nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

  • Bizzle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    1 month ago

    Honestly, I know this is a polarizing issue, but nuclear is clean and pretty much safe and you don’t need batteries for it. Lithium batteries of course being an ecological nightmare. Bring it on I say.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      172·
      1 month ago

      Mostly:

      • New nuclear is really expensive
      • It also takes a long time to deliver
      • The new reactor examples in here consist of reactors from suppliers who haven’t done that before

      So it has the feel of a plan to promise to spend a lot of money several years from now, and get a lot of PR points today, and quietly cancel the project later.

      • Bizzle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        1 month ago

        Well that is, indeed, wack. I appreciate your perspective, I can’t believe I missed the “corporations lying for money” angle. I’m usually on top of it.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
          31·
          1 month ago

          They’re talking about 5+ years on the new nuclear in these. And they haven’t done it before, so a 30% deadline slip is realistic.

          You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

          • 0x0@programming.devEnglish
            3·
            1 month ago

            You can put up a lot of wind and solar in that time.

            Which needs a stable baseline to counteract lack of supply and/or a lot of lithium. And space.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
              1·
              1 month ago

              The existing large-scale batteries are largely lithium. There are a bunch of iron-chemistry ones and sodium-ion ones which have been deployed over the past year, with factories going up to scale them up. I’m not expecting to be limited by lithium availability for stationary batteries.

    • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nlEnglish
      102·
      1 month ago

      Mining for nuclear is an ecological disaster, and is often done in poor countries under awful conditions, especially lung cancer due to the radon emissions of uranium.

    • 0x0@programming.devEnglish
      5·
      1 month ago

      Bring it on I say.

      As long as regulation stays in place. Or, better, add even harder regulation (for from security standpoints as well as fiscal) to ensure these fuckers are forced to be actively responsible for the safety and give them no way to back off and abandon a plant.

      Let them donate excess power to the grid as well. Eh, fund housing nearby for the homeless.