3 ms·

The reason to dismiss this as impossible is that it hasn't happened in 70 years, and it's not like we haven't tried a lot of approaches. At one point we need to

The reason to dismiss this as impossible is that it hasn't happened in 70 years, and it's not like we haven't tried a lot of approaches. At one point we need to accept something doesn't work.

credit_guy 3y ago
You could use the same argument for rockets before SpaceX came and cut their price by a factor of 100.
- locallost 3y ago
  Sure, no problem. There's then also no argument against the price of renewables or storage going down by a factor of a quadrillion. It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". The question was also "is there really anything happening in nuclear?" The answer is no. SMRs are not a new thing, and the idea was given up on already [1]. That industry is simply running in circles waiting for people to collectively forget its past failures so it can try the same failed ideas all over again. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc...
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". As I said, I am very happy about the exponential growth in solar and wind. But nuclear is not just any technology. It is a miracle of nature and a crowning achievement of science and technology. The energy released when one nucleus splits is millions of times the energy released when electrons rearrange their orbitals during chemical reactions. The efficiency of fission is just 1000 times lower than the efficiency of the E=mc^2, which is to say of the ultimate reaction, the matter-antimatter reaction. Fusion is 6 times more energy dense than fission, but fission we have and fusion we don't.

The reason to dismiss this as impossible is that it hasn't happened in 70 years, and it's not like we haven't tried a lot of approaches. At one point we need to accept something doesn't work.

credit_guy 3y ago

You could use the same argument for rockets before SpaceX came and cut their price by a factor of 100.

locallost 3y ago
Sure, no problem. There's then also no argument against the price of renewables or storage going down by a factor of a quadrillion. It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". The question was also "is there really anything happening in nuclear?" The answer is no. SMRs are not a new thing, and the idea was given up on already [1]. That industry is simply running in circles waiting for people to collectively forget its past failures so it can try the same failed ideas all over again. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc...
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". As I said, I am very happy about the exponential growth in solar and wind. But nuclear is not just any technology. It is a miracle of nature and a crowning achievement of science and technology. The energy released when one nucleus splits is millions of times the energy released when electrons rearrange their orbitals during chemical reactions. The efficiency of fission is just 1000 times lower than the efficiency of the E=mc^2, which is to say of the ultimate reaction, the matter-antimatter reaction. Fusion is 6 times more energy dense than fission, but fission we have and fusion we don't.