Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EPR seems to disprove this.
Actually quite the opposite. The EPR cost less per GW than what was announced for these.
[deleted]
First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
321–330 of 332 posts
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wrote "For nuclear, the keep-out zone becomes a de facto nature preserve." You missed "nuclear keep-out zone". You missed "becomes". And you missed 'de facto". Please read comments properly before going on a rant.
Weird way to interpret my reply but you do you. I didn’t miss those things and I’m really agreeing with you but leaning more heavily into the solar since it’s not nearly as controversial as nuclear and the “land issue” is, in fact, very often cited as the reason that solar won’t scale but it’s a actually a thinly veiled argument for NIMBYism.
> Weird way to interpret my reply but you do you.
Not so weird IMO; I interpreted it the exact same way. So how do you mean it should have been interpreted? GP pointed out that exclusion zones around nukes in effect become nature preserves, and that solar panels could be placed in agricultural zones -- two very different things. In response, you start ranting about "displace wildlife and thus rile up the nature conservationists" with, apparently, solar installations. (You didn't explicitly say so, but then you hadn't indicated any change of subject from your previous sentece, which was explicitly about solar.) Which nobody was talking about.
So yes, weird indeed, but you do you.
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The black swan big disasters We had 2 huge ones. They resulted in a few thousand deaths and some uninhabitable land. Nothing compared to pollution damage. > accepted by society [...] socially acceptable I'd rather decide based on reason. And I doubt many people find millions of deaths due to pollution every year acceptable. They just don't know they had a choice. Choice stolen from them by rabid anti-nuclear fear m…
I did not say black swan nuclear disasters are a civilization-ending danger. I said people are afraid of them much more than of climate change. Nuclear experts consider it safe because of existing regulations and because it is hard for sketchy company to launch a new plant.
> I did not say black swan nuclear disasters are a civilization-ending danger. I said people are afraid of them much more than of climate change.
That may be, but you're coming off as mongering the same irrational fear.
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#324Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#325I'm so glad I left the nuclear industry thirteen years ago! I worked in nuclear power for about eight years. I felt like I was taking crazy pills. There's a strong vein of cognitive dissonance running through the industry relating to its economic viability. Nuclear power has always been the most expensive available energy production method. So every time I hear talking heads say "nuclear power is the only power produ…
"It's like listening to silicon valley people rave about AI or humanoid robots or driverless cars." That's a very interesting statement to make, given what's happening right now with AI, humanoid robots and driverless cars.
> That's a very interesting statement to make, given what's happening right now with AI, humanoid robots and driverless cars.
Yes, indeed. But perhaps not the way you meant it.
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear tech hasn't had a luxury of having renewables-like subsidies though. Who knows what the prices could have been had nuclear got the same level of subsidies. Nuclear energy (especially fast neutron tech that can use the abundant U-238 and nuclear waste from existing NPPs) isn't getting attention it deserves. Only Russia, China and India are investing in it, but it's neglected in the West because there is no imm…
nuclear tech had the biggeet subsidies program in human history in the 01940s and 50s, continuing to a significant extent into the 80s, which is how the humans got it in the first place some historians argue that subsidizing nuclear tech too heavily was a major factor in the collapse of the ussr
> 01940s
Numbers just aren't written that way. I don't know if you realise it, but that silly affectation is offputting enough to hinder your cause more than help it.
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#327> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?
It's that we are bad per se. But there is no money for that anymore. Most of the money goes to bullshit jobs or secondary things that are mostly about enabling the mentioned bullshit jobs. If you look at most western countries almost half the economic output is directed to those things.
You really can't build a future when most of the ressource goes to satisfy this and the relentless needs of the elderly who do not even contribute meaningfully.
When a lot of your ressource goes to satisfy the ones who are dying, nothing forward looking gets done, it's pretty logical, they are dying they do not have to care.
In many countries there is political fragmentation and a lot of unease related to this.
Personally, I blame feminism, socialism, and boomers.
I know it is not a politically correct opinion, but I think time will tell soon enough. Many recent events substantiate that.
My opinion doesn't matter anyway, the reality is that even in France that was a leader and highly successful in nuclear technology; new reactors do not get built or/and take forever.
It has nothing to do with skill, it is pretty much a systemic and political problem. Remove the political opinions, remove the feminist bullshit and things will get done. In the meantime, I suggest enjoying the fall, because nothing will happen until it gets so bad there will be no choice.
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not say black swan nuclear disasters are a civilization-ending danger. I said people are afraid of them much more than of climate change. Nuclear experts consider it safe because of existing regulations and because it is hard for sketchy company to launch a new plant.
> I did not say black swan nuclear disasters are a civilization-ending danger. I said people are afraid of them much more than of climate change. That may be, but you're coming off as mongering the same irrational fear.
That is surprising view to me. I tried to explain why naive anti-regulation talk is not helpful for getting more nuclear energy. The way to have more nuclear energy is to embrace and strengthen the state interest in nuclear.
Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#329Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird way to interpret my reply but you do you. I didn’t miss those things and I’m really agreeing with you but leaning more heavily into the solar since it’s not nearly as controversial as nuclear and the “land issue” is, in fact, very often cited as the reason that solar won’t scale but it’s a actually a thinly veiled argument for NIMBYism.
> Weird way to interpret my reply but you do you. Not so weird IMO; I interpreted it the exact same way. So how do you mean it should have been interpreted? GP pointed out that exclusion zones around nukes in effect become nature preserves, and that solar panels could be placed in agricultural zones -- two very different things. In response, you start ranting about "displace wildlife and thus rile up the nature conse…
I think I see where the misunderstanding is now and that there is indeed a gap in my statement. The point I was trying to make here was to challenge the need for nuclear energy _in the first place_ by installing solar in every parking lot. It should be considered and studied more thoroughly, if it hasn’t already.
That said, I’m not against nuclear but there are significant environmental drawbacks to it for anyone who lives near a plant. I can’t think of any significant environmental drawbacks to installing solar in existing parking lots.