It's barely breaking even right now. It has major potential output. Even the test that yield a net positive output are not true positive outputs because we don't have a reliable way to convert the energy into usable energy.

Didn't read the article yet but how is this different than the reactors that have been powering nuclear-powered submarines for decades?

Nice, where can I get one?

They'd be doing this as well to contract the uterus while waiting for the misoprostil to work, or bimanual massage.

1st small modular nuclear reactor *design

And just like that, Deloreans are back in vogue. Back to use. Back…. to the

Investing money in nuclear instead of solar/wind is literally a gift to the fossil fuel industry. Solar/wind are cheaper per MWh output (4x cheaper unsubsidized than NuScales pre-construction claimed price estimate) and faster to construct, so for the same amount invested you phase out far more fossil fuels.

Plus you can't even use nuclear plants as economically viable dispatchable power: cost per MWh directly scales upwards as capacity factor drops, because basically all the costs are fixed not variable depending on how often you run it. So if at 90% capacity factor it's $120/MWh (as the Utah NuScale is, pre-sunsidy), at 60% capacity factor it's $180/MWh. Compare to wind and solar at around $30-40/MWh and it's just a bad look.

There's a reason the initial pumped-hydro energy storage plants were built in the US to allow dispatchability of nuclear power... And now that same kind of storage idea can more cheaply be applied to solar/wind. ie, nuclear doesn't actually solve the storage issue in the way that proponents like to claim, so it doesn't even have that going for it.

And nuclear plants have never shown a positive learning curve, where repeated builds decreased costs over time.

It's not even small amounts we are talking about investing, that could be seen as OK for initial demonstrator plants. The Utah project cost estimate is now over $9 billion.

The nuclear industry needs to be allowed to die due to its lack of economic competitiveness.

[removed]

It's not, though. Investing money in nuclear instead of solar/wind is literally a gift to the fossil fuel industry. Solar/wind are cheaper per MWh output (4x cheaper unsubsidized than NuScales pre-construction claimed price estimate) and faster to construct, so for the same amount invested you phase out far more fossil fuels.

Plus you can't even use nuclear plants as economically viable dispatchable power: cost per MWh directly scales upwards as capacity factor drops, because basically all the costs are fixed not variable depending on how often you run it. So if at 90% capacity factor it's $120/MWh (as the Utah NuScale is, pre-sunsidy), at 60% capacity factor it's $180/MWh. Compare to wind and solar at around $30-40/MWh and it's just a bad look.

There's a reason the initial pumped-hydro energy storage plants were built in the US to allow dispatchability of nuclear power... And now that same kind of storage idea can more cheaply be applied to solar/wind. ie, nuclear doesn't actually solve the storage issue in the way that proponents like to claim, so it doesn't even have that going for it.

And nuclear plants have never shown a positive learning curve, where repeated builds decreased costs over time.

It's not even small amounts we are talking about investing, that could be seen as OK for initial demonstrator plants. The Utah project cost estimate is now over $9 billion.

The nuclear industry needs to be allowed to die due to its lack of economic competitiveness.

It's safe, and low-carbon, but a bad use of money/time/workforce/effort.

"US pushes forward with wasting money on over-expensive small nuclear reactors, rather than cheaper renewables"

Not uplifting.

For just the subsidy amount here, not including any of the private investment, you could produce more solar or wind power than the NuScale reactor will produce. Adjusted for capacity factor.

It's a bad investment.

Or maybe, just maybe we try and use all the possible available sources of clean energy alongside nuclear for a sustainable and redundant grid system which will maximize the availability of energy? Haven't you ever heard the phrase "don't put all your uranium fuel pellets in one basket"?

Good I hope this upsets people on Reddit

Honestly, it sounds better than the treatment I received in the U.S. for the same thing - The doctor and 2 nurses pushing all their body weight on my uterus, to force it to contract and stop the bleeding. To be fair, it worked, but it was extraordinarily painful.

[removed]

[removed]

What could go wrong? I mean, Fukushima killed 0 people and that was the worst nuclear accident this century. The worst nuclear accident in the US was Three Mile Island, also no deaths.

[deleted]

>Disappointed, Thornton, 61, started asking where French was still being spoken,

Ahem,...(Me looking northwest and east of Maine)....

You know, there are literally two Canadian provinces (Quebec and New Brunswick) a relatively short drive away filled with millions of French speakers. Not like it's that rare of a thing, just saying.

My mom passed away almost 10 years ago from brain cancer. From her first symptom to death was 6 months. It was horrible to watch. This disease, in all its forms, is a terrible thing. I hope this helps literally anybody.

[deleted]

Save bees by calling for a ban on neonicitinoids. These pesticides are environmentally stable so that one dose kills insects generation, after generation, after generation.

https://xerces.org/publications/scientific-reports/how-neonicotinoids-can-kill-bees

this will stop global warming..

​

fuc wind

fuc solar

fuc magic fusion

fuc underground thermal

fuc wave technology

​

just simple old fashion nuke with proper waste disposal.

​

the sh!t is so simple

Wow, thanks.

Not sure what your in about but you can pump your own gas in a bunch of places in oregon. Pump your own desiel anywhere in oregon!

It’s a nice picture though