• deegeese
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually I do. I was a nuclear booster in the 1990’s because it means cheap limitless pollution free power.

      Except that they don’t actually deliver on that promise. You can have safe nuclear or cheap nuclear, but if it’s safe it’s not cheap, and the public rightfully won’t accept something that can require evacuating hundreds of square miles for decades.

      So wise one, where are those cheap safe nuclear power plants we keep hearing about since 1950?

      • moomoomoo309@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In France. They standardized the designs so each one isn’t a one-off and they trained more people to work in the field.

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          indeed. just order like 100 SMRs and all the problems go away. problem is the psychos would rather build gas plants and fund dictators

        • deegeese
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Those are not at all cheap and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes.

          France is trying to extend their service lifetime beyond what they were designed for because they can’t face the bill to replace them with newer reactors.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes in order to reprocess the waste into new fuel

            FTFY. That’s a good thing and we should be doing it here in the US, too.

          • Uranium3006@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Those are not at all cheap and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes.

            they aren’t, and the whole anti nuclear power movement is just people who don’t understand science not being able to tell the difference between a bomb and a power plant. I mean science education wasn’t that great in midcentury america but today we can easily know better

      • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the user above me actually gave the the answer so kudos to them but to further answer your question, there are no actually cheap reactors because the fight to actually build one is so insanely expensive. Where I live they’d been trying to build a reactor for over a decade. Constant lawsuits and legal battles after already obtaining permits and everything. Its ballooned the cost by tenfold. Why? Because of constant NGO pressure from the likes of greenpeace. So congrats, you win. They aren’t cheap cause of the hell we’ve made for ourselves.

        • Uranium3006@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          high speed rail and subways have the same problem. it’s not inherently expensive, rich people sue and sue until it’s too expensive

        • deegeese
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re blaming everyone else for nuclear’s failures.

          Why are even French nuclear plants badly over budget and late? Answer: Nuclear is expensive as fuck.