4 ms·
No longer true. New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. If we can stop thinking in terms of a quarter century ago, we can finally get to that futu
by JoeAltmaier 5y ago
No longer true. New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. If we can stop thinking in terms of a quarter century ago, we can finally get to that future we used to imagine.
- newacct583 5y ago> New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. They've been "coming" since the 1960's. Start yelling about building stuff when they've arrived.
- cplusplusfellow 5y ago> prevent building things by any measure possible > yawn when we say we can build new things and to wake you up when we have them These actions aren’t compatible with progress.
- throwaway894345 5y agoI’ll refer you to my sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29057596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29057596): > Gotta love anti-nuclear folks. They work to hinder nuclear development and then point to the lack of nuclear progress as “evidence” that nuclear is a pipe dream.
- JoeAltmaier 5y agohttps://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210912-why-china-is-developing-a-game-changing-thorium-fuelled-nuclear-reactor https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210912-why-china-... https://thoriumbaby.com/china-sees-thorium-breakthrough-in-gobi-desert/ https://thoriumbaby.com/china-sees-thorium-breakthrough-in-g... https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/updates/ https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/updates/
- quonn 5y agoI read exactly the same on HN 10 years ago.
- sudosysgen 5y agoYes, and the countries that actually make these reactors in quantity such as South Korea, China, have made many at reasonable prices.
- throwaway894345 5y agoGotta love anti-nuclear folks. They work to hinder nuclear development and then point to the lack of nuclear progress as “evidence” that nuclear is a pipe dream.
- newacct583 5y agoStop with the conspiracy theories. There are no "anti-nuclear folks" in this thread. It's a bunch of people looking at a balance sheet and trying to decide on how to prioritize energy spending. And nuclear doesn't fit. Maybe it will. But it doesn't. It's not there. If you have $100M to spend on non-carbon electricity right now you build a wind farm, not a reactor. That's the problem you have to fix. Make something people want, basically.