• CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It uses a ton of material to power 73 homes annually (652 feet high and 45 feet in diameter), works best in a desert but requires a lot of water. Yeah, nuclear energy is really threatened by that. Modern microreactors in development make, for example, 1.5 MWe at let’s say 90% capacity factor. Assuming about 1000 kWh/mo for a house, that microreactor, which can fit on the back of a semi truck and be transported down the highway that way, can power 985 homes anually and doesn’t require cooling water (will require water for electrical steam generation).

    Yeah, I will stick with nuclear, thanks.

      • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are technology (reactor) demonstrations planned within the next 2-3 years, so not quite but very close. A lot of active R&D work going on right now for specific designs at a lot of companies.

          • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The technologies on which these reactor designs are based have been demonstrated previously. The specific designs are in progress and well on their way. AGR, EBR-II, and MSRE are examples.

              • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                From how they argue, I get the impression that most of them are victims of astroturfing campaigns by the nuclear lobby tbh. The nuclear industry hates the idea to become redundant because of renewables, so they spread lies about being the solution to climate change. Like they ever gave any shits about the ecosystem, lol.

                • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Maybe, but I’ve had plenty of conversations where I’ve bought evidence, facts, used reliable sources, etc. and I see the same people still lying their asses off.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      You realize that the thing you’re describing doesn’t actually exist and likely never will, right?

      Pro-nuclear folks are so weird.