The RBMK from 1980s Chernobyl is hardly a "modern" reactor. That's from ancient history. Even the RBMK reactors that were operating in the 1990s are hardly like those operating in the 1980s, after the Chernobyl incident the remaining RBMK reactors were decommissioned or updated with new safety systems.

Does anyone claim that a Tesla car could explode because of reports of exploding Fords and Chevys from decades ago? Does anyone claim that an electric car can't go more than 80 miles on a charge because that's all the GM EV1 could do? While I know someone will want to point this out as yet another bad car analogy but given the huge gains in safety, efficiency, and more in cars in only 30 years, and compare that to gains in nuclear power technology over the same time there's many parallels.

It's mind boggling that you believe a 40 year old meltdown in the USSR is somehow relevant to nuclear power safety in the USA today.

Who is listening to this BS any more? What makes anyone believe that the meltdown at Chernobyl is any kind of argument against building next generation nuclear power today?

I'm seeing huge shifts in the public attitude on nuclear fission power in the last decade or so, with perhaps the most notable shift around about 2020 when Andrew Yang was advocating for new nuclear power plants during his campaign for POTUS in 2019/2020. Yang obviously didn't win the election but he did force Democrats running against him to comment on the issue. Those outright opposed to nuclear power dropped out first. Those that supported nuclear power hung on a bit longer. The last to hold out were those that offered stupid "split the baby" options like keeping old nuclear power plants running but not building any new plants.

It's thinking like that that created the fear of nuclear power from Fukushima. TEPCO had new reactor units 7 & 8 planned at Fukushima to replace the older units 1, 2, & 3, the units that self destructed after being hit with a tsunami. Had those units been closed as originally scheduled, and units 4, 5, & 6 been in a maintenance shutdown as they were at the time of the earthquake and tsunami, then we could have expected units 7 & 8 to keep operating through the event as they were designed to hold up to such an event. People opposed to nuclear power like @phantomfive are creating the safety problems in nuclear power that scare them so much.

We aren't going to close down nuclear power in the USA any time soon because it produces nearly 20%, or about 100 GW, of the electricity in the USA and there's no quick and easy path to replacing that. KEPCO built about 5.5 GW of new nuclear power capacity in UAE over about 12 years, not including the planning time before that. What would it take for renewable energy construction companie to produce similar amounts of electrical output in the same time period?

What's your plan for generating electricity, or energy more generally, for the future? More of the same with wind and solar? I see more nuclear fission power in our future, or more energy shortages and the rising energy costs that come with those shortages.

That's not relevant unless the pollution and other problems of other options are also considered. Someone could give some kind of volume, mass, or cost for mitigation on the waste and pollution produced from nuclear power but that would be meaningless. We'd have to consider how much of this downside is produced when compared to upside (such as the watt-hours or dollar value of energy produced) then compare that to other options like solar, wind, hydro, or simply doing without this energy.

Most any thing can "potentially" happen. What we have now is over 50 years of experience with 2nd generation nuclear power, something like 30 years of experience with 3rd generation nuclear power, which means we can apply that experience to produce 4th generation and "3-1/2" generation nuclear power for even greater safety, efficiency, and reduced costs.

I watched some YouTube videos in the last week that laid out how new rules from the US NRC should reduce costs of future nuclear power beyond just that achieved with new technology, this is because a large part of nuclear power costs are from regulation than that from materials and labor. Current rules on nuclear safety are from a time when there were very high standards on safety because the real risks of nuclear power were not understood as well as they are now. We benefit from this somewhat today because the over engineered reactors built at the time can now be expected to run for 80, 100, or possibly more years with exceptional safety margins remaining. Spreading out the cost of construction over this amount of time means we are likely to enjoy very low energy costs in the future, we need only use the new proposed rules based on evidence and science than the old rules based on speculation and superstition.

It's been clear to me for some time that the majority of people that frequent Slashdot are deeply opposed to new nuclear power. They maintain this opposition by believing that future nuclear power will be something like Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island. While most people will claim that the RBMK reactors at Chernobyl wee 2nd generation I could make an argument that it was instead a late 1st generation plant. Chernobyl lacked the containment dome that is nearly the definition of 2nd generation. The RBMK, as designed at the time, was a "dual use" reactor built with the intent for producing weapon grade plutonium than produce power, and such dual use ability was a defining feature of 1st generation reactors. The failed reactors at TMI and Fukushima were 2nd generation reactors built at about the same time as the RBMK at Chernobyl and so lacked so many safety features that would have come later on, such as a number of passive systems that when combined would make what we consider 3rd generation. Nobody has built a 2nd generation nuclear power plant for some time. We've yet to see a 3rd generation power plant produce anything close to the kind of safety issues that 2nd generation has produced. Anything new would be built to the higher safety standards of 3-1/2 or 4th generation nuclear power.

No currently operating civilian nuclear power reactor is capable of a "China Syndrome" as posed in popular culture, or a rapid steam explosion as seen in the RBMK. Nobody would dare build such a reactor today since no such design would be licensed, or if somehow some people could build a reactor without some kind of government oversight they'd not be built simply because that puts the reactor at risk of self destruction when well documented designs that avoid these risks can be built with no real added costs in construction. We know how to build better reactors now, fears of repeats of events from 40 years ago are unfounded. Fear of nuclear power today would be like fear of buying a new Tesla car because of reports of gasoline explosions from Ford cars and Chevy trucks from decades ago. Because of new technology, and a better understanding of radiation safety, we need new rules. It appears we are finally getting new rules, and from that I expect lower costs and higher safety. It's not like nuclear power was "unsafe" before, it is merely that we better understand the risks and so can provide higher safety with lower costs because we are putting our money and efforts into places where it counts than waste it on places where it does not.

That just means our security was good. You little anecdote isn't actual data.

"Sounds like they're trying to make a ladies bike"
Wow, that's some 1pth century anti women on bike BS right there.

Ys, for a kid. an adult wants a pretend part because they can't get with the times is pathetic.

Imagine being so insecure you have to pretend to be using an older version of an engine? sad.

JFC, are you still trolling people with nonsense? Two decades? I guess being a person who barley got an AS, then ending up a TV Repair man makes you sad and you just take it out on others with your trolling and rage baiting. It's a really unhealthy way to try and make your self feel like you have value.

Our prosperity literally lifted the world up until about bush. When we started really feeling the impact of reaganomics.

The cost to ship calories of food is cheaper then ever, and that's due Americas investing around the globe.
20th century engineering an science benefitted billions of people. from vaccines, to ag.

So yes, we use to.
Then we stopped tacking properly, then conservative started attacking science, and now we are gutting are own farmers.
Thanks to conservatives.

I see what you did there.
I approve.

yes, but not who they were passed on to.

no, government money is correct.
The government dictates how it's spent, it's government money. Only the dimmest of the dim would think government money does come from a tax pool.
And saying tax payer money is too broad any conversation the requires details because which tax pool it comes from matters.

Yes, ethics are a thing. Your observation bias comes form the fact that unethical things are when makes the story.

NO one said that.

"There is no legal duty of responsibility to your shareholders beyond a) not lying to them"
Read the entire sentence next time.

And it's an accurate Or to be more specific:
In a normal for-profit corporation, especially under Delaware-style corporate law, directors, and officers generally have fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders. That means they are supposed to act loyally, carefully, and in good faith for the corporation’s benefit, which usually means long-term shareholder value..

"Maximize shareholder value" is a late 20th century myth about corporations.
It is simple not true, and in fact many CEO have backed away from it.

Yes, lets invoke magic technology that counters every piece of actual evidence and data we have.
Than some solid thinking right there.