this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
85 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

59495 readers
3114 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
 

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 29 points 1 month ago (10 children)

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 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Well that is, indeed, wack. I appreciate your perspective, I can't believe I missed the "corporations lying for money" angle. I'm usually on top of it.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)