7 ms·

These are real issues. Saying nuclear is too hard/too dangerous/too expensive/takes too long is the real FUD, simply because it's a wide range of significantly

These are real issues. Saying nuclear is too hard/too dangerous/too expensive/takes too long is the real FUD, simply because it's a wide range of significantly different technologies each with vastly different properties (whereas solar panels are all pretty similar and the problems are not with one particular kind but external - caused by how the solar panels are used). We need both/all.

Brometheus 4y ago
Are they though? A big fraction of those panels are made in countries other than China. The panels generally generate still more than 70% of their original power after 20 or 30 years. They're hardend against hail, can be insured and do definitely not require a lot of copper wiring. I wouldn't buy any stock related to mini nuclear reactors. It doesn't seem like a promising solution, since none of them have been actually deployed at all, they cannot be sold to less rich countries since they prefer solar in general, and the dangers to nuclear accidents, proliferation as well as the inevitable dismantling after their lifetimes. We're good with solar, wind and hydrogen storage. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I wish there was more news about it.
- WHATDOESIT 4y ago
  Just yesterday my state (in Central EU) has incorporated a company that is going to deploy several SMRs here. One of the US ones got certified just few months ago (they are buying that one too) and we also have our local designs ready to certify and then build - this country is extremely pro-nuclear (over 80% support) and has significant nuclear engineering industry and world-class nuclear regulation authority. I really don't think you're right it's not happening. And talking about nuclear in general, we are building several standard big reactors too (expanding older power plants), with no sign of insurmountable problems - ever since we stopped letting the greens affect the projects with their FUD and fake "studies" it's going more than well enough, unfortunately they backtracked us for a decade before we were able to change the law otherwise we would have the new reactors running today (the local Green party went from 30% to literally 0 over this, lol).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    The nukes will all be mothballed by 2040, as they find it impossible to compete. That is, provided global society does not collapse first. If it does, they will be mothballed as unmaintainable, instead, if they don't blow up for the same reason.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Right, it is significant that the only places shelling out for SMR are the US and Romania. Only the latter is actually planning to deploy them. (The US hands over tax money to people making them, but US utility operators don't want any.) Corruption suffices to account for both. Renewables+storage is just too obviously a better place to invest, if you care about investing wisely.
  - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
    If you have so much free space as US or Romania, maybe. There are much smaller states without enough sunshine though, and people hate having wind turbines visible near their houses (also, if you care about ecology then the blades are a big problem). Both wouldn't be nearly enough to replace fossil fuels anyways - only nuclear allows us to ditch natural gas and benzin/diesel entirely.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Wishing doesn't make it so.
      - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about, we're building and the reactors we built previously work cheaper than any renewable/gas/coal/whatever, the only problem is that we don't have enough, but we will have more soon. You're the one wishing for renewables - and indeed, wishing won't make it happen. The Greens slowed us down for two election intervals but they're gone and the building is resumed. Don't let Greens decide your policy and you can build too - and when you take them out of the equation it suddenly becomes cheap. We will happily build for you if your nuclear industry is not up to it, all it takes is ask.
        ben_w 4y ago
        > the reactors we built previously work cheaper than any renewable This is generally false, depending on region PV is the single cheapest source of electricity right now by a significant margin. Don't get me wrong, I value nuclear even if only for diversity of supply, but it isn't cheap.

Brometheus 4y ago

Are they though? A big fraction of those panels are made in countries other than China. The panels generally generate still more than 70% of their original power after 20 or 30 years. They're hardend against hail, can be insured and do definitely not require a lot of copper wiring. I wouldn't buy any stock related to mini nuclear reactors. It doesn't seem like a promising solution, since none of them have been actually deployed at all, they cannot be sold to less rich countries since they prefer solar in general, and the dangers to nuclear accidents, proliferation as well as the inevitable dismantling after their lifetimes. We're good with solar, wind and hydrogen storage. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I wish there was more news about it.

WHATDOESIT 4y ago
Just yesterday my state (in Central EU) has incorporated a company that is going to deploy several SMRs here. One of the US ones got certified just few months ago (they are buying that one too) and we also have our local designs ready to certify and then build - this country is extremely pro-nuclear (over 80% support) and has significant nuclear engineering industry and world-class nuclear regulation authority. I really don't think you're right it's not happening. And talking about nuclear in general, we are building several standard big reactors too (expanding older power plants), with no sign of insurmountable problems - ever since we stopped letting the greens affect the projects with their FUD and fake "studies" it's going more than well enough, unfortunately they backtracked us for a decade before we were able to change the law otherwise we would have the new reactors running today (the local Green party went from 30% to literally 0 over this, lol).
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The nukes will all be mothballed by 2040, as they find it impossible to compete. That is, provided global society does not collapse first. If it does, they will be mothballed as unmaintainable, instead, if they don't blow up for the same reason.
ncmncm 4y ago
Right, it is significant that the only places shelling out for SMR are the US and Romania. Only the latter is actually planning to deploy them. (The US hands over tax money to people making them, but US utility operators don't want any.) Corruption suffices to account for both. Renewables+storage is just too obviously a better place to invest, if you care about investing wisely.
- WHATDOESIT 4y ago
  If you have so much free space as US or Romania, maybe. There are much smaller states without enough sunshine though, and people hate having wind turbines visible near their houses (also, if you care about ecology then the blades are a big problem). Both wouldn't be nearly enough to replace fossil fuels anyways - only nuclear allows us to ditch natural gas and benzin/diesel entirely.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Wishing doesn't make it so.
    - WHATDOESIT 4y ago
      I don't know what you're talking about, we're building and the reactors we built previously work cheaper than any renewable/gas/coal/whatever, the only problem is that we don't have enough, but we will have more soon. You're the one wishing for renewables - and indeed, wishing won't make it happen. The Greens slowed us down for two election intervals but they're gone and the building is resumed. Don't let Greens decide your policy and you can build too - and when you take them out of the equation it suddenly becomes cheap. We will happily build for you if your nuclear industry is not up to it, all it takes is ask.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        > the reactors we built previously work cheaper than any renewable This is generally false, depending on region PV is the single cheapest source of electricity right now by a significant margin. Don't get me wrong, I value nuclear even if only for diversity of supply, but it isn't cheap.