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

Memes

45681 readers
1093 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
34
reactors are scary.jpg (imgflip.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Nuclear%20Regulatory%20Commission,use%20in%20the%20United%20States.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.