A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

A realistic understanding of their costs and risks is critical.

What are SMRs?

  1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors.

  2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors.

  3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste.

  4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production.

  5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

[Edit: If people have links that contradict any the above, could you please share in the comment section?]

      • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
        0·
        6 months ago

        Basically, Warl0k3 thinks Diplomjodler’s argumentation is a conspiracy theory. In his comment, he ironically takes the position of a nuclear bro who finds out that his devious plan was discovered.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          0·
          6 months ago

          This exactly!

          (But jeeze, way to concisely summarize my point without a three-paragraph-long comment. Showoff.)

          • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
            0·
            6 months ago

            Well, thanks.

            Otoh, I withheld judgement on your opinion for a reason: I can think of at least one example of a German pro-nuclear pro-coal anti-renewables shill who has rather recently turned into a pro-nuclear anti-climate-change shill.

            [Addendum: In fact, in Germany, associations like Nuclearia (pro-nuclear), Eike (anti-renewables), Vernunftkraft (anti-wind power) are all linked, including in their financing through the Heartland Institute.]

            I understand that the situation might be a little different in other countries, but the whole worldwide civil nuclear field was born out of the military-industrial complex and is still very connected in governments, much more so than solar/wind energy companies are.