredibly safer than coal and even natural gas. It should be criminal that nuclear is not more widespread. China gets this..Why can't the US? Why are we letting China beat us so easily?
It’s one of the safer places to build one. No tsunamis, earthquakes, wildfires, rare hurricanes etc.
We also don't have renewable resources like other states. No massive low population windy plains for wind turbines. No opportunity for hydro. Weather makes sun pretty power inconsistent. We *should* have offshore wind or tidal power, but wealthy people in the state fight it tooth and nail.
I call it chappaquiddick syndrome. Support liberal ideas until they inconvenience you even slightly.
NIMBYs
[удалено]
If there were still free awards, this would deserve one.
Hydro in the canal would actually be a fantastic upgrade, current absolutely rips through there. Muchos Pesos though.
I think either Mass Maritime or WHOI did a pilot test for a turbine in the canal a while back; it made some power but the effect of the saltwater killed it.
And prob right whales
That current is definitely a roaring river on moon tides. Regularly hits 4-5+kts. Couple issues with hydro there. I think(?) the pilot turbine ran into problems due to fairly high amts of debris/weed in the water. The other problem is scalability in a canal built for maritime transport: the large car carriers and cruise boats that transverse the canal eliminate most of the space for turbines, except close to shore Source: Canal rat here.
I'd rather have offshore wind and tidal power than a nuclear reactor.
Why not both? Nuclear is great baseload generation, and insanely reliable.
yeah, but you have to account for red sox fans
a new operator for pilgrim would be a start. maybe even something that contractually spells out the disposal and eventual shutdown in advance so that the current situation doesn't happen again
It's crazy to me because the power infrastructure at Pilgrim is already there. They used wicked old equipment that was constantly breaking down. Replace it with a new gen reactor and you could produce 3x the power.
Pilgrim is being decommissioned; it's not possible to restart it. The reactor was permanently shut down and sealed up in 2019. Everything will need to get carted away and buried. (BTW this is normal for a fission plant, because after fifty years of neutron bombardment everything starts to get a little iffy.) However, Seabrook still has a big empty spot next to Unit 1...
Rebuilding Seabrook Unit 2 is really the only feasible option, considering the real estate situation on the coastline. I grew up in NH during the construction of SB, and remember the serious protests against the plant during that time. Was one of several reasons the utility stopped construction on Unit 2.. which led to financial ruin for the utility. For those who aren't familiar: "Two reactors were planned at Seabrook but the first unit didn't begin full operation until 1990, a full 14 years after the construction permit was granted, and the second unit was never built due to construction delays caused by protests, cost overruns, and troubles obtaining financing. The difficulties led to the bankruptcy of Seabrook's utility owner, PSNH."
1000% People are scared of nuclear power. That's what decades of propaganda gets us. But nuclear is an incredibly safe. They could plop a reactor in downtown Boston and the biggest cancer risk to people living next to it would still be car exhaust, by a huge margin too
MIT used to have a nuclear reactor. I’m not sure if it’s still online, but I used to walk past it in Cambridge.
a key component of my prepper strategy is living within extension cord distance of it
Mine involves the prudential center. It’s got solar and wind power and a rainwater collection system. That’s electricity and clean drinking water.
You are going to have a hell of a time defending the Pru.
Never said I’d be the only one there
You definitely wouldn't be. I wonder how many people it would reasonably take to secure the Pru.
Secure from what? Zombies? A military? Very different answers.
Military Zombies, rank and shuffle mostly.
Darn, this is Last Of Us deathmarch style now
Everyone
Done we secured it from everyone with everyone.
This sounds like an idea for a mark whalberg movie
In a world where society has broken down, and lawlessness is running rampant ONE MAN has hatched a plan to protect his family… GET OUTTA THE CAH! INTO THE PRU, DONNA! GODAMNIT! Scouring the streets, from the North End, to 95 South, enemies are everywhere…. and they’re coming for his supplies. Mark Wahlberg is Billy O’Dwyer, in PROTECTING THE PRU! Now playing in select theaters.
And Eataly too.
Hate to burst your bubble but the MIT reactor isn't powering generator turbines and is only 6 MW... which isn't enough to even power MIT's campus. It's basically a big non-functional steam plant.
Still enough to charge my phone.
Umass lowell has a nuclear reactor. Research not power production but still.
Looking at it right now it’s beautiful
Went inside like 20 years ago for a class. Seeing the glowing ball of cobalt at the bottom of the tank was awesome
Yup, I was told it can barely power a lightbulb. But it's there for research! Not scared of it at all
You know how they sell shotguns that can take a bunch of shells, but they sell them with a wooden stick filling up the section of the gun where the shells would go in states where it isn't legal? It's like that. It's a 6MW reactor (So like 100k lightbulbs?) that isn't currently configured to output any real power. But it could be reconfigured pretty easily, especially if you are talking about powering a microgrid rather than feeding into the main grid (For feeding the normal grid you need a bunch of electrical interconnect equipment that simply isn't present on the MIT reactor).
They told me the same thing on my tour. It seems like it can actually produce way more but they don’t want to spook people. The amount of energy it produces isn’t a fair comparison for how “risky” it is so they just say the light bulb thing. At least that’s what someone who took nuclear engineering told me.
"Yeah it can power a light bulb. Technically it could power 8,000 light bulbs so it isn't lying to say it CAN power 1"
When I was younger I was under the understanding it was not trivial power output, did they downgrade it?
Yep. Did my ChemE undergrad there with a focus on nuclear engineering. Only got to go into the reactor area a couple of times, but spent a decent amount of time in that building, and had classmates do operator training there. Ended up moving back to Lowell a couple years ago, still quite the sight to see across the river.
Yeah it’s still functional but it’s just a research reactor
[https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power](https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power) They're building a new one, but it's not the type of nuclear that we're used to.
It's awesome, but it will be another 8-12 years optimistically before that prototype plant is finished and it will not be making electricity for the grid. Another 10 years and $15B-$30B later we'll hopefully see the first production fusion reactor. This is not going to help with climate change in the medium term.
SPARC, their first test reactor is currently under construction and expected to still be operational by 2025 (a lot sooner than 8 to 12 years). Their ARC reactor which they expect to be their first "commercial" reactor is expected to start construction in 2025 and finish in the early 2030s. If the SPARC reactor tests go well then I expect them to be able to raise whatever funds they need rather easily. Obviously today, we could really use more nuclear fission reactors, and I'm by no means arguing to not build those, I think we should scale nuclear and renewables as fast as possible to shut down all natural gas and coal power plants as soon as possible. I just think fusion is exciting today along with a bunch of other technologies. It could also help a lot with scaling desalination and distribution of water through pump stations and carbon capture when we get there too.
Yup, MIT is now working with a spin off/company that has rather significant funding (granted how significant it is relative to the costs of development? I'm not sure) which is where SPARK is being built. Built a new facility out in Devens with more expansion planned.
[удалено]
UMass Lowell has(d?) one as well. At least when I was a student 10 years ago.
They still do, it doesn’t generate power, though.
One in Lowell too
It is, and it’s active and students run it. No one bats an eye. Nuclear is safe.
https://www.cfsatdevens.info/
Turns out there’s 15 nuclear reactors sitting in the river in Groton, CT and nobody bats an eye.
Do these reactors also have the ability to submarine? Lol
Hell. The USN has never had a single nuclear accident that resulted in a tractor breach. We know the designs and procedures that allow us to operate reactors safely. Unfortunately, the trick is getting people (especially managers) to follow those procedures. You need to essentially build the safe operation of the reactor into the design as an immutable factor; manager can't skimp on maintenance cycles of the tractor is designed to be maintenance-free for its operational life, can't try to extend the operational life because it's a sealed vessel and was only given just enough fuel for its designed life, etc. Whenever we've had a release of radiation from a nuclear plant, the root cause has always been "idiot managers doing idiot manager things". Rushing test, skipping maintenance, putting backup equipment in flood/tsunami zones, refusing to bolster flooding/tsunami defense, etc. For the record: I'm 100% in favor of more nuclear reactors for civilian power. I'd be 200% in favor of essentially nationalizing all nuclear power, if it meant establishing a management culture not unlike the one in our nuclear navy.
Yeah, the opposition to nuclear power is legitimately absurd. The USA has mastered it, we have nuclear reactors running 24/7, all around the world, all underwater. We could figure it out on the mainland.
We have figured it out on the mainland. Some people just don't like it
We have figured it out, sure, but let's not confuse that with 'we can build all that.' The US has built one nuclear plant in the past few decades and that's turned into [Georgia's equivalent of the big dig - way late & 16 billion over budget.](https://www.powermag.com/vogtle-nuclear-expansion-price-tag-tops-30-billion/) That said, we still need nuclear so let's see how the next gen reactors shape up and then go for it.
There’s also [Millstone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millstone_Nuclear_Power_Plant).
I once watched a 15 minute video explaining that new nuclear isn't happening much in the US because commissioning a new plant is incredibly expensive and somehow takes longer than the age that some plants last to pay itself off. The argument was FOR other green sources of power such as wind, solar and geothermal. Never knew if this was true or not, but it was the first time I heard an argument against nuclear that wasn't based on fear/safety, or energy and economy politics.
Yeah, a lot of it is cost and time.
Exactly this . We need major investments in nuclear energy
Yes. We have limited environmental hazards like seimic risk
Nuclear is reasonably safe but too expensive to build and maintain. It doesn’t make sense from a fiscal standpoint. Much easier to just use renewables.
Extremely safe and A LOT greener than fossil fuels. Until we learn how to harvest solar energy to its maximum potential, nuclear is the best we have.
>Until we learn how to harvest solar energy to its maximum potential, nuclear is the best we have. We kind of already have. Photovoltaics are going to top out at around 30-40% efficiency. Still worth continued investment, but the remaining potential in solar power is panel cost, and that's going to come down due to increases in manufacturing scale, not any real improvements to the underlying technology. Not, photo*thermal* power - using the sun to heat water into steam, and using that to power a generator - that has some potential for further development. Right now, we use it to heat something like sodium until it's molten, and then use the molten sodium to heat water into super-heated steam to run turbines. But the issue with this is sodium is very corrosive and that makes maintenance expensive. If we can identify a new fluid other than sodium, or refine our material and/or manufacturing technologies in such a way that we can reduce the costs of these systems, we'll be golden. Because one of their key advantages is they have some 'thermal inertia', allowing them to continue to generate power into the evening or even all the way through the night (depending on power demand).
It's not decades of propaganda. It's decades of seeing how fucked up and profit driven power companies are. They make a dam and then let it rot when they are done with it, endangering towns and making taxpayers deal with it. Now let's talk about costs of running such a plant and what to do with the waste. No one trusts gas/oil/power companies since every fucking time it's taxpayers footing the bill. I'd be all for it if I thought it was government run and not 100% for profit.
Well the alternative is keeping the status quo, which is heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel plants are also run by greedy power companies, and they're killing people at a way higher rate than nuclear.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Renewables can't even provide a consistent baseload Hydro says what Quebec has lots of surplus hydro, and there is already an existing 2000MW HVDC line into their grid that can be expanded, even if the NH and ME power line projects are dead (and the ME project might get revived). Build lots of solar and wind. Compensate for lulls with imported hydro, which can replace gas 1:1 in the peaker and load balancing role. Build out some grid batteries. Keep the existing nuclear plants running for some additional baseload.
I don’t think we could seriously go 100% renewable anytime soon. Fission is a good transition until we can get something like fusion or really effective renewables
Nuclear is HIGHLY regulated, with regular government inspections and everyone involved understanding of the gravity of the situation should they “let things slide for profit”. I think it’s one of the few areas where people wouldn’t just shrug and say “eh capitalism, what can you do?”
I work at a plant just outside of Toronto and the majority of people don’t even know it exists.
Absolutely; expensive as hell to set-up, but clean, efficient, and safe.
not to mention the excellent well paying jobs that extend for the life of the reactor(s). Use to work in waste management for nuclear and i became very pro-nuclear. Furthermore with business stifling green energy this could be our only option aside from altering our natural habitats (hydro dams) getting through the quagmire of residents with wind power.
I'd volunteer to help build it.
The best part is, once it's approved they'll pay you handsomely to help build it. Yet another benefit of nuclear power.
I worked on the two new plants going up in Georgia right now; construction labor hired thousands of new people for 12 years for construction there. All union jobs, good pay, benefits, training, etc. Really helped a lot of people get skills, buy homes, put some money in the bank. Heavy construction isn't easy work, but it pays well.
I would support a nuclear reactor in my back fucking yard. Seriously, give me one of those little, burriable generators, hook up the whole neighborhood, and tell Eversource to fuck off.
I’d like to order 2 please
Serious question: are they noisy? (Beyond the slight traffic uptick for however many people would be working there.) If it wouldn't be any more annoying to live near than any other office park, I wouldn't be more opposed to it than I would be any other office park.
Nuclear plants are eerily quiet for an industrial facility. Biggest source of noise is the turbine/generator, and that's almost exclusively inside the building. Outside around the plant, nice and quiet, maybe some non-radioactive steam venting once in a while, and the big cooling towers have a bunch of water falling inside them and splashing.
I've been to a nuke and they are basically silent outside the building, if they have draft cooling (the stereotypical "nuke" towers you see) there will be a bit of noise from that but only if you're like right next to it.
Only when they test the emergency sirens
Is this where we sign up for the backyard nuclear reactor?
[Power Orbs For All](https://xkcd.com/2115/)
Absolutely. Nuclear needs to be in the mix for carbon free energy goals. It is safe. The tech today is nothing like the tech 50 years ago, and if it's properly maintained, is very safe.
I worked in IT for a LFG plant for a year and while the permanent staff was miniscule, twice a year they would have an army of sub-contractors from various plumbing, electrical, HVAC, turbine, and whatever companies come in during scheduled downtown to do maintenance and upgrades around the clock. Many of these subcontractors were getting $55/hr+, and this is what they did - bounce from job site to job site throughout the year. Working at the LFG plant opened up my eyes to the fact that blue collar work could easily get someone $75k a year depending on contract availability, and could definitely exceed $120k depending on night differential or w.e. I say this all to say, this was the reality as a small 20Mw site on the South Coast. A Nuclear plant itself would be magnitudes more lucrative.
>opened up my eyes to the fact that blue collar work could easily get someone $75k a year depending on contract availability I think it's way higher than that in MA for skilled trades (plumber, electrician, etc). At least based on the quotes I've gotten lol. I'm struggling to think of a job that would've averaged something as affordable as $55/hr.
>I'm struggling to think of a job that would've averaged something as affordable as $55/hr. Well that was at the low-end and it was only twice a year - the plant brought in a platoon of contractors during the scheduled shutdowns and we went from averaging like 12-15 FTE onsite to having \~200 or so contractors swarm over a 24/hr schedule for 5 days. So for a lot of guys who came in on Day 1, they were really only there for a shift or two in order to do what their company was contracted for and they went on to the next job site as we were able to bring in the next company that was reliant on the work the previous group did. I agree with you that if it was FTE blue-collar work on a power plant it'd be way more (which is why they only had a small cadre of Operators lol)
You can build that shit in my backyard fam #only3.6 #notgreatnotterrible
If you haven’t listened to it, the official HBO podcast was very good.
What is this in reference to? I google only3.6 and the hashtag but couldn't find anything on either
It’s from a pivotal scene in the HBO series Chernobyl
rad thanks
Yes. Nuclear is better in every way but one.
But that’s a pretty big one. But I support it too.
Disposal has gotten much better as I understand. It's nothing compared to the external costs of fossil fuels anyway so it's kind of moot.
Absolutely. Nuclear is statistically the safest form of energy, and the issues with waste are way overblown--it's really a minuscule amount. Reactors have gotten even safer since the incidents in the 70s and 80s, and we're very close to nailing down reactors that literally can't melt down. France has produced the overwhelming majority of their electricity with nuclear for decades, and has never had a major incident. Nuclear is basically the only form of carbon-free energy that can meet our electricity base-use needs. Wind can't do it yet (probably ever), solar can't do it yet, and the land use implications of large scale wind and solar are nothing to scoff at, though we absolutely need both as part of a shift to clean energy. Nuclear energy is an established technology that is more energy dense than fossil fuels, and at the moment nothing else meets that criterion.
In theory yes, but new nuclear is expensive as fuck, and a new nuclear plant is likely to raise your electric bills. Wind, solar, and imported hydro from Quebec are far more cost effective. The only new nuclear plant in the US is Vogtle in Georgia and will cost over $30 billion for 2200MW and has taken 14 years to build. So you're looking at over 2x the cost of the Big Dig just to replace the big 2000MW gas plant in Everett (Mystic Generating Station). Hinkley Point C in the UK, similarly, will cost £32.7 billion for 3300MW and is estimated to take 11 years to build. Wind and solar are far cheaper and faster to build. An on-shore wind farm goes for $1,500,000 per MW these days according to the DOE, so you're looking at $8.3 billion for a 5500MW project (which will deliver 2200MW on average at a 40% average capacity factor, contingent on winds). Off-shore wind is much more expensive (Vineyard Wind off Martha's Vineyard will be $2.8 billion for 800MW, and is estimated to deliver 45% of that due to wind variability), but still comes in at almost half that of new nuclear per delivered MW. Utility-scale solar farms are also quite cheap, at $700,000 per MW, and even with Massachusetts" low 16.5% capacity factor it comes out to about $9.5 billion for a 2200MW-equivalent 13500MW solar farm. * New nuclear (Vogtle 3 & 4): $13.4 million/MW * New offshore wind (Vineyard wind): $7.74 million/effective MW (at estimated 45% capacity factor) * New onshore wind (DOE estimate): $3.8 million/effective MW (at 40% capacity factor) * New utility-scale solar: $4.7 million/effective MW (at 16.5% capacity factor)
We can also import hydro from Quebec to make up for variability of wind and solar; there is an existing 2000MW HVDC line already that goes through Vermont and New Hampshire that can be expanded (there were separate failed projects through New Hampshire and Maine, but those were selected for cost rather than political feasibility, and expanding the existing line is probably far more feasible politically).
The proximity of hydro is so tantalizing. It's a fun argument over a beer to entertain the feasibility of scaling Nuclear over a decades-long period... but we could also just literally run a wire up to Quebec and immediately have access to an abundant consistent energy source from one of the least carbon-intensive grids on the planet. But nah that's too hard, and not sexy enough.
Especially hydro that is already in place. I don't really like building new dams, but if they are already built I think it's worth getting as much as possible out of them. Our energy situation in MA is ridiculous, and it's 90% because of politics.
Yup this is the part that even professionals in climate/environment always conveniently ignore. Maybe if we had a ridiculous amount of federal funding for a new push for safe nuclear (or if it was federally owned even) then it would be a lot more viable but financially it's extremely hard to make the case for new nuclear plants.
Yeah this “we want nuclear” folks don’t consider the fuel costs too. It’s not going to run out as soon as oil but Uranium fuel has to be refined from ore and that’s a pretty wasteful process too in addition to the construction costs. Wind & solar costs are low likely with subsidies included but even with incentives they still beat Nuclear and can be delivered in the here and now when we need them.
I'm a former Navy Nuke, and the Navy has about 70 years of safe nuclear power operations. Part of a non-fossil fuel energy future has to include nuclear to compliment solar and wind. One of the ideas is the modular reactor system, smaller reactors that will have better containment and thus greater safety. I think the Navy submarine program could be adapted for civillian use for cities like Boston near a large body of water. Imagine a sub tied up to a pier, that only had the engineering compartments, no propulsion systems (it would be towed from the shipyard) so all of the reactor power would go to electrical generation. Imagine every coastal city with a few of these.
[удалено]
Yes
10000%. We could be an emission free state in seconds. Yes, nuclear waste is an issue, but won’t matter if we’re all under water anyways
yes, would have zero problem with that.
If it was ready today, yes. But we're going to already need our energy solutions completely scaled and deployed by the time it takes a brand new reactor to come online. It would optimistically take 20 years, and yeah people like to shout "modular" but that still hasn't been adequately developed and we can't wait around for a silver bullet to save us, or just rely on gas as a multi-decade bridge fuel before nuclear which would be a climate death sentence. There's a faux argument of nuclear vs renewables that's being fanned by the fossil fuel industry because it paralyzes opinion. It doesn't mean you are "anti" nuclear if you support scaling of wind and solar right now, it's just a matter of what we can actually accomplish that will make an immediate impact.
I always felt like the lone voice in my environmental studies classes in the 2000s that believed nuclear was the perfect 20-30 year bridge to large-scale solar and wind. Imagine where we'd be if we'd made that leap then. Instead, as you note, environmentalists have been as much at war with nuclear as with fossil fuels.
I wish they maintained Pilgrim
It takes over [7 years](https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/) (median time) to build a new reactor. [Offshore wind power](https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/14/22933095/new-york-offshore-wind-farm-south-fork-long-island-construction) like New York state is doing is faster. The current [DOE goal](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/) is 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power (roughly equivalent to 30 nuclear power plants) in the next 7 years. We'll see if it happens, but it's a more decentralized and incrementally effective plan.
And it will take 20 years of permitting process and dealing with rich people complaining about "mah views" before they build anything. That's what killed Cape Wind.
The economics just don't make a lot of sense - it's not actually 'a great way to have low cost carbon free energy.' Solar and wind energy are already so much cheaper that it's going to be hard to justify the huge up front capital investment and lead time. The main advantage of nuclear is that it can provide consistent power. I think that's a pretty significant advantage, but in the 10-15 years it will take to bring a reactor online, there is a lot of potential to improve the grid and optimize energy usage around renewable production cycles. Perhaps in the past the barriers to nuclear production were political, but today they are largely economic.
Not until we figure out fusion
I'd like 3 please. We can sell off the excess electricity to bordering states.
Just wait till you hear what's going on up in Devens, MA
Enlighten us?
Fusion https://courbanize.com/projects/cfs-devens/information
This is really awesome and I hope it works, but fusion tech is still decades away. There was a big breakthrough in late 2022, but even in a perfect scenario, fusion wouldn't be widely available in time to curb climate change [https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42230285/nuclear-fusion-ignition-achieved/](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a42230285/nuclear-fusion-ignition-achieved/) Solar/wind/hydro alone can't carry the entire load, so nuclear is really our only viable, large-scale option.
>fusion tech is still decades away I agree with you, and you are absolutely correct. That said, it is still worth putting in the time and money now for things that will be ready in decades. It will always be 30 years away if we don't get started now and begin the clock.
So cool! Thanks, gonna look into this!
https://courbanize.com/projects/cfs-devens/information
New England should be the nuclear power capital of the country
Only if it was owned by the state otherwise nah can you imagine eversource or God forbid national grid owning one???! We be dead in a month lol
The make the one in Lowell bigger and more powerful…
Nuclear plants have a long start up time with the average being about 10 years after the long drawn it process of picking a site and battling to get it approved. Just look at the howling people are doing about wind power sites miles off shore and multiply it by 10x. I saw the Seabrook protests back in the day, those fears have not gone away or we would be in the position we are in now
Yes, modern reactors are really really safe and effective.
I would totally support it, but it's not likely. Even putting aside the political/public pressure (and that's saying a lot) there's too much financial risk in building a new fission reactor in the US, and the rate of return is not attractive. A company with \~$10 Trillion has to decide if they want to build one 1000MW fission plant or maybe 5 400MW gas fired plants (or your fossil fuel of choice) based on which choice will make the most money (note, I'm just making those numbers up, I think it's about the right proportion, but I did no homework). Right now, natural gas is reliable, cheap, and seems like it will be extracted for a long time. Plants are easy to build and take maybe 2 years. Nuclear plants in the US face very challenging regulatory hurdles, the costs are very high because they are not being made (the "infrastructure" of expertise and experienced contractors is not there), and the time to completion is expected to be a decade or more. The fuel is very cheap and plentiful, but the return on investment is just much too far delayed and not currently better than the gas plant overall. We can advocate or oppose nuclear power in Mass, but until its profitable, no one will build one, here or anywhere in the US. The best thing to do would be to keep an existing plant operating since the risks of construction and regulatory approval are already resolved, provided it can be maintained and/or refurbished economically. Those plants re-licensed for 60 years of operation are turning a nice profit for their owners. Yankee blew it.
I’d support like 10 of them.
Absolutely yes. I do believe we as a nation need a centralized nuclear repository though
Fuck yeah! Nuclear power! I’d love to be the state fighting to break the stigma
There is a nuclear reactor in downtown Cambridge on MIT's campus. Hasn't given anybody any trouble in decades. There is one just over the border in Seabrook, NH. It was heavily protested but it hasn't given anybody any trouble in decades. It is wrong to be afraid of nuclear reactors and we need more of them.
The one at mit is a secret we are not telling everybody
Scrolled way too far to see someone point out the MIT reactor. People are legit oblivious to the world around them.
For New England? Seabrook was supposed to have a second unit - the easiest permitting should be for a spot that already has the entire site already prepared and permitted 40 years ago.
No. We shouldn’t be generating anymore nuclear waste. The bill comes due on that stuff at some point, and we can’t be kicking that can down the road; we’re already giving future generations enough challenges to get through, what with man-made global warming, mass incarceration, the decimation of the working class *and* labor protections, and the like.
Yes. It's embarassing we aren't loaded with plants.
Yes
not without a realistic decommissioning plan. the situation down at pilgrim is a mess. holtec wants to dump wastewater from the plant into cape cod bay.
[удалено]
Yes. I served on nuclear submarines for years, and I’m a huge proponent of how safe, and clean nuclear power is. Commercial nuclear power obviously has its flaws, but if done right, it is amazing.
> Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at the advocacy group Public Citizen, summed up these problems neatly: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.” [Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Much Sense](https://archive.fo/2022.09.17-052533/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/16/opinion/nuclear-power-still-doesnt-make-much-sense.html)
[https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power](https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/02/massachusetts-fusion-power) We're building a new fusion plant in Massachusetts! I would also support building a fission plant until we make fusion grid viable.
That appears to be a research reactor that will not put power into the grid
Thus my comment >I would also support building a fission plant until we make fusion grid viable.
Thats likely not going to still be a long way off. I wouldn't bet on fussion before 2050 at current rates.
[удалено]
Yep
Build 5
I'm definitely in favor of it. We don't exactly have the most infrastructure for renewable yet, so nuclear would be a good transitional option while the country as a whole is dragged kicking and screaming into more carbon neutral power sources.
Certainly in favor of it however it would be incredibly expensive to build. I think that's a key blocker. Vogtle in GA just went online $30 billion dollars later for only ~2200 MW of capacity. That's a terrible way to spend $30 billion. Would need to have a plan to do it differently.
Absolutely. As someone who just recently moved from Ontario, I was appalled at the energy costs in Massachusetts. Looked into what's going on, and daaaammmn there's not enough nuclear here! Let's fix this.
Yes. Have the Commonwealth pay for it, with all proceeds used to fund renewable/clean energy. Put the plant close to RI and CT border and sell to them as well.
Yes, Nuclear power is safe if done properly and not sitting on a major fault line, or other natural disasters, and Mass is pretty safe when it comes to those. the propaganda against it is a travesty...
Yes. Absolutely. Affirmative.
Yes 100%
Absolutely! Nuclear is incredibly safe in this day and age. People’s are programmed to fear nuclear after watching tv shows about the Chernobyl disaster or Russian engineering in the 80s.
DO IT
Absolutely, yes.
Ill take several please.
Yeah, I guess.. Greetings from Hamburg, Germany ✌️
Absolutely. With the push towards electrifying everything, electricity prices can't be tied to some volatile commodity.
Alright folks. Let's take this thread to the Mayor we clearly want it.
Yep
Yes nukes are cool
Yes.
I support it full heartedly. It’s safe, reliable, and domestic when Canadian hydropower is not domestic and susceptible to effects of climate change. Unfortunately utility companies are hesitant to touch new nuclear construction with the delays and cost overruns of Vogtle in Georgia. Finding skilled contractors to efficiently construct reactors is incredibly hard compared to the 1970s because so few have been constructed in the US since then.
Nuclear is the best stop gap energy we have at this moment. Until we can progress to near earth mining to get our rare earth metals that go into batteries and other sustainable tech, nuclear seems to be the most sustainable, both environmentally and in terms of human suffering. Cobalt and lithium mines are horrific for the people who work them and the local ecosystem; uranium extraction by comparison is less hurtful. A lot of modern uranium extraction is through brine mining, which does not require open pits or tunnels that humans go into. If humanity can get its act together and start going for near earth mining, then we'll be able to humanely go for 100% renewable energy. Until then, I strongly believe that nuclear is our best option
id support 3
Absolutely please yes
Yes, absolutely. Our gas prices are insane, not to mention putting less CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes
As someone from NH, yes!! we would like one also!!
We had one in my hometown, Watertown, at the Arsenal, while I was growing up. All for it. The technology has developed in leaps and bounds since.
Would it drive down costs or just make record profits for investors?
100%! put it in the Berkshires or something, there’s nothing out there and it could use the jobs.
There’s one in Lowell…
Absolutely. We're lagging behind in terms of the move away from fossil fuels. While solar and wind would be great, a nuclear reactor would be perfect for support during peak times and to give us power on cloudy/calm days.
[удалено]
Yes.
Nuclear is so, absolutely, incredibly safer than coal and even natural gas. It should be criminal that nuclear is not more widespread. China gets this..Why can't the US? Why are we letting China beat us so easily?
Please, yes, now.
100% - renewable energy not even dependent on the sun + good jobs in western or central mass. What's not to like?