Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)PM
Posts
19
Comments
279
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Rolls Royce, GE, and Hitachi are more likely to succeed, but they're doing little to innovate beyond light water reactors. Even among LWRs, NuScale has a more interesting design because it contains enough water to shut down without human intervention.

    It's good that some startups are trying to improve long-tail safety, because the probability of failure increases with the number of reactors in the world.

  • We need to compare the cost of nuclear against firm renewables, including storage (developing technology) and long-distance transmission (location-dependent political/technical challenges).

    Comparing against coal and gas is meaningless unless we include the atmospheric cleanup costs.

  • Investing in nuclear power also means allowing engineers to improve the technology. There are plenty of reactor designs (mostly on paper) that can safely shut down without human intervention, which would make them much less of a liability in a warzone.

  • I agree that we should build more durable technology and reduce income inequality, but we need to fight the laws of physics first. Debate is a luxury granted by a stable civilization, which largely depends on a stable climate.

  • The world would be a bit better if everyone flew coach or stayed home, but it would be a lot better if the developing world had access to lighting, air conditioning, washing machines, transportation, fertilizer, and desalinated water without a corresponding increase in carbon emissions.

    Renewables (with storage and long-distance transmission) are part of the solution, but we need to invest in all viable forms of carbon-free energy like there's no tomorrow, because if we don't, then for a lot of people there won't be.