Why do environmentalists hate nuclear energy?

[Novus America]

Costs: $7 billion is doable, in government money. If private enterprise doesn't like it, they can compete.

Risks: Nuclear fission is very safe, averaged over plants and years of operation ... even including Chernobyl and Fukushima. Fission power is a victim of its own success: nobody pays attention to the hundreds of plants providing them power with zero pollution, until once a decade there's a major accident and it's big news for a year ... even if hardly anyone dies. Meanwhile coal plants kill people gradually and less obviously, at a far greater rate. The biggest disaster (Chernobyl) being bad design and a stupid decision by the manager, is also overlooked: neither would apply at a US or German plant. Even at a Chinese plant I suspect.

Delay: Ten years isn't terrible. Solar isn't going to be that much better in ten years. But the problem is cumulative with 1:Costs. A fleet of reactors sufficient to replace all coal and gas plants, also account for future demand from electric cars and more aircon, is maybe fifty? Half a trillion is admittedly serious money. Furthermore it's cheapest and best to build reactors in tranches: construction problems in the first tranche can be fixed in the second, also specialists can keep working the same stage in successive tranches.

I think the biggest obstacle is government willpower, and perhaps the technology to build plants away from cities without too much power loss in transmission.

I am gonna be honest with you, the way you dismissed the issues I raised is a bit patronising. Anyways, onto your rebuttals:

• $7-10 billion for ONE plant of 1000 MW capacity. The energy consumption for the US alone was more than 1.22 million Megawatts. By some basic calculations that means that we would need about $8.6 trillion to 12.2 trillion dollars to fully transition to nuclear. Even just using nuclear for half the power would cost 4 to 6 trillion dollars. The total expenditure on energy by the US was 1.2 trillion dollars. You're asking the US government (and others) to spend, at the least, more than 4 times the present amount on a department that isn't the military. Good luck with that.

As for private enterprise, unless Amazon or Google are planning on changing into nuclear, I would put that scenario in the "far-future" category.

Sources: https://www.statista.com/topics/4127/el ... generation

/http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/US%20Energy%20System_CSS03-11_e2020.pdf


• It's much safer now, I know that. However, there are still risks. Multiple and unexpected failures are built into society's complex and tightly-coupled nuclear reactor systems. Such accidents are unavoidable and cannot be designed around.

There have been 99 nuclear incidents in the world and there are only 440 nuclear plants. That doesn't seem a comfortable ratio to me. 1 accident for every 4 plants. Also, this constant rebuttal that "Soviet incompetence was the reason for nuclear disasters and it won't ever happen in the civilised world" is a annoying and misleading idea. More than two-thirds of nuclear accidents have happened in the US.

Fukushima raised doubts that even a highly developed country like Japan could fully manage the safety of nuclear power. And don't say that they had an earthquake. They have them all the time. The reactor had backups that were supposed to stabilise the reactor after the earthquake. But they failed. Obviously they should have put backups for the backups and then backups for the backups for the backups and so on. I am not saying it's not safe, but there certainly are risks. Just trying to clarify the position of some people.

Moreover, many statisticians and safety specialists believe that there's a 50% chance of another Chernobyl before 2050 and another Three Mile Island accident within the next decade.

Furthermore, this constant proclamation that nuclear is a zero-emissions fuel is just verifiably false. Nuclear produces 80-180 g CO2 per KWH. It's not high but it's not zero either. For comparison, a standard coal-powered thermal power plant produces 0.9 kg CO2 per KWH.

Sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20130606023005/

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/ ... -fukushima

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-0 ... -says.html

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuc ... r-full.pdf

https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/0 ... ecialists/

https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084833/

http://spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/policy-brief ... vacool.pdf

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/04/18/ ... wer-plant/

https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conferenc ... mittal.pdf

•Delay? Solar is making progress in leaps and bounds. Now you are just being disingenuous. Just in the year 2017, photovoltaic capacity increased by 95 Gigawatts, with a 34% growth per year of new installations. Total installed capacity exceeded 401 GW by the end of the year, sufficient to supply 2.1 percent of the world's total electricity consumption. In the last decade (2008–18), the globally installed capacity of off-grid solar PV has grown more than tenfold. I could just keep going on singing the praises of solar . It's the future. Get with it.

Sources: http://www.iea-pvps.org/fileadmin/dam/p ... 16__1_.pdf

https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRE ... V_2019.pdf

The 99 incidents is not really telling, because most were not big deal.
Incidents that did no harm means the design kept them from causing harm.
Chernobyl is not really possible. Statically looking at how many accidents happened in the past assumes all plants are the same. There are only 10 Chernobyl type reactors left, but the problem of the control rods has been fixed.
So Chernobyl cannot happen again.

Fukushima killed at most one person. And still it was an old plant. With old designs, in unused circumstances that cannot happen most places.

Three Mile Island killed no one.
TMI shows nuclear meltdowns can be contained with a proper containment structure.

Which all new plants are required to have.

Solar is growing, but from a low base. And one nuclear plant can produce more than millions of solar panels (which are damaging to the environment to produce BTW). Solar has a massive waste problem:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired. ... -trash/amp

Okay technically no source is literally emissions free, I mean the trucks that delivered solar panels to my house produced emissions. So did the ships the shipped them from Germany.
Solar does not power cargo ships though...

Obviously solar has a place. Solar is good in many ways. As a peaking source.
Solar and nuclear are better together.

To save the environment we are going to have to use both.

Solar can replace peaking gas plants, it already is. But we still have a baseload problem.

Nuclear will always be around, because of its superiority in Navy applications anyways.
But nuclear can and should help replace fossil civilian power as well.

I must say I am not a big fan of the wind thing, due to the destruction of the natural landscape it causes.
On farmland sure, but elsewhere it is a problem.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Some more info for the US, specifically:

Nuclear and coal power production will likely plateau after 2025: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42755

Renewables are likely to make up the bulk of new additions, alongside combined-cycle natural gas for baseload: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42655

Li-ion batteries are becoming competitive with gas peakers: https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants

[Eukaryotic Cells]

I think a reasonable goal for nuclear power might be the following:

1) Replace all of our coal. That would more than halve the electricity generation sector's carbon emissions.
2) Keep up with nuclear plant retirements. Those are going to happen as our existing fleet ages; they should be replaced with new plants.

Any new capacity on top of that is going to be combined-cycle gas, solar, and wind, if we allow market forces to have their way.

[Novus America]

I think a reasonable goal for nuclear power might be the following:

1) Replace all of our coal. That would more than halve the electricity generation sector's carbon emissions.
2) Keep up with nuclear plant retirements. Those are going to happen as our existing fleet ages; they should be replaced with new plants.

Any new capacity on top of that is going to be combined-cycle gas, solar, and wind, if we allow market forces to have their way.

I agree with this, nuclear should replace fossil baseload, with solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric making up the rest.
Gas (except from biogas like from landfills) is better than coal, but still bad. And unsustainable.

Although the solar waste problem is going to be a big issue. We are going to have to spend billions disposing of and recycling solar waste.

One of the best approaches for nuclear is military.
Because the highly trained and educated engineering crews of nuclear ship is expensive, with low fuel prices we go with gas turbines except for carriers and subs.

This is idiotic. I was stationed on a gas turbine ship. We had to regularly refuel, either by stopping in port or getting it from a (completely defenseless) refueling ship in a dangerous operation.

This End of History nonsense needs to die, in a war against a real enemy like the PRC, not just bombing sand, the will immediately attack our forward refueling bases and refueling ships. Leaving us unable to fight long.

Carrier strike groups must go full nuclear.

Also it helps the environment, and more education is expensive but good for society. This also provides a skilled workforce for the civilian nuclear industry.

Also the NSA for example has been overloading the Baltimore area elective grid.
We could place carrier nuclear reactors under the parking lots at Fort Meade.

With the military we do not have to worry as much about market forces because it is all government.
And military effectiveness is more important than cheap.

Helps the environment too, if all major military bases were self sufficient with nuclear baseload (plus roof top solar peaking) this would be good for the military (attacking the grid could not disable the base) and good for the environment.

[Danternoust]

Hopefully there will be a minor surprise as someone somewhere suddenly discovers nearly free energy, something like fusion with extremely high energy return on investment, and policy just becomes everyone has a free ticket to space.

But that might make history into a giant troll, so that'll never happen, and so free market forces and rational planning may predominate.

[Shofercia]

Nuclear energy has shown time and time again to be the fastest and most efficient way to switch from fossil fuels to clean energy, nuclear energy is clean and contrary to what you may have heard, is also the safest form of energy. Nuclear power provides extremely efficient generation for its relatively low cost, and the nuclear waste generated is very small volumes which can be safely buried in steel canisters underground. Adding to the already long list of benefits, nuclear plants require a large amount of people to operate, creating many new jobs. Nuclear plants, as compared to other clean energy sources, generate massive amounts of energy for a fraction of the cost, and take up less space when compared to sprawling solar plants and wind farms.

What are the downsides to nuclear? It’s not renewable, and occasionally disasters occur that gets mass media attention. Contrary to popular belief, however, nuclear disasters are extremely rare and, when they do happen, very few people die, and despite former fears, the environment in the surrounding area has been shown to recover after a while. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl released less radiation than modern nuclear power plants produce, and Fukushima’s accident was caused by a tsunami, all of the "disaster deaths" there weren’t due to anything related to the plant itself. When tallying up "death counts" from all forms of energy, nuclear is actually the safest, accidents at coal and fossil fuels generating plants happen all the time but receive little to no media attention

With everything being said, one would reasonably expect environmentalists and activists to enthusiastically support nuclear energy, but strangely, they don’t. Some of the world’s most famous environmental activists, such as Former Vice President Al Gore and Swedish activist Greta Thunberg have spoken out against nuclear, citing the above mentioned isolated incidents as evidence that every nuclear power plant is bad or something. The world’s leading environmental activist group, Greenpeace, has states they oppose nuclear power. Why is that the case?

Quite a few of the Environmentalists that I spoke with view the Earth as one united planet, where we all come together and eventually sing "Kumbaya" and they do a lot of great things for us, so I'd much rather have them in charge than Neocons/Neolibs. And it's not like they'll be able to get the rest of us to drop national borders anytime soon. Corporatists are much more likely to get open borders so that they can screw over workers from third World countries.

If you genuinely think about Solar Power - where's the best place to put a generator that supplies Africa, Europe, and Asia? The Sahara. And due to power interconnectivity, we'll have less warfare, since travel and trade interaction reduces wafer, and after Europe Schengenized, warfare became less likely. Environmentalists understand that Solar Power and Nuclear Power are competitors, and so oppose Nuclear Power.

BTW, my endorsement of Environmentalism is not to be viewed as support for the Green New Deal, because when you're demanding the remodeling of every home that lacks proper power distribution, that's a bit on the insane side.

Finally, if you want to fight nuclear power, all you have to do is to convince people that nuclear power is more dangerous than nuclear warfare, and that's something that people are already scared of nuclear warfare due to media sensationalism will easily understand. Extra bonus if you can simulate where nuclear explosion can lead to nuclear warfare, since, with odds as low for nuclear warfare as we have, practically any simulation will work.

Unlike media sensationalism, it's a well known fact that nuclear power is more dangerous than nuclear warfare, because nuclear warfare is extremely unlikely to occur, whereas we've already had nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the fact that two is greater than zero is something that's easy to convey and understand, in spite of the typical mass media stream of nonsense that occurs during election cycle, which is usually convoluted and deceptive

Edit: in italic

[Claorica]

Because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

You know, those isolated events that really only happened because of poor management and the use of uranium.

Three Mile Island didn't even release that much radiation because US plants are built to withstand actual missile strikes.

[Shofercia]

Because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

You know, those isolated events that really only happened because of poor management and the use of uranium.

Three Mile Island didn't even release that much radiation because US plants are built to withstand actual missile strikes.

That's true, kudos to America for handling that one. However, the problem is that nuclear power is so destructive, that it just takes one poorly managed explosion to fuck shit up, and as nuclear power plants proliferate, the odds of such an explosion increase exponentially. Let's consider Fukushima. Is there a way to make it safer? Well yeah, but as the Deep Horizon Spill indicates, corrupt governments will ignore safety reports and take shortcuts. And they won't be punished. Look at what happened with the Port of Beirut -Beirutshima. Do you really trust nuclear power plants in the Middle East?

Because here's the thing - as nuclear power plants proliferate, other countries are going to want them. But if they start closing down their nuclear power plants, other countries might not want them, and we can stop nuclear power plant proliferation. Quite a few disasters are going to happen because of human mismanagement, and we should most definitely take that into account, rather than saying "we'll never do it again!" Yeah, we will, we're humans.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Because they have the big dumb.

[Claorica]

Three Mile Island didn't even release that much radiation because US plants are built to withstand actual missile strikes.

That's true, kudos to America for handling that one. However, the problem is that nuclear power is so destructive, that it just takes one poorly managed explosion to fuck shit up, and as nuclear power plants proliferate, the odds of such an explosion increase exponentially. Let's consider Fukushima. Is there a way to make it safer? Well yeah, but as the Deep Horizon Spill indicates, corrupt governments will ignore safety reports and take shortcuts. And they won't be punished. Look at what happened with the Port of Beirut -Beirutshima. Do you really trust nuclear power plants in the Middle East?

Because here's the thing - as nuclear power plants proliferate, other countries are going to want them. But if they start closing down their nuclear power plants, other countries might not want them, and we can stop nuclear power plant proliferation. Quite a few disasters are going to happen because of human mismanagement, and we should most definitely take that into account, rather than saying "we'll never do it again!" Yeah, we will, we're humans.

Fukushima was the failure of one plant that was built without regard to the specifications of the reactor nor regard to common sense.

Chernobyl was built against the warnings of every single nuclear scientist in the world and STILL was safe so long as they didn’t stress test it with an undertrained skeleton crew. Less people have been killed by nuclear power in 70 years than by Coal every month.

[Shofercia]

That's true, kudos to America for handling that one. However, the problem is that nuclear power is so destructive, that it just takes one poorly managed explosion to fuck shit up, and as nuclear power plants proliferate, the odds of such an explosion increase exponentially. Let's consider Fukushima. Is there a way to make it safer? Well yeah, but as the Deep Horizon Spill indicates, corrupt governments will ignore safety reports and take shortcuts. And they won't be punished. Look at what happened with the Port of Beirut -Beirutshima. Do you really trust nuclear power plants in the Middle East?

Because here's the thing - as nuclear power plants proliferate, other countries are going to want them. But if they start closing down their nuclear power plants, other countries might not want them, and we can stop nuclear power plant proliferation. Quite a few disasters are going to happen because of human mismanagement, and we should most definitely take that into account, rather than saying "we'll never do it again!" Yeah, we will, we're humans.

Fukushima was the failure of one plant that was built without regard to the specifications of the reactor nor regard to common sense.

Chernobyl was built against the warnings of every single nuclear scientist in the world and STILL was safe so long as they didn’t stress test it with an undertrained skeleton crew. Less people have been killed by nuclear power in 70 years than by Coal every month.

Of course, but as I've said in that very quote:

corrupt governments will ignore safety reports and take shortcuts. And they won't be punished... as nuclear power plants proliferate, other countries are going to want them... disasters are going to happen because of human mismanagement, and we should most definitely take that into account, rather than saying "we'll never do it again!" Yeah, we will, we're humans

And yeah, what you're saying about coal vs nuclear is true, for now, but there are much more coal power plants than there are nuclear power plants, so absolute deaths wouldn't be a proper measurement in that regard.

[Plzen]

Let's consider Fukushima.

The nuclear power plant failure at Fukushima has an official death toll of under 600, in the context of a natural disaster that had a death toll of over 10,000, and even then most of the nuclear power plant deaths were the result of hasty evacuation rather than the radiation itself. People mention Fukushima in the same breath as Chernobyl in the context of bad nuclear disasters, but frankly Fukushima is a success story that exemplifies just how far nuclear safety has come in the three and a half short decades since Chernobyl.

Frankly, even if the pessimists are right and the price of a nuclearised world is one Fukushima-style accident every month for the next century, I'd consider that a price well worth paying if what we're getting for it is a rapid transition away from fossil fuel power.

Certainly the overall rate of accidents will rise if nuclear power proliferates into low or lower-middle income countries that tend to be more prone to mismanagement or government corruption, but in such countries poverty tends to be a greater threat to human life than industrial accidents.

[Omniabstracta]

Fukushima was the failure of one plant that was built without regard to the specifications of the reactor nor regard to common sense.

Chernobyl was built against the warnings of every single nuclear scientist in the world and STILL was safe so long as they didn’t stress test it with an undertrained skeleton crew. Less people have been killed by nuclear power in 70 years than by Coal every month.

Of course, but as I've said in that very quote:

corrupt governments will ignore safety reports and take shortcuts. And they won't be punished... as nuclear power plants proliferate, other countries are going to want them... disasters are going to happen because of human mismanagement, and we should most definitely take that into account, rather than saying "we'll never do it again!" Yeah, we will, we're humans

And yeah, what you're saying about coal vs nuclear is true, for now, but there are much more coal power plants than there are nuclear power plants, so absolute deaths wouldn't be a proper measurement in that regard.

The relevant studies don’t consider absolute deaths, but deaths per unit of energy produced, so that there are more coal power plants now is pretty irrelevant because nuclear is still safer by several orders of magnitude by the per kWh metric.

[Indolos]

Because they are paid by the solar and wind lobby to protest in their behalf. Those capitalist Environmentalists!!

[Danternoust]

Wind turbines kill a quarter of a million birds a year while Chernobyl created a massive wildlife preserve. While not entirely safe for wildlife, it is one of the few regions in Europe that is uninterrupted by traffic or large-scale farming.

Actually neither are much of a plus.

Industrial accidents happen all the time. We now line landfills to prevent groundwater contamination.

Modern civilization would be impossible without reliable clean energy.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Wind turbines kill a quarter of a million birds a year while Chernobyl created a massive wildlife preserve. While not entirely safe for wildlife, it is one of the few regions in Europe that is uninterrupted by traffic or large-scale farming.

Actually neither are much of a plus.

Industrial accidents happen all the time. We now line landfills to prevent groundwater contamination.

Modern civilization would be impossible without reliable clean energy.

250,000 bird deaths per year sounds like a lot, but it's not. There are something like 250 to 400 billion birds on the planet. More birds are killed by flying into buildings or being hit by cars.

It is definitely something we should consider as part of the environmental impact assessments we do when siting and building wind farms, but bird deaths should not deter us from using wind power.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

as nuclear power plants proliferate, the odds of such an explosion increase exponentially.

Oh no, not you too. The odds of a serious accident increase linearly.

Also, only Chernobyl "exploded", Fukushima lost some cosmetic containment due to a chemical explosion (hydrogen from the reactor I think) and three reactors melted down ... though not in a "melt a hole all the way to the mantle" way. Even Chernobyl, about as bad a disaster as imaginable, didn't bear out people's fears about meltdown. The molten fuel alloyed with so many other random metals (and apparently concrete, though I don't understand that) that it formed "corium" and that became progressively less able to sustain a chain reaction as the uranium became more diluted. Dousing the ground in liquid nitrogen no doubt helped too. The RBMK reactor used low-grade fuel it must be said, so an uncontrolled meltdown might still be a problem with less but more reactive fuel.

Modern designs have much lower risk of explosion OR meltdown. Unfortunately, I can't prove that until they've been in service a few decades, but the principle of "failing safe" is quite persuasive to anyone who looks objectively at the designs.

[Danternoust]

Oh no, not you too. The odds of a serious accident increase linearly.

I'm pretty sure it is for O(n), sub-exponential, as control room operators draw from an increasingly wider pool of the population.

[Plzen]

I'm pretty sure it is for O(n), sub-exponential, as control room operators draw from an increasingly wider pool of the population.

I mean, the probability of a serious accident cannot be higher than 100%, so the function is bounded, so in the long run the odds of a serious accident grows with O(1) of the amount of nuclear power used.

[Shofercia]

Let's consider Fukushima.

The nuclear power plant failure at Fukushima has an official death toll of under 600, in the context of a natural disaster that had a death toll of over 10,000, and even then most of the nuclear power plant deaths were the result of hasty evacuation rather than the radiation itself. People mention Fukushima in the same breath as Chernobyl in the context of bad nuclear disasters, but frankly Fukushima is a success story that exemplifies just how far nuclear safety has come in the three and a half short decades since Chernobyl.

Frankly, even if the pessimists are right and the price of a nuclearised world is one Fukushima-style accident every month for the next century, I'd consider that a price well worth paying if what we're getting for it is a rapid transition away from fossil fuel power.

Certainly the overall rate of accidents will rise if nuclear power proliferates into low or lower-middle income countries that tend to be more prone to mismanagement or government corruption, but in such countries poverty tends to be a greater threat to human life than industrial accidents.

If Fukushima is a success story, then I don't want success stories, and hey, I'm all for having a UN program that comes in and builds Solar Power in poor countries, since most of them are where it's really hot and sunny, and Solar Power would do quite well. I'd rather have the US Foreign Aid/Military Budget, at least partially used to produce Solar Power and fight poverty than to randomly bomb countries while shouting "HUMAN RIGHTS!"

[Shofercia]

as nuclear power plants proliferate, the odds of such an explosion increase exponentially.

Oh no, not you too. The odds of a serious accident increase linearly.

Also, only Chernobyl "exploded", Fukushima lost some cosmetic containment due to a chemical explosion (hydrogen from the reactor I think) and three reactors melted down ... though not in a "melt a hole all the way to the mantle" way. Even Chernobyl, about as bad a disaster as imaginable, didn't bear out people's fears about meltdown. The molten fuel alloyed with so many other random metals (and apparently concrete, though I don't understand that) that it formed "corium" and that became progressively less able to sustain a chain reaction as the uranium became more diluted. Dousing the ground in liquid nitrogen no doubt helped too. The RBMK reactor used low-grade fuel it must be said, so an uncontrolled meltdown might still be a problem with less but more reactive fuel.

Modern designs have much lower risk of explosion OR meltdown. Unfortunately, I can't prove that until they've been in service a few decades, but the principle of "failing safe" is quite persuasive to anyone who looks objectively at the designs.

You're right, my mistake. Here's my issue with most of the people who promote Nuclear Power though - none of them account for human fuck ups. We presume that nuclear engineers cannot be captured, bribed, go into panic mode, radicalized, get super depressed and blow shit up, etc. Chernobyl was human error, where the idiot did the PhD equivalent of "what's this button do?"

Hence my comparison to the Deep Horizon Oil Spill. If all of the safety procedures would've been followed, it wouldn't have happened. But companies take shortcuts, bureaucrats take shortcuts, and I've yet to see severe punishment for it. If you take a shortcut with a coal power plants, it'll suck for the workers, but the accident will be contained to the mine. That's not the case with nuclear power.

[Sundiata]

Isn't the fact that it isn't renewable an important issue to note?

[Shofercia]

Of course, but as I've said in that very quote:



And yeah, what you're saying about coal vs nuclear is true, for now, but there are much more coal power plants than there are nuclear power plants, so absolute deaths wouldn't be a proper measurement in that regard.

The relevant studies don’t consider absolute deaths, but deaths per unit of energy produced, so that there are more coal power plants now is pretty irrelevant because nuclear is still safer by several orders of magnitude by the per kWh metric.

Good to know. Can you link to a sample study? Not calling you out or anything, just curious to see what they look like.

[-Ra-]

Because they are misinformed. Par for the course of environmentalists really.

[UniversalCommons]

Unfortunately, Trump canceled the Traveling Wave Reactor which was a joint research project between China and the United States. It would have burnt low grade nuclear waste. The argument was that it would proliferate nuclear technology to China. The project was partially supported by by Bill Gates. There are nuclear solutions which are much smaller scale which use less waste which many conservatives are against. Until recently, there was strong opposition to recycling spent fuel or using lower fuel grades. The nuclear industry is focused on building big potentially dangerous plants. There need to be smaller scale, safer nuclear plants. Things like nuclear turbines or thorium reactors. The plants which many conservatives promote are inefficient and much less safe than some of the newer designs.
This is a bit about Terra Power. https://www.terrapower.com/our-work/tra ... echnology/