• xam54321@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

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

    Like what?

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Cost. Simple as that.

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

      • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

    • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

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

      • reversebananimals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          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.