4 ms·

Greenpeace's real opposition is mainly that, since SMR's are related to submarine reactor designs, they're subsidising those same subs. Sort of like if you oppo

Greenpeace's real opposition is mainly that, since SMR's are related to submarine reactor designs, they're subsidising those same subs. Sort of like if you oppose beef by-products because you think a cow died for it. They're wrong - the cow died regardless, because of high-profit steak, and the submarines are funded regardless of whether we also get carbon-free power from it - but it's a valid argument. But yes, in northern latitudes - in winter we run fossil fuels, which create literally millions of tonnes of gaseous waste for ever tonne of solid nuclear waste, or we freeze and die. If you respond but what about [green magic], congratulations, you've not done the sums for winter in cold countries, and I'm not wasting time arguing with you. Go do them.

hyper_reality 6y ago
I don't think you can dismiss the beef/submarine by-products argument without further analysis. If the beef by-products are being sold by cow farmers for a profit, that makes slaughtering a cow more profitable for farmers. It could mean that more cows are farmed, the price of beef goes down, and therefore the demand goes up. It's only if beef by-products are relatively worthless that your argument is justified, and from a quick search that doesn't seem to be true at all - byproducts are worth 10-15% of the carcass [1]. Similarly, if commissioning new nuclear submarines is cheaper because the SMR research has already been done, then defence procurers can make a stronger case to buy more of them as opposed to other military technologies. [1] https://www.farmprogress.com/story-beef-byproducts-buoy-cattle-prices-9-122532 https://www.farmprogress.com/story-beef-byproducts-buoy-catt...
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > Similarly, if commissioning new nuclear submarines is cheaper because the SMR research has already been done, then defence procurers can make a stronger case to buy more of them as opposed to other military technologies. it's still a silly position. pretty much any research in physics/engineering enables the military to create more efficient ways of killing people. should we stall all technological progress to starve the military?
- jabl 6y ago
  Thanks to long-standing agreements with the US, British submarine reactors are largely copycats of the American ones. And everything about them is super-classified, hard to see how they could use any of that knowledge for civilian reactors. At most one could argue that if this civilian reactor project succeeds beyond the wildest dreams, they could use that knowledge to design indigenous submarine reactors rather than relying on the Americans. If so, one hopes they could, as the French have already done, switch to low enriched fuel and reduce proliferation risk.
Schiendelman 6y ago
You don’t need magic. You have tons of cheaper ways to reduce your fossil fuel use. Efficiency in building upgrades is almost always the cheapest way to reduce heating emissions. Geothermal is next. I also strongly agree with the other reply’s point - reducing the amount of money made in raising a cow or increasing the cost of building a nuclear submarine has an attritive impact on both. Those strategies work, potentially better than any other strategy!

hyper_reality 6y ago

I don't think you can dismiss the beef/submarine by-products argument without further analysis. If the beef by-products are being sold by cow farmers for a profit, that makes slaughtering a cow more profitable for farmers. It could mean that more cows are farmed, the price of beef goes down, and therefore the demand goes up. It's only if beef by-products are relatively worthless that your argument is justified, and from a quick search that doesn't seem to be true at all - byproducts are worth 10-15% of the carcass [1]. Similarly, if commissioning new nuclear submarines is cheaper because the SMR research has already been done, then defence procurers can make a stronger case to buy more of them as opposed to other military technologies. [1] https://www.farmprogress.com/story-beef-byproducts-buoy-cattle-prices-9-122532 https://www.farmprogress.com/story-beef-byproducts-buoy-catt...

leetcrew 6y ago
> Similarly, if commissioning new nuclear submarines is cheaper because the SMR research has already been done, then defence procurers can make a stronger case to buy more of them as opposed to other military technologies. it's still a silly position. pretty much any research in physics/engineering enables the military to create more efficient ways of killing people. should we stall all technological progress to starve the military?
jabl 6y ago
Thanks to long-standing agreements with the US, British submarine reactors are largely copycats of the American ones. And everything about them is super-classified, hard to see how they could use any of that knowledge for civilian reactors. At most one could argue that if this civilian reactor project succeeds beyond the wildest dreams, they could use that knowledge to design indigenous submarine reactors rather than relying on the Americans. If so, one hopes they could, as the French have already done, switch to low enriched fuel and reduce proliferation risk.

Schiendelman 6y ago

You don’t need magic. You have tons of cheaper ways to reduce your fossil fuel use. Efficiency in building upgrades is almost always the cheapest way to reduce heating emissions. Geothermal is next. I also strongly agree with the other reply’s point - reducing the amount of money made in raising a cow or increasing the cost of building a nuclear submarine has an attritive impact on both. Those strategies work, potentially better than any other strategy!