this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
347 points (85.3% liked)

Science Memes

11299 readers
2660 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The problem with nuclear is: business wise, it is a TOUGH sell to the public, even without the anti-nuclear lobby groups fighting with safety propaganda.

It takes a much higher capital spend to start up nuclear than any other type of plant, so you won't "break even" for 30 plus years, if ever.

It doesn't help when there are high profile sites that are being refurbished, whose costs are already phenomenaly high, and then the managing firm fucks it up (I'm looking at you Crystal River).

It makes it high risk, financially. And it's the public that ultimately ends up paying.

My hope is that SMR's become viable. They introduce a new factor though. If you get small, "cheaper" nuclear plants, then you will get more operators and you will get some that may run fast and loose. One fuck up can ruin it for everyone.

I can accept the argument that it's safe and effective but the public irrationally won't accept it. Seems to have been a pretty good sell on the other side of the curtain though

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

SMRs also produce significantly more waste for the amount of power generated.