this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
32 points (64.8% liked)

Memes

45643 readers
1199 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
32
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Clarke311@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cost. Simple as that.

Nuclear power is not economically viable, never has been, probably never will. The only reason it exists are massive subsidies.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really really should look into how much subsidies get thrown at Coal oil and natural gas

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As I said in my other comment: coal is not the alternative here. You're not refuting any argument. Just look into the cost projections of your SMRs and then look at the current cost of solar and wind.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What you're missing is solar and wind projections do not consider a grid scale storage solution.... Factor into the grid scale storage solution with modern battery technology and suddenly the SMRs are a lot cheaper than battery super warehouses every few miles.

Again I am not saying we should not be building more renewables I'm just stating that we should also be developing more reactors with the renewables.