Re:The First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Was Just Approved...
by 411111111111111 on Saturday August 06, 2022 @04:15PM
(#32371207)
Isn't it a little disingenuous to call this clean energy? It might be carbon free energy, but doesn't clean imply that it's not stressing the environment altogether?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Was Just Approved...
by kspacewalk2 on Saturday August 06, 2022 @04:25PM
(#32371278)
The process of manufacturing solar panels stresses the environment plenty, are we eliminating solar power from the clean list too?
Re:The First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Was Just Approved...
by 411111111111111 on Saturday August 06, 2022 @08:59PM
(#32372923)
The term clean loses its meaning if you include the production phase. There is no way to produce any product of any form without impacting the environment in some form.
Especially because you can't really draw a line at that point, as you'll also have to include the production impact of tools and materials which you needed to produce your product. Suddenly, basically everything that happened since industrialization is part of the equation.
Re:The First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Was Just Approved...
by stjohnswarts on Saturday August 06, 2022 @10:05PM
(#32373245)
The world is warming rapidly, we don't have time to piddle around waiting on a 100x improvement in storage tech to make grid scale 100% reliable solar/wind/tidal. There is with nuclear, and we know we can do it. I know to which basket my eggs are going.
Re:The First Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Was Just Approved...
by bryanlarsen on Sunday August 07, 2022 @08:51AM
(#32376092)
Making the grid reliable world-wide requires approximately 50 TWh in batteries, approximately the same amount as to electrify every car.
If it takes 20 years to build a nuclear plant, then we'll have the batteries before that nuclear plant is finished.