• orion@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Cheaper and faster” are concerning adjectives to be using for nuclear reactors… while well-regulated nuclear power is better than a lot of alternatives, trying to drive more and more adoption by lowering the bar seems overly risky.

    • davewritescode@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point of smaller reactors is that they could be much safer and cheaper to deploy. They’re intended to be entirely self contained.

  • variants_of_concern@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminds me of the reactors the army was trying to run in pools for portability in the 50s. I grew up near a plant that made uranium rods and didn’t know about it until recently, kind of explains why they couldn’t build housing there and instead built a shopping center

    • OmnipotentEntity@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If all the nuclear waste from U.S. power plants were put on a football field, it would stack up just 50 feet high. In comparison to the waste produced by every other kind of electricity production, that quantity is close to zero.

      From this Forbes op-ed.