this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
119 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

59123 readers
4873 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

It uses a ton of material to power 73 homes annually (652 feet high and 45 feet in diameter), works best in a desert but requires a lot of water. Yeah, nuclear energy is really threatened by that. Modern microreactors in development make, for example, 1.5 MWe at let's say 90% capacity factor. Assuming about 1000 kWh/mo for a house, that microreactor, which can fit on the back of a semi truck and be transported down the highway that way, can power 985 homes anually and doesn't require cooling water (will require water for electrical steam generation).

Yeah, I will stick with nuclear, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear energy isn't threatened by this. It's threatened by the fact that it's impossible to build one at a profit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's why factory fabricated microreactors are such a cool concept!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The cost of electricity from those is even more expensive than from conventional nuclear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And by the time that concept becomes reality we'll either be running 100% renewable energy or dead from climate change

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nope. Deployment of factory fabricated microreactors is planned for the 2030s.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ah, plans! Well then, that's a guarantee! No way they'll hit unexpected roadblocks and go massively overbudget like every other nuclear project

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You should educate yourself about GenIV reactors (designs, supply chains, costs...) before you embarrass yourself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

I don't need to add to the embarrassment that is the nuclear industry

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There are technology (reactor) demonstrations planned within the next 2-3 years, so not quite but very close. A lot of active R&D work going on right now for specific designs at a lot of companies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So you admit they do not exist?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The technologies on which these reactor designs are based have been demonstrated previously. The specific designs are in progress and well on their way. AGR, EBR-II, and MSRE are examples.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So that's a no, then?

WTF is it with nuclear bros and their war on reality?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

From how they argue, I get the impression that most of them are victims of astroturfing campaigns by the nuclear lobby tbh. The nuclear industry hates the idea to become redundant because of renewables, so they spread lies about being the solution to climate change. Like they ever gave any shits about the ecosystem, lol.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe, but I've had plenty of conversations where I've bought evidence, facts, used reliable sources, etc. and I see the same people still lying their asses off.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe those are the ones running the astroturfing campaigns?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Good call. Who are they shilling for though?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

More or less directly for the nuclear lobby I would assume. Or did I somehow misinterpret your question?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I could see the fossil fuel lobby funding this, I'm not sure the nuclear lobby exists given how unprofitable it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It is not unprofitable for the corporations who run the plants but only for society as a whole. You have to consider the state funding for research and development, subsidies for construction and operation of power plants, plus the fact that the state runs and pays for the final storage facilities for nuclear waste. All those billions of taxpayer money getting systematically redistributed to the nuclear industry to offset the real expenses of nuklear power, makes it in fact an extremely profitable business. Think about it, otherwise there would never have been a nuclear industry in the first place, at least in western/capitalist economies.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 11 months ago

You realize that the thing you're describing doesn't actually exist and likely never will, right?

Pro-nuclear folks are so weird.