Can Nuclear Power Start-Ups Address Safety and Cost Concerns? | WSJ

17 thoughts on “Can Nuclear Power Start-Ups Address Safety and Cost Concerns? | WSJ”

1. A. Visine……Correctal! ily
   B. BVDs by 11%..clueless
   C. Napmocks….X..soebas
   D. Analgousity….10000

2. Nuclear energy is not an save option, we have seen how dangerous it can be if a nuclear power plant suddenly gets caught between the fronts (not to mention natural disasters like in Florida)

   1. One word, Thorium!

   2. Please remind me – what did Hurricane Andrew do to the Turkey Point power station – which includes two nuclear units?

3. Nice framing. Excellent “journalism” playing into big oil talking points. Nuclear power is incredibly safe compared to fossil fuels…

4. The current nuclear fleet is NOT a consequence of the development of the atomic bomb. It comes directly from the naval programme when the navy developed the Shipping port reactor at the behest of President Eisenhower. The PWR and Sodium Cooled reactors were both developed for submarines, and the BWR was an evolution of GE’s work for the navy. Get this right!

5. Always been a fan of nuclear. Done well it’s amazingly efficient and cheaper than Solar

   1. It was. But as of 2016, Solar became cheaper. Solars efficiency has been nearly doubling every 2 years and now it is significantly cheaper than Nuclear. This is part of the reason why many places are not building Nuclear facilities – it would cost too much to generate power compared to Solar, wind or other renewables.

6. two things you never want together: startups and nuclear 😂🤣😂🤣

7. 1:26 I remember fondly my grampa and I fixing his old Corvega when I was a kid. It truly was a beauty. He used to let me drive it in the driveway.

8. She neglected to mention the thousands of deaths reported from accidents at traditional energy facilities caused by at least 56 disasters worldwide such as the Exxon Mobil Valdez disaster, the Turkish pipeline explosion, and on and on. Compare that to 3 nuclear disasters in the same time frame. Of which only one was truly a disaster and that was Chernobyl. Fukushima doesn’t count as a nuclear disaster at the scale of Chernobyl. Fukushima was a natural disaster from which the effects from Fukushima contributed nothing to a land that was already destroyed.

9. NO.

10. Just keep in mind, more people have died due to coal mining and burning (spewing radioactive material) than nuclear power.

11. The risk is in the business model and the business incentives – not the technology. If u put profit-first people in charge they will eff it up, no matter how safe it is. U dont let these types design and commercialize airplanes and you dont let them commercialize and operate nuclear power.

12. What about nuclear reactor in those submarine or that one boat? They were already small and functional…

13. Nuclear is the future, not “green” energy

14. Many of the scientists and engineers involved in the earliest stages of atomic energy research were always interested in using their discoveries to provide mankind with a new clean energy source. As far back as 1930, Sir Arthur Eddington was telling the established energy industry that their coal and oil products would become obsolete when we learned how to release what he referred to as “sub-atomic energy.”. Eddington was a world renowned astrophysicist who had helped determine the energy sources that allowed stars to keep “burning” for billions of years.

Comments are closed.