this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
632 points (69.6% liked)

Memes

44060 readers
2063 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] then_three_more 53 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (21 children)

Just because it's safe doesn't mean it's the best we have right now.

  • It's massively expensive to set up
  • It's massively expensive to decommission at end of life
  • Almost half of the fuel you need to run them comes from a country dangerously close to Russia. (This one is slightly less of a thing now that Russia has bogged itself down in Ukraine)
  • It takes a long time to set up.
  • It has an image problem.

A combination of solar, wind, wave, tidal, more traditional hydro and geothermal (most of the cost with this is digging the holes. We've got a lot of deep old mines that can be repurposed) can easily be built to over capacity and or alongside adequate storage is the best solution in the here and now.

[–] Aux -3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

These arguments were true in the 1950-s, they're not anymore.

[–] then_three_more 3 points 2 days ago (4 children)

They are true now. Nuclear takes around 10 years and billions to get up and running. SMR"s may help this but that's a tech that's a few years off at least. Decommissioning is still a big deal. Yeah reactors will last 30 odd years, but it still needs considering. Around 40% of uranium is still mined in Kazakhstan. Finally and probably most importantly as most of us live in countries that at least claim to be democracies public perception of nuclear is actually a lot worse than in the 50s.

[–] jose1324 2 points 2 days ago

SMR's aren't even cheaper or faster. China has shown that.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)