A Redditor argued that the world's energy problems could be solved if only we halted a "jaw-dropping" pattern of ignoring nuclear energy's potential.
In the r/Conspiracy subreddit, they theorized "it can only be purposeful" that governments and companies haven't "realistically pursued" nuclear in the last 20 years.
In their post, the Redditor makes a simple case touting nuclear energy's benefits. They argue that nuclear power is safer than fossil fuels and that improved reactor designs can make it "extremely safe."
They address the common fear of nuclear disasters as well. While they dismiss the desire to place plants far from population centers as "statistically not necessary," they cite the western U.S. and much of Australia as promising locations.
The user then paints a picture of a future that is shared by advocates of other clean energy alternatives: abundant cheaper energy, electric vehicles — including planes — and an end of energy reliance on oil-producing companies.
They conclude their argument by saying that "we have the science and technology and engineering to truly be a 21st century civilization of abundance, yet choose not to be."
There's a ton to unpack here, but it's important to highlight the key pros and cons of nuclear energy.
Let's start with the positives. Nuclear doesn't release harmful carbon pollution into the air in contrast to dirty energy competitors like gas, coal, and oil. It avoids the intermittency and reliability concerns of wind and solar energy by being able to run at all times. A nuclear facility takes up a dramatically smaller space to generate comparable power from wind or solar.
However, there are major drawbacks the user skimps over or downplays.
For one thing, nuclear power is dependent on uranium, a finite resource. Nuclear facilities are extremely expensive from a cost and resource perspective, and there is concern that nuclear power is not getting cheaper, like competing clean energy sources are.
The potential of nuclear power falling into the wrong hands — leading to the production of weapons — or another disaster occurring looms largely for the public.
Storing the radioactive waste from nuclear power as well as protecting workers and nearby residents are other major concerns.
For those reasons, nuclear fission's rival, fusion, is considered the "holy grail" of clean energy for scientists, but wind, solar, hydrogen, and geothermal energy draw more investment.
That doesn't mean efforts to make nuclear power safer, extract uranium cheaply, innovate on where reactors are built, and convert radioactive waste into fuel don't exist or that developments like Microsoft reopening a part of Three Mile Island aren't occurring.
Visitors to the r/Conspiracy subreddit, however, agreed with the original poster's position that not enough is being done.
"All people remember is Chernobyl and fear closes their minds," a Redditor theorized while pointing out that coal plants inflict lower-profile damage on local residents.
"Nuclear is actually incredibly safe, it's demonized so more harmful and expensive energy is used," another user related before declaring it as a "cash scam."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Cool Picks
