A new report has assessed the feasibility of deploying small modular nuclear reactors to meet increasing energy demands around the world. The findings don't look so good for this particular form of energy production.

[T]he report’s executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

“The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs,” says the report. “But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb.”

  • Lumisal@lemmy.worldEnglish
    53·
    6 months ago

    I sympathized with your statement immediately, but then after thinking about it for a bit, most people basically have controlled pressure bombs (gas-water boilers) and buildings filled with gas pipes that can (and have) wiped out whole city blocks.

    It’s still not a good idea, obviously, but localized fossil fuels are also ridiculous when you think about it.

    • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.worldEnglish
      45·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear waste and fuel is dangerous for years and is an invisible hazard. Propane and gas at least only explode once

          • Adanisi@lemmy.zipEnglish
            5·
            6 months ago

            Boilers were, in fact, mentioned earlier. And have a failure mode where CO builds up for and is undetectable without an alarm. Just like the oh so dangerous nuclear.

            Fun fact: coal plants emit more radioactive waste per unit energy than nuclear plants, and its just vented into the atmosphere!

            I swear people run on emotion only when nuclear is brought up.