you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 188 points 1 week ago (39 children)

Nuclear plants - with high start-up costs, national security risks and high output - will always require concentrating large amounts of power in few hands.

Solar has much greater potential for decentralization.

Greater inequality results in a worse society in just about every imaginable way. And nuclear will always encourage that more than solar.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 week ago* (25 children)

    Yeah, damn governments holding all the uranium for themselves. It's just not fair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 week ago (22 children)

    My son would argue that governments should have invested heavily in thorium reactor technology instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago (19 children)

    That is remains a cool potential technology, but why spend billions of dollars trying to develop a worse technology when solar already exists and for much cheaper? It’s just being sidetracked while letting investors enrich themselves on government research money

    Plus it harkens back to the old adage about base power. No, we don’t need base power when we have large scale grid storage. Thats just coal propaganda

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 week ago (18 children)

    That is remains a cool potential technology, but why spend billions of dollars trying to develop a worse technology when solar already exists and for much cheaper?

    This was the exact same argument made against solar. We should research and improve energy technologies. I doubt Thorium is the solution, but we've discovered a lot of our technology by researching something else and then discovering an interesting function or byproduct unrelated to the original goals.

    Plus space exploration will need to be nuclear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I seriously doubt there’s any useful overlap between nuclear for space and for terrestrial power generation. Even if there were, we’ve spent close to a century proving that nuclear is expensive and time consuming to run and thorium’s theoretical advantages re mostly only in comparison to existing nuclear technology. Research is always good, but that really looks like a dead end, especially in comparison to something that is cheap and ubiquitous, and entirely ready, just needs scale out. Even that is already happening

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    especially in comparison to something that is cheap and ubiquitous

    In some countries nuclear is cheap and ubiquitous. The key is simple standardization.

    In France for instance, nuclear accounts for about 70% of their power. They operate 57 nuclear reactors, all of which are one of 4 reactor designs. By having standardized designs these reactors are cheaper to maintain, parts and equipment are more available. The engineers that run the facilities are more familiar with every aspect of the plant, operating procedures are better understood. It's easier to find qualified engineers and technicians. Accidents are uncommon (I believe they've never had any kind of major accident).

    The price French households pay for power is comparable to what we pay in the US and they generate significantly less CO2 per capita. They also have less reliance on oil states.

    We could have that too if we were motivated to make it happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    And yet even in this ideal case where France built out a full country of standardized nuclear power half a century ago ….. a quick online search shows me they still have double the cost/KWH compared to solar

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    LOL

    Why bring Space Nuttery into this?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Nuttery?

    Every dollar spent at NASA has returned so much more. They develop things for space travel that have uses far beyond space. We wouldn't even have satellites and GPS if we didn't venture into space.

    Space has a lot for us to explore and a ton of resources we can use. Why strip mine the Earth when we could just take it from the asteroid belt?

    You really need to disconnect space exploration from the likes of Musk or Bezos. We've been advancing humanity through space exploration before those two assholes were born

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    NASA has nothing to do with nuclear research. The world would benefit from nuclear research more than sending another group for a lap around the moon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Nuclear power is a very important technology for space vehicles, probes and bases. There's proven potential for greatly improved propulsion systems as well.

    You can't just hear the word space and declare it "nuttery", that's just ignoring whole industries and areas of active research and engineering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Your response is exactly Space Nuttery. Dream-like nerd fantasies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago

    Calling yourself a nerd while you limit yours and others' inquisitiveness, passion, and imagination. Pretty pathetic to be honest.

    Oh and the best argument is not responding. Which I know, ironic. But let's see you ignore this and not give some trite, trolling response. Chances of that are pretty low.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Let's move to Mars! Let's mine the Moon or an asteroid! Let's give Musk another $100 billion!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    We were doing worthwhile exploration well before Musk was born. It has and can be done in a way that doesn't need to be tied to him.

    Also wouldn't mining a moon or asteroid belt be preferable to mining the Earth? Like we can keep our water and environment cleaner and still get the resources we need

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Space Nuttery is thinking it's somehow important or relevant for humanity going forward.

    A power source for a floating camera to go take pictures of dead rocks and frozen chemicals is a niche interest. No one has a RTG powered city.

    "You can’t just hear the word space and declare it “nuttery”,"

    You can't just hear "Space Nuttery" and talk about space. Space is a mostly empty sucking vacuum hostile to all life and a radiation-blasted hell.

    Space Nuttery is living in a fantasy world where we'll just somehow go space mining and colonizing Mars with water from Saturn's rings like it's just a question of a longer trip to Home Depot.

    It's an intellectual dead end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    I think thorium reactors are more complicated though. You have to achieve very high pressure or they don't work. They just hasn't really been an impetus to develop the technology.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    This is why SMRs are a thing, and may still take off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Depends on the location. In some places space is the commodity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Like on the north pole maybe, but otherwise it's just a massive loss of economy of scale.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    Uhh any major metropolitan area without US large area infrastructure? Also, underwater.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Cheaper to drag a cable there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

    I.. don't think you are thinking this through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    That's how it's done all over the place though. Sure, you can probably find some niche but in general I bet electric transport is better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    The entire global military aparatas, from mobile headquarters, in-country bases, and submarines, is hardly a niche. And no, that's also not how it's done all over the world, that's how it's done in modern western countries. SMRs would work very well in rocky or rainforest regions, or areas where speed of deployment is more important (kick starting a region pre-solar, or brownout coverage, for instance).

    Dont get me wrong, I'm making this point because SMRs have a place. I do believe solar should be the vast, vast majority of global energy production until something better comes along.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Well, the military have already figured it out it seems. And compared to the rest of the world it's niche IMO.

    For "poor countries", solar + batteries is better than classic nuclear, so why build SMRs that are just much more expensive and take ages to build compared to solar (except in some niche places)?

    We know how to do solar, transporting electricity etc. SMRs not so much, and they will be more expensive too. I just see absolutely no positive side for it for regular use. The nightmare having nuclear stuff all over the place is just an extra horror.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Solar has much greater potential for decentralization.

    Not when we buy all our panels from China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments