A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

What are SMRs?

  1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

  2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

  3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

  4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

  5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    21·
    7 months ago

    Nuclear power is simply a smokescreen. It’s proponents ultimately just want fossil fuel dependency to last as long as possible by promising silver bullet solutions that will never become reality, instead of focusing on solutions that exist and are effective today.

        • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
          23·
          7 months ago

          Basically, Warl0k3 thinks Diplomjodler’s argumentation is a conspiracy theory. In his comment, he ironically takes the position of a nuclear bro who finds out that his devious plan was discovered.

            • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
              6·
              7 months ago

              Well, thanks.

              Otoh, I withheld judgement on your opinion for a reason: I can think of at least one example of a German pro-nuclear pro-coal anti-renewables shill who has rather recently turned into a pro-nuclear anti-climate-change shill.

              [Addendum: In fact, in Germany, associations like Nuclearia (pro-nuclear), Eike (anti-renewables), Vernunftkraft (anti-wind power) are all linked, including in their financing through the Heartland Institute.]

              I understand that the situation might be a little different in other countries, but the whole worldwide civil nuclear field was born out of the military-industrial complex and is still very connected in governments, much more so than solar/wind energy companies are.

    • NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth
      11·
      7 months ago

      Why not use one of the safest and cleanest ways of producing power?

      The wind doesn’t blow all the time, neither does the sun shine all the time, and not everyone is around thermal or wave sources.

      Battery tech is coming along, and we are building more gravity batteries, but nuclear can close right in and replace most fossil fuel plants.

      • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
        14·
        7 months ago

        New reactors are expensive. New reactors are late. New reactors can basically only be built by nation states but not privately. Nuclear is not insurable. Nuclear produces waste with excessive half-life. Nuclear steals resources and mindshare from other options. Nuclear energy output can’t be moderated well (basically for economic reasons, it runs full steam all the time and for safety reasons, you can only moderate output a little), so it does not effectively augment wind and solar, rather leading to wind/solar having to be turned off.

        Wind and solar meanwhile can be built cheaply, quickly, privately, locally, site sizes easily scale between kW or GW of output and they only produce a little regular waste at the end of their life. (Okay, granted, Neodymium mining does produce some nuclear waste too — but definitely nowhere what uranium mining produces.)

        Wind+solar+hydro+better national/continental grids+batteries+flexible demand is a much better combination.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        9·
        7 months ago

        I was very pro nuclear but in the past few years, solar+batteries have become cheaper than nuclear. We can go 100% solar + batteries for less than building nuclear and save the uranium for important things like spaceflight.

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      8·
      7 months ago

      This is why it’s always the conservative parties advocating for it, as they are in bed with the fossil fuel industry.

        • vividspecter@lemm.ee
          3·
          7 months ago

          See the Australian conservative opposition (Liberal and National parties), for example. They are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, have no actual plan to roll out nuclear, but are using it as a delay tactic. See also how conservative parties are attacking renewables but not directly talking about coal (for the most part) because they know that the general public won’t accept it anymore. Conveniently, attacking renewables and talking up nuclear is an easy way to keep coal around for a little longer.

          Your points are more historical, I’m talking more about the last few years or so, the period where most conservatives now won’t admit to being climate change deniers, but incidentally have positions that worsen climate change.