Also relevant given the post is also about fusion.

At this conference for progress nerds, with big arguments between solar and fission nuclear "no one wanted to defend fusion".

> Fusion promises cheap clean limitless power if only we can solve difficult technological hurdles. But we already know how to produce cheap clean limitless power. The only delay is regulatory, and fusion doesn’t solve this.

...

> the only pro-fusion sentiment I saw at the conference was a series of graphs comparing “fission” and “fusion” and showing strong performance advantages for ”fusion” in all categories. But it turned out the pro-solar faction had mischievously labeled solar as “fusion” since it ultimately comes from the sun’s solar core. It was a good trick - think of solar as a new high-tech wonder, instead of as the annoying thing environmentalists keep nagging us about, and it really does look like a miracle.

I don't outright buy the claim that a "failure" results in you getting hurt. Nuclear disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl are acute, immediate events. You're getting 3x the yearly radiation from one cross-country flight NYC to SF than you would if you lived at the gates of a nuclear power plant for a year.

You are at a much higher risk of dying from a commercial airliner crash in your lifetime than you are of any nuclear operation - accidental disaster or normal operation. There have been zero (0) human deaths in the US from any operation or accident at a nuclear plant. There were zero human deaths from radiation at the Fukushima meltdown. In fact, more than 2,000 people died from the evacuation alone; the earthquake and tsunami killed 15x as many.

Nuclear power is safe. Carbon-friendly. Effective. Operationalized. Not scary, just malunderstood.

I call absolute bullshit on this line of thinking. Microsoft and other corporations have just as much if not more public interest in keeping their reactors safe and effective. Not to mention financial interests.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Acres of battery parks on fire, near the Tianjin Gate.

There's a history of protests against nuclear power, so I don't think it's right to there isn't a popular resistance holding nuclear back.

Certainly the nuclear industry hasn't done themselves any favors either.

McMurdo was powered by a modular reactor in the 60s. It's not "hypothetical" - though I do agree it's not economically scalable, but neither is training an LLM and before OpenAI did it DARPA did it, and you'd better believe the DOD did it too. I'm saying that the technology exists, it's been proven, and it can work - the hangup is political and cultural, and it burdens me with sadness to see conversation focus on things like "omg what if microsoft put clippy on an ICBM" it's appealing to ridicule and we've enough of that tendency these days. Instead we should celebrate this! Explore and discuss it from merit and principle.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nucl...

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/us-sets-targets-triple-nu...

I want to like nuclear, but it's clear that many of it's proponents are red-eyed bitcoin-maxis with that strange fanatical juvenile vibe going, and it all just turns me off because it's obvious they are spouting BS. It's all just an act to pump a penny stock or because they are an angsty teen.