4 ms·

As some one with a long winter, I assure you solar is not a cure-all, especially if you receive significant snow or low altitude cloud cover. Batteries, as wel

As some one with a long winter, I assure you solar is not a cure-all, especially if you receive significant snow or low altitude cloud cover. Batteries, as well, are impacted by the cold in their own ways. Is a tiny reactor the answer? Probably not. But energy at a constant rate all year round that also self warms? That sounds pretty good to me.

sudoshred 1y ago
Nuclear has advantages, but no one will vote in favor of a small chance of nearby catastrophe… given the choice.
- kjs3 1y ago
  That's an utterly ridiculous assertion (at least in the US). All one needs to do is claim "job creation" and "increase the tax base" and there will be thousands of small/mid sized town desperately courting your investment dollars, even if you're up front about "this will probably poison your town for centuries and turn your kids into zombies".
  - toast0 1y ago
    If that were enough, I think we'd have a lot more nuclear plants in construction. The problem with this theory is it takes too long between the step where the boosters sell the town with job creation and when the plant can't be cancelled. If you get a city on board today, chances are you won't have a permit in 10 years, and you need to keep them on board the whole time until the permit is issued or they'll derail the permit. It's better to keep them on board at least until the reactor is fueled... but once it's fueled, the jobs engine will probably sustain itself.
    - kjs3 1y ago
      My dad was a civil engineer with a specialty in hazardous waste handling. 10 years was not at unreasonable to get a landfill permitted, built and operational, and there's little new technology involved (unlike hypothetical micro-reactors). And yet, they always had a line of small towns lined up hoping to get one. I think you underestimate how long it takes getting anything substantial and potentially hazardous built in a municipal context.
  - burnt-resistor 1y ago
    Giga datacenters plopped down in unincorporated areas and small towns will bribe local officials, suck up all the water, raise local electricity rates, pollute the air with on-site natural gas generators, and given the opportunity, play Russian roulette with SMRs.
    - kjs3 1y ago
      Today it's datacenters. Used to be Wallmart. Same MO.
      - burnt-resistor 1y ago
        What is Wallmart? Do they sell walls. ;) Actually, these datacenters are much, much worse in different ways if you'd consider they are much bigger, louder, and resource-intensive. While hypermarts put local business out of business and take up comparatively less land including parking lots (while still being huge), their effects are bad but in different ways, especially given they abuse low wage workers who require government subsidies (indirect corporate welfare) and when they leave suddenly they create food deserts.
        kjs3 1y ago
        I was thinking more of how Wallmart also has a history of 'influencing' local officials to overlook the damage being done, as well as getting small towns to take on huge debt loads for 'required' infrastructure upgrades, all in the hopes that there will be a windfall when they set up shop. But sure, they suck in other ways and if you need some relative shittyness metric then ok I guess.
kjs3 1y ago
Isn't that a power transfer problem? By that, I mean wouldn't the money spent to invent (they don't exist) these 'mini-reactors' be better spent optimizing the transfer and storage capability of solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power generation to non-optimal locations? I mean, sure, I probably want a nice chunk of fissionables at McMurdo Station, maybe someplace like Svalbard, but as a general solution it seems a poor investment.
- homeonthemtn 1y ago
  You can do both and all at once. There's not really a lack of funding, just a lack of attention.
  - kjs3 1y ago
    Efficient transfer and storage of power from site of generation to site of use has been a topic of intense attention practically since the beginning of electrical generation, back to the Westinghouse v. Tesla AC/DC 'war'. I suspect reality of funding and attention are more complicated than you think.

sudoshred 1y ago

Nuclear has advantages, but no one will vote in favor of a small chance of nearby catastrophe… given the choice.

kjs3 1y ago
That's an utterly ridiculous assertion (at least in the US). All one needs to do is claim "job creation" and "increase the tax base" and there will be thousands of small/mid sized town desperately courting your investment dollars, even if you're up front about "this will probably poison your town for centuries and turn your kids into zombies".
- toast0 1y ago
  If that were enough, I think we'd have a lot more nuclear plants in construction. The problem with this theory is it takes too long between the step where the boosters sell the town with job creation and when the plant can't be cancelled. If you get a city on board today, chances are you won't have a permit in 10 years, and you need to keep them on board the whole time until the permit is issued or they'll derail the permit. It's better to keep them on board at least until the reactor is fueled... but once it's fueled, the jobs engine will probably sustain itself.
  - kjs3 1y ago
    My dad was a civil engineer with a specialty in hazardous waste handling. 10 years was not at unreasonable to get a landfill permitted, built and operational, and there's little new technology involved (unlike hypothetical micro-reactors). And yet, they always had a line of small towns lined up hoping to get one. I think you underestimate how long it takes getting anything substantial and potentially hazardous built in a municipal context.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Giga datacenters plopped down in unincorporated areas and small towns will bribe local officials, suck up all the water, raise local electricity rates, pollute the air with on-site natural gas generators, and given the opportunity, play Russian roulette with SMRs.
  - kjs3 1y ago
    Today it's datacenters. Used to be Wallmart. Same MO.
    - burnt-resistor 1y ago
      What is Wallmart? Do they sell walls. ;) Actually, these datacenters are much, much worse in different ways if you'd consider they are much bigger, louder, and resource-intensive. While hypermarts put local business out of business and take up comparatively less land including parking lots (while still being huge), their effects are bad but in different ways, especially given they abuse low wage workers who require government subsidies (indirect corporate welfare) and when they leave suddenly they create food deserts.
      - kjs3 1y ago
        I was thinking more of how Wallmart also has a history of 'influencing' local officials to overlook the damage being done, as well as getting small towns to take on huge debt loads for 'required' infrastructure upgrades, all in the hopes that there will be a windfall when they set up shop. But sure, they suck in other ways and if you need some relative shittyness metric then ok I guess.

kjs3 1y ago

Isn't that a power transfer problem? By that, I mean wouldn't the money spent to invent (they don't exist) these 'mini-reactors' be better spent optimizing the transfer and storage capability of solar, wind, geothermal and tidal power generation to non-optimal locations? I mean, sure, I probably want a nice chunk of fissionables at McMurdo Station, maybe someplace like Svalbard, but as a general solution it seems a poor investment.

homeonthemtn 1y ago
You can do both and all at once. There's not really a lack of funding, just a lack of attention.
- kjs3 1y ago
  Efficient transfer and storage of power from site of generation to site of use has been a topic of intense attention practically since the beginning of electrical generation, back to the Westinghouse v. Tesla AC/DC 'war'. I suspect reality of funding and attention are more complicated than you think.