69
submitted 15 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world

My impression is that this is a PR push, designed to avoid having to invest in renewables, and let them keep on burning gas and coal, rather than something likely to come to fruition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bizzle@lemmy.world 24 points 13 hours ago

Honestly, I know this is a polarizing issue, but nuclear is clean and pretty much safe and you don't need batteries for it. Lithium batteries of course being an ecological nightmare. Bring it on I say.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 13 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Mostly:

  • New nuclear is really expensive
  • It also takes a long time to deliver
  • The new reactor examples in here consist of reactors from suppliers who haven't done that before

So it has the feel of a plan to promise to spend a lot of money several years from now, and get a lot of PR points today, and quietly cancel the project later.

[-] 0x0@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

It also takes a long time to deliver

Not that much. Do remember there's a lot of oil money pouring into FUDing about nuclear.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
69 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

58706 readers
3994 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS