this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1491 readers
8 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dogshit clickbait article. Summarizing several comments I made earlier:
Three Mile Island wasn't the unmitigated disaster that fearmongers would have you believe. It was an ultimately harmless accident that was highly publicized because of poor communication and irresponsible sensationalist journalism. TMI had zero fatalities, minimal release of radiation, and no measurable effect on health. Residents of the area were exposed to less radiation from the accident than the yearly background dose.
It was not a disaster, and most definitely not the worst on US soil.
More on the topic: https://youtu.be/cL9PsCLJpAA
my least favorite thing about nuclear power is the reply guys
There’s a specific kind of online commentator that’s a carrier of the meme that the public turn against nuclear power was the final nail in the coffin for Western civilization. I don’t have any proof of this, other than cultural. Nuke fondlers tend to be culturally and politically conservative, generally with engineering or science degrees, and seem to pine for the idealized 50s so present in tradwife media nowadays (although nuke love precedes that by decades).
Opposition to nuclear power was sort of a death knell for the ideal of the technocrat.
Now of course nuke enthusiasts tend to be libertarians too, and they run smack into the fact that nuclear is really capital-intensive and expensive to insure. Thus the pipe dream of the inherently safe “container reactor”.
Sweden’s current gov is driven a lot by opposition to all things Green (both the party and the ideas) and pushed for the construction of 10 new reactors. It turns out that the industry has been burned by vacillating govs before and required hard financial guarantees, as well as a iron-clad price floor for electricity, to commit. So the pitch to the public would be: there’s no way you can lower your per-unit power cost for 30 years, and in return you get 10 items widely perceived as ugly and dangerous.
Lol isn't the main cool thing of having a nuclear plant low electricity costs, why the fuck would you agree to that
Let's increase the supply but also add a price floor to reap none of the benefits, genius economics
Nuclear at least doesn't pump out CO2, so a lotta people who aren't like you describe consider it worth considering. 850MW of nuclear is better than 850MW of gas on this scale.
But the economics just completely fuck it. TMI unit 1 shut down cos it couldn't compete economically and only an IRA tax break makes it even plausible.
There's a big thing in Australia at the moment where the LNP, beholden to some donor or other, is pushing economically nonviable nuclear hard. And even a lotta the green side is saying "nice idea, now make the numbers work in this universe."
i saw it in my email and thought "did he fucking read it" and looking through his history, he absolutely didn't
lemmy-flavored redditors: uhm I came here expecting some nuance
also lemmy-flavored redditors: nuclear power plants opening is always good, why would I care that the companies doing it have a history of ignoring regulations, are treating nuclear engineering as loosely as software engineering, and are generating vast amounts of power just to chase an awful fucking fad and explicitly not to power houses or any worthwhile infrastructure? what do you mean read the article? why would I ever do that?
SimCity infrastructure plans
Disasters->Basilisk
Gotem coach