[T]he report’s executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

“The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs,” says the report. “But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb.”

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    29 days ago

    For the record, I disagree with you both and this narrative is also part of the problem in my book. Screw the futurism and longermism of “we need nuclear power for space exploration”. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about mitigating runaway climate effects and filling the blanks of an alternate energy mix by using complementary tech.

    Absolutely let’s keep working on nuclear power. Absolutely let’s keep working on battery storage, and potential energy storage and thermal storage and wind and geothermal and whatever else we can come up with. And absolutely let’s abandon whatever doesn’t work or is made obsolete, starting with no longer burning hydrocarbons as soon as we can stop.

    There’s this air of erudite dilettantism about this chatter that just pisses me off. People sitting by and idly projecting their sci-fi fantasies about colonizing planets or about a fully solar powered planet and feeling smart about it. Given the short-term, impending human cost of this issue, both for climate reasons and for energy scarcity reasons, that just feels gross at this point.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      What do you disagree with me? I was trying to back you up up here saying that yes we need nuclear in addition to all the other technologies. I am not saying that you shouldn’t use solar, just that it isn’t applicable everywhere on earth.

      Screw the futurism and longermism of “we need nuclear power for space exploration”. We’re not talking about that.

      You should be talking about that. After all climate change is also a future problem. Staying on a single planet isn’t safe even if you eradicate climate change, war, disease, and just about everything else. There is pretty much nothing stopping a gamma ray burst or stray blackhole, or any number of other things from killing everyone on this planet. Like yeah climate change is a high priority, but it doesn’t make all other issues go away.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        Look, I’m just trying to impress something very specific here and I can tell I’m not getting through.

        I’m not here to call out people arguing for or against one or another type of energy generation. I’m complaining about the discourse about this being about long term hypotheticals and optimal solutions when we should be in emergency mode.

        It’s like we’re in a burning building and people are having arguments about the cost per year of different types of fire extinguishers. But if I make this point about someone criticising nuclear power it comes across as me “siding” or “shilling” for nuclear power, same if I do it when someone argues against solar power.

        But I’m neither. I’m arguing for practicality and immediate action. Because we need it now, not because I just finished reading the Dune books and have some really neat ideas about generation ships.

        • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          29 days ago

          I’m not here to call out people arguing for or against one or another type of energy generation. I’m complaining about the discourse about this being about long term hypotheticals and optimal solutions when we should be in emergency mode.

          Remind me what type of thinking leads to climate change, and pretty much every pollution issue we have now? Short term thinking that didn’t take into account long term consequences. If we aren’t careful we could actually make things worse by chasing things like lithium battery technology.

          Trying to come up with short term solutions to climate changes is fine, but you have to thinking about the long term as well.

          I also don’t think you give enough credit to the people who are criticising nuclear, they are talking about the short term. “Renewables” are cheaper in the short term. The thing is solar panels, wind turbines, and so on is that they don’t last forever, recycling the equipment is problematic, and manufacturing them is an environmental crisis in its own right.

          Nuclear in its current form is a medium term solution with its own shortcomings around waste storage, and the materials needed to construct and fuel a reactor.

          This is all still probably better than fossil fuels but we are talking about the difference between getting shot (fossil fuels) or getting stabbed (nuclear/“renewables”).

          But I’m neither. I’m arguing for practicality and immediate action. Because we need it now, not because I just finished reading the Dune books and have some really neat ideas about generation ships.

          Immediate action? We needed yesterday’s action, but rushing things today isn’t going to make up for it. In fact probably the best thing you can do right now is stop having kids. Bring the population down. Ideally this needed doing decades ago too. If we don’t do it then nature will do it for us, which is probably inevitable at this point anyway.