America is about to fall behind China on one of the most important issues of our time
-
I said developing.
-
You saw in Ukraine what can happen if you rely on large plants.
So, I don't disagree that, especially for some environments, bombing resistance is a legit concern.
However, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that if we find ourselves in a situation where China is bombing US power generation infrastructure, that probably means that World War III -- not some kind of limited-scale fight, but a real all-in conflict -- is on, and I think that the factors that determine what happens there probably aren't mostly going to be "who has more power plants".
World War II was a multi-year affair, but a lot of that was constrained by distance and the ability to project power. From the US's standpoint, the Axis had extremely-limited ability to affect the US. The US started with a very small army and no weapons that could, in short order, reach across the world.
Today's environment is different.
I've not read up on what material's out there, but I'd guess that a World War III, one of two things probably happens:
-
The war goes nuclear, in which case nuclear capabilities in large part determine the outcome.
-
The war remains conventional. One or both sides have the ability to pretty rapidly destroy the other side's air and/or missile defenses and subsequently destroy critical infrastructure to the degree that the other side cannot sustain the fight. My bet is on the US being in a stronger position here, but regardless, I don't think that what happens is each side keeps churning out hardware for multiple years and slugging the other with that hardware, being able to make use of their power generation capacity.
-
-
OK agreed.
-
Fukushima did have some workers undergo significantly higher than usual radioactive doses - I invite you to contrast this with the mortality rate of, say, working on an oil rig.
Not injecting my own opinion in this thread of conversation, but if you're expanding the scope to include oil rig worker adverse health effects, which introduces the fuel supply chain, then you need to also include the fuel supply chain health impacts and deaths with nuclear fuel extraction, such as the tens of thousands of uranium miners that have died digging out uranium.
-
Paid for by Wumaoski Media Group
-
there is no coal plant incident even remotely theoretically possible that can render massive regions inhospitable for centuries
If you ignore the incident we’ve all been watching slowly unfold for centuries with our thumbs up our asses, and oil spills to a lesser extent, sure
-
Ohh, I get it. The thing with Ukrainian power generation being a military strategic thing though is not that homes can be kept warm - that is great - but that military production is powered. I don't think you can power a munitions factory from scores of smaller reactors, since that would need insane infrastructure that is just not there, and would still be an easy target.
Also, in Ukraine, it would mean a legitimate military target in every backyard. The Russians would be back to carpet bombings already. I'm not saying it would not help, but I think it's a dubious advantage in wartime - which by the way, the US won't be - and even more problematic at peacetime as again, most consumption is industrial.
The thing I don't see is how do you route power from Bob's small reactor to Bezos' AI farm so that Wall Street can keep pretending the American economy exists?
-
But at what cost
-
Nuclear apologists love defending this expensive, hazardous industry. In Texas, mining the uranium for these plants is ruining the water table just like fracking does.
Meanwhile solar, wind, and geothermal are cheaper and cleaner.
-
In St. Louis, nuclear waste in a landfill has caused cancer in north county black and brown neighborhoods for decades.
It is generally those who have not witnessed the ramifications of nuclear waste and/or disaster that are its proponents. Something that takes tens of thousands of years to decay, considering climate change, climate change catastrophe, movements in human population, and geologic change, we are full of hubris to consider it a green power option. But all the know-it-all tech bro optimistica will vote me down. Idgaf.
-
There is nothing wrong with trying to make this work, but a more accurate statement is that the US is failing to develop SMRs.
-
Brother, after reading this thread, you're the one that's intentionally missing the point and failing to engage in good faith.
-
Your opinion is noted? What do you want here?
-
God please if there's one pissing match the Orange Terror gets into it better be nuclear energy.
-
by building nuclear energy plants
-
So that's a fusion reactor, not fission reactor like SMR. It's both way,way better and way further away from SMR.
I applaud all of them making headway, but none of them are anywhere near as useful as actual solar and actual batteries that are being deployed in mass now.
-
They are very sorry and will try to get there soon. Just gang in there please.
-
Who knew it was that simple
-
if you want the United States to be more like this, you can always elect someone who- yeah you know what fuck it
