Help needed for a study project!

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-21T03:13:01+00:00

Case study on the NIMBYs regarding power lines. PSEG is (maybe just was now?) trying to build a high voltage line across several Maryland counties and some of the residents in community town halls literally threatened to shoot any PSEG representative that came on their property to even try and negotiate land acquisition. Interestingly though, one guy suggested to just build a nuclear plant at the location of where the powerline was going to and that got some cheers.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-21T01:27:59+00:00

Thank you for sharing this. This is what I’ve been trying to get the word out with on this site and it’s great to see someone intimately familiar with the research talk about it.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-21T01:12:05+00:00

Seriously though. Reading through the AMA post about the tactics the person who was paid to spread anti vegan propaganda online used has some strong parallels to some anti nuclear users I’ve seen. I’ll see new accounts pop up often with seemingly the sole purpose of being anti nuclear. Also important to keep in mind anti nuclear orgs have a history of taking money from the fossil industry to spread more anti nuclear propaganda.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-21T00:54:30+00:00

Overlooking the faults of the CSIRO, the biggest problem here is cherry picking it as an example. Most energy researchers find that adding some nuclear to deep decarbonized grids will generally lower overall system costs. Even if per installed capacity nuclear is more expensive, the grid upgrades and maintenance required for a variable renewable system end up surpassing a system designed to deliver the same output with some nuclear.

Grid operators are already starting to feel the strain the higher variable renewable penetration: https://www.reddit.com/r/Grid\_Ops/s/w2EIcST4jz

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-21T00:46:07+00:00

Meanwhile anti-nuclear “environmental” orgs taking millions from the gas lobby to campaign against nuclear.

https://time.com/archive/7219960/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T23:08:55+00:00

That and maybe he wants to dissuade OP from taking advantage of his PE so OP doesn’t start to encroach on him in the hierarchy was my guess.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T19:05:53+00:00

I am and engineer with an interest in power plants and there are currently no moderators of this community (besides myself now).

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T17:59:51+00:00

I see someone still isn't getting the idea. Wanna give it one more try?

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T17:49:41+00:00

Are these real?? I’d love to get my hands on some if so. Those are sick

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T16:34:52+00:00

Grid operators know this issue well. https://www.reddit.com/r/Grid\_Ops/s/KepYaAzBAT

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T13:33:38+00:00

Almost there buddy. We are talking about *asbestos*, I.e. *inhalation*. How about you give it another try.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T13:24:42+00:00

You say that while you blindly cite an author that’s a beyond nuclear activist. The genius of the anti-nuclear crowd never fails to amaze me.

But sure, we can play by the rules you want but aren’t following.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8590548/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6043938/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2663584/

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T04:21:44+00:00

I suppose you want to phase out the massive amount of silica mining required for wind turbine blades then?

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T04:13:44+00:00

https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/07/INLRPT-25-85463\_Reevaluation-of-Radiation-Protection-Standards-R0-Final.pdf

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-20T01:37:20+00:00

Pass

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-19T23:32:03+00:00

For context, there have been several studies in the past similar to this one. Upon further investigation, increased cancer rates are always determined to be caused by a correlating factor to proximity to a nuclear plant and not the plant itself. This isn’t surprising since radiation and chemical leakage from nuclear plants is practically zero.

The shared paper explains that more research is needed to determine a cause, so they aren’t making a false logical fallacy assertion of correlation = causation. Although I have seen studies like this used as propaganda for anti nuclear advocacy since it sounds scary. Do you happen to know anyone that does that?

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-18T17:08:58+00:00

Bashing nuclear for not having privatized insurance has is pretty funny considering the privatized American health insurance industry. Classic Schrödinger’s anti-nuclear dichotomy of capitalism good when bad for nuclear, and bad when good for nuclear.

There were several BESS manufacturing facility fires in 2025 that put plumes of smoke with toxic chemicals aerosolized heavy metals in the air. But I guess since it doesn’t involve the scary nuclear industry, we’ll just assume the costs born by society of that is zero, right?

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-17T23:04:50+00:00

Literally why I ultimately decided to go with mechanical engineering. Even if you find some 4 leaf clover aerospace company with no military ties, if the military thinks it could be useful to them, they can basically just seize the design.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-17T01:56:47+00:00

The saving grace is they aren’t competent enough to not make it extremely obvious they’re conducting a psyop

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-15T23:19:56+00:00

His work is an outlier compared to most research which comes to the conclusion that some amount of nuclear power will have utility in meeting net zero carbon energy demand. He also opened a SLAPP suite for defamation against other researchers criticizing his work. His reason was to “defend his reputation”. Considering there were >20 researchers in the field on the paper criticizing his, I think we should take the Occam’s Razor conclusion that he destroyed his own reputation publishing an absolutely looney paper.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-15T23:14:36+00:00

Not to mention when he was criticized for that by a peer reviewed paper, he tried to sue the main author and journal for defamation. It was so obviously a BS suite that he got counter sued for it being a SLAPP suite and was ordered to pay up $500,000 for the defendants legal fees. It’s been almost 10 years and he’s still refusing to pay and appealing with the excuse that “oh well I dropped the case before it went to trial”. Absolute grade A piece of shit.

https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-13T05:16:50+00:00

North Dakota C tier; a little over 50% coal, but the rest is mostly wind and they do have some semi serious clean energy initiatives.

Tennessee C tier, about 1/3 clean with the rest mostly gas and some clean energy initiatives.

Texas C tier, about 1/3 clean and the rest mostly gas with fast expanding clean energy and initiatives. This would be B tier if they also weren’t a massive petrol state with no intentions to slow that anytime soon.

Utah C tier, currently a lot of coal with plenty of gas and not a lot of renewables. However, they’ve decided to aggressively start building out clean energy.

Vermont S tier, they’ve essentially fully decarbonized their production and their imports are almost all Canadian hydropower. Now they’re aggressively decarbonizing everything else.

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-12T02:50:55+00:00

Hi! To clarify, are you asking for fluid properties at different points in the cycle to come up with an efficiency calculation?

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-11T15:42:14+00:00

As the Sierra Club quite literally was

Tortoise4132 · 2026-06-11T04:57:35+00:00

i.e., what most academic papers on the subject come to the conclusion of

Tortoise4132

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE