First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled::NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.

  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember so many nuclear stans on lemmy a bit ago refusing to acknowledge that renewables are getting so good and cheap that they are more important to solving climate change than nuclear. I wonder how they feel seeing investors pull out in favor of renewables?

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like crap? Renewables are good in places where they work. Nuclear works everywhere and is more reliable.

      Investors pulling out of a nuclear project like this just looks like a, really dumb kneejerk reaction. “Oh! New shiny thing!”

      • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This. Green energy works best when complimented with nuclear energy. Then, we can ween away from big oil.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s the opposite. Nuclear outputs as close to 24/7 as possible, you can’t ramp it up and down to accommodate variable output from renewables for practical and economic reasons.

          • Uranium 🟩@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean you can vary it pretty significantly depending on the reactor type, but even if you couldn’t you can still put the energy to work in alternative ways, such as pumping water up into reservoirs/damns to generate energy at other points, or using the excess energy to split water. There are many ways to use excess energy.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can do the same with excess power from renewables though. My point was that you need something to fill in the gaps when renewable output is low, whether that be from batteries, pumped storage, peaker plants, etc.

              Nuclear doesn’t fit in here, there are no nuclear peaker plants.

          • Pipoca@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The problem with solar is that the sun doesn’t shine overnight. The good thing with that is that we use much less power overnight than we do during the day.

            If you’re relying a lot on solar, you need to build a big-ass battery that you charge during the day and use at night.

            Alternatively, you build a nuclear or gas plant sized to overnight usage and run them 24/7. Then, you build way smaller batteries to handle dispatchability and smoothing demand over the course of a day. Nuclear is good for baseline power, and doesn’t come with the environmental costs of a gas plant. It has a niche.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Might save you a click:

    Too many investors pulled out of the project, at least in part due to rapidly falling prices of renewables.

  • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’ve wasted so much money in r&d simply because it’s a tech that allows the rich to maintain their power monopoly, if we’d spent all that on more sensible options we’d be far closer to an ecologically sustainable future.