You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-4 points
*

The US Navy has had functional Small modular reactor designs mostly PWR designs since the 1960s in the 5mw to 500mw range with no major failures yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

The problem is that none of these designs have ever been used to power the grid. Every nuclear project in the recent past has blown by cost and time estimates. Wind and solar are not only cheaper than nukes, they can also be installed much quicker and predictably. Nukes have a place, but we need clean energy now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Wind and solar are great, but they cannot provide consistent 24 hours base load production. Even with massive battery farms, they cannot replace bas load consistently.

That’s where nuclear needs to be, replacing the base load production currently being handled via coal and natural gas.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

The US at least already has enough nuclear to handle base loads when solar and wind are unavailable. Nukes in some contexts are needed, but I believe we have 30% or so nukes in the US. Diverting resources to new nukes is a waste when we could be making carbon fuels unprofitable soon by investing in solar and wind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Yes. Operated on a military budget. There’s a reason they’re not used for civilian use.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

Citation please

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You’re not going to find one because the military has an incredibly opaque budget

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Er… how would the military nuclear reactors not be operated on a military budget?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You’re the one that made the claim they were made by the Navy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

That’s thanks to the training (started with Rickover) and discipline and no shareholders. Commercial nukes don’t measure up, e.g. when it comes to leakages and knowing what to do in case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Now you’re just being disingenuous. I am certain that qualified individuals from the private sector and qualified individuals from the military both receive adequate training to operate their facilities

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Way to start out with an ad hominem. Cheap too. Since you’re ‘certain’ (and I know that’s hard to come by for this sacred cow), your #1 reference?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What’s funny about this is that most of the qualified private sector individuals are former Navy personnel. The civilian nuclear industry loves to hire people with nuclear training from the Navy because they’re already trained and experienced.

The Navy does operate a lot of nuclear reactors, and quite safely overall, but they also spend DoD money on building and maintaining them and training personnel for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Way to start out with an ad hominem. Cheap too. Since you’re ‘certain’ (and I know very well that’s hard to come by for this sacred cow), your #1 reference?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.8K

    Posts

  • 31K

    Comments

Community moderators