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

Memes

45643 readers
1269 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
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
32
reactors are scary.jpg (imgflip.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Clarke311@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Nuclear%20Regulatory%20Commission,use%20in%20the%20United%20States.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_reactors

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 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.

[โ€“] 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.