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
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

as well as a iron-clad price floor for electricity

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

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."