Technology

59589 readers

3077 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

394

Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report (newatlas.com)

submitted 5 months ago by machinin@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

153 comments fedilink hide all child comments

[T]he report's executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

"The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs," says the report. "But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] vzq@lemmy.world 33 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (55 children)

Nuclear technologies missed their window. The use cases where they are the best technical solution now are extremely limited, and that means you can get the investment going to improve them.

It’s a curiosity now.

There’s an alternative timeline where Chernobyl doesn’t happen and we decarbonize by leaning on nuclear in the nineties, then transition to renewables about now. But that’s not our timeline. And if it were, it would be in the past now.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (13 children)

So, essentially, nuclear power is like airships, except with worse disasters?

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (12 children)

More people died in airship incidents than in civil nuclear power.

E: typo

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, read it. Also the article with the discussion on the death toll. 31 immediate deaths 60 attributable in the following two decades

The official WHO estimate with 4000 more cancer deaths until 2050 is based on the disputed LNT model. Even UNSCEAR itself says:

The Scientific Committee does not recommend multiplying very low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects within a population exposed to incremental doses at levels equivalent to or lower than natural background levels.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/let-s-separate-the-urban-myths-from-chernobyl-s-scientific-facts-20190705-p524f7.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

Dr. Thomas shares that contrary to popular belief there is a scientific consensus that the Chernobyl accident has resulted in the deaths of less than 55 people as a result of radiation.

The two airship accidents with the most casualties count together 120 dead (USS Akron and Dixmude).

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (51 replies)