this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
34 points (65.7% liked)

Memes

45545 readers
1071 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
34
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Clarke311@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xam54321@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

the myriad of problems with this technology that are still unsolved to this day
Like what?

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cost. Simple as that.

Nuclear power is not economically viable, never has been, probably never will. The only reason it exists are massive subsidies.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really really should look into how much subsidies get thrown at Coal oil and natural gas

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I said in my other comment: coal is not the alternative here. You're not refuting any argument. Just look into the cost projections of your SMRs and then look at the current cost of solar and wind.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What you're missing is solar and wind projections do not consider a grid scale storage solution.... Factor into the grid scale storage solution with modern battery technology and suddenly the SMRs are a lot cheaper than battery super warehouses every few miles.

Again I am not saying we should not be building more renewables I'm just stating that we should also be developing more reactors with the renewables.

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Long term storage and/or reprocessing of fuel. On site storage is not a viable long term solution. We need some way to safely store expended fuel or change the rules to allow reprocessing. Commercially, we need to figure out an economical way to build power plants that doesn't die under the weight of its own regulations. Vogtle 3 & 4 went waaayy over budget, and almost bankrupted the partners (Westinghouse I believe). Solar and wind are seeing reduction in cost due to expanding market and the economy of scale that goes with it, along with generous subsidies. For nuclear to get those benefits it would have to be constructed at a rate not seen since Three Mile Island. We lost all of those benefits accrued during the 60s 70s and 80s. We would be starting at least 10 years behind wind and solar.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Shut up with your facts and logic this is clearly an emotional response only zone

[–] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your post is clearly based on emotion only, so I don't think you're doing yourself many favors trying to be sarcastic here.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

This post was based on the fact y'all don't have basic reading comprehension skills. I only have like 60 comments total maybe read through some of them.