Comment on Bill Gates-backed nuclear contender Terra Power aims to build dozens of UK reactors

• IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Not at all. We’ve seen massive advancements with EVs, 300+ miles ranges for under $40k are common now. Has nuclear both gotten more capable and cheaper during its lifetime? The answer is a resounding no.

  source

  • Zron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    All of those EV advancements were only in the passed 20 years.

    The first electric vehicle was made well over 100 years ago. Until very recently they were considered wildly expensive and impractical.

    You consider nuclear to me unnecessary and impractical because we’ve had the tech for 75 years and it’s still expensive. Yet nuclear tech is younger than EVs, and you discredit advancements because… reasons.

    Your stance confuses me.

    source

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Why is it confusing? One is a battery on wheels, the other is controlled nuclear fission, creating steam to drive turbines for electricity generation.

      source

      • Loulou@lemmy.mindoki.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It’s your stance that is confusing. I mean if you didn’t strawman on purpose.

        source
      • Zron@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Now I know you’re just trolling.

        Have a good night

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Laser_Frog@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The technology of modern reactors ,like the one in the article, is a greater advancement from early reactors that the 1900th century electric car to a modern one.

    The materials, manufacturing techniques, fuels, controls, and components are only achievable due to modern advancements.

    The latest reactors will be cheaper, more efficient, and safer. They are a necessary stopgap to overcome the transient nature of renewable energy in the UK and an important piece in ensuring energy availability and detachment from from fossil fuels.

    source

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Oh come on. Cheaper? Nuclear reactors frequently go way over budget and take longer than promised to build.

      We don’t need nuclear as a stopgap, in fact, it’s not helpful to have base load at all with renewables - nuclear has to run at as close to 100% uptime as possible to make any financial sense. What do you do on windy, sunny days when renewables are generating more power than is required? You can’t switch off a nuclear plant very quickly.

      Nuclear makes no sense any more. We need to save the cash and invest in more renewables and storage, and an upgraded power grid.

      source

      • Laser_Frog@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        We know historic nuclear is expensive. Cost is the entire point of SMRs. Let’s not use reductionist logic to make a complex problem seem simple. It is complicated and whether SMRs succeed is still to be determined but there is good logic in the aims they have set out and I hope they succeed.

        As for renewable, it would be wonderful if we could store energy to overcome the ebs and flows of power they currently produce, but I am not aware of any technology currently allowing this to sufficient costs and practicalities. This is where nuclear may be required

        It doesn’t matter if you produce 400% the required energy in a year with renewables if we have to go without even a fraction of the time.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Aux@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You’re just an ignorant lunatic.

        source

        • -> View More Comments