• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cost. Simple as that.

    Nuclear power is not economically viable, never has been, probably never will. The only reason it exists are massive subsidies.

    • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You really really should look into how much subsidies get thrown at Coal oil and natural gas

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As I said in my other comment: coal is not the alternative here. You’re not refuting any argument. Just look into the cost projections of your SMRs and then look at the current cost of solar and wind.

        • Clarke @lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          What you’re missing is solar and wind projections do not consider a grid scale storage solution… Factor into the grid scale storage solution with modern battery technology and suddenly the SMRs are a lot cheaper than battery super warehouses every few miles.

          Again I am not saying we should not be building more renewables I’m just stating that we should also be developing more reactors with the renewables.