277
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago

I recall seeing a show on Bill Gates a few years back and his drive to get modem nuclear going. It seems many of the current plants around the world are based on old designs from the 50s and 60s.

Newer and modern designs are much safer but it was going to take a tremendous amount of effort to get past the nuclear is bad mindset.

There's no way to easily educate the masses on a complicated scientific subject and elected officials aren't going to stay around for long pushing that kind of tech, they might as well push solar, wind, and tidal power as they would have better chances at staying in office.

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are there even enough people who knows how to run these?

I know a big issue in Europe is that you don't actually have enough people educated on nuclear power to actually build and manage such a plant

[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Great question, initially I doubt it. There are the same issues are being seen in the US as they try to move microchip processing back stateside versus Asia. There's a shortage of skilled labour being reported as a stumbling block to making this move happen quickly. Some might argue "cheap" skilled labour but a shortage there still is at present. I don't think the US government is going to stop this move for security reasons.

It's amazing in some ways the Chinese were even able to surpass the US in producing these products as they were pretty far behind the western world production technologies in the late 70s when US manufacturers went in to help setup modern at the time factories. Despite the US being the leader at the time, in some ways they abandoned these skills for economic reasons.

The processing chain of microchips will take years to move over, much like a reinvestment into nuclear.

Places like Alberta are already seeing US oil companies withdrawing from long term projects due to federal government regulations that won't take effect until the middle of the next decade. Think of the shift of those dedicated to these industries and the shortage of those in renewables. Not to worry the latest Alberta government has put the brakes on their current renewables and are tripling down on traditional oil fields even with 1000s of abandoned oil rigs throughout the province the government needs to clean up. They are even threatening to leave Canada yet again. Existing skilled jobs will be saved no matter the cost!

If there ever is an appetite for Nuclear, I'm hoping we are better equipped in the future to assist with training and providing the schooling to those that are needed than we are in the present and in the past. If it is deemed needed for security reasons I'm sure they will figure out the skills issue.

[-] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

People obviously learn by doing real things, so competitive skilled labor won't be more available than it is now. EDIT: ... if they wait for it to be

They just have to get projects through one by one, then with time there'll be more competent people.

But yes, some effort in schooling won't hurt.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You didn't mention the most important thing here though, economics.

[-] WashedOver@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I'm only left wondering how far of a window should we consider this economic window? A quarter, a year, a decade, a lifetime? How does one factor in all the costs of using a particular style of energy?

Often I see people say look at the cost of making a car battery while ignoring the elimination of many parts of ICE vehicles like the tranny, cooling systems, over the various chemicals like oils and fluids that require constant change for ICE servicing. But hey other types of energy are required to make make car batteries including ICE vehicles in the mines . I say fair, tell me what are the WHOLE costs of using other energy sources, on society, on the environment, and the length of time frame.

Most of our forefathers thought faster horses were the only way to go despite the piles of horse shit and dead horse carcasses they were waiting to dry out so they could be removed, filled many city streets. Some city houses had entrances high up to separate the entrance from these things that filed their streets much like a generations earlier had building designs that sheltered the inhabitants of the city below from those emptying their chamber pots into the streets each morning.

Now I love my ICE vehicles and don't see myself owning a electric vehicle anytime soon so I do understand the want of keeping my horses around, and my overhangs on buildings to protect me from piss and shit being thrown into the street below, but I also can acknowledge in the long term the world I have figured out for myself is not something that is going to last as the world continues to evolve/devolve around us.

Despite these foreign things to us today, they cried think of the economics and the job losses as Ford was providing new technology and freedom to the masses. Think of the economics of whole horse related industries that were mothballed and in many ways replaced as road infrastructure was required for these new fangled ICE vehicles.

How does one measure the economics of this change? By the quarter its terrible, especially to the individual that needs to shell out for a car, and all the new things it requires over the established upkeep of horses. Think of people unemployed by the lack of horses. Hey we really don't need to leave our farms that often do we?

By the year it's not looking great initially either unless you are Ford or a oil outfit. Then by the decades things look a lot different on the whole. Perhaps these cars were a good thing for everyone overall?

At this stage the environment is paying a cost we don't even understand yet. Even if we do, who cares as it is plentiful in the new world and it seemed like it would never end much like the wood supplies to build the great wooden ships that previous empires use to run the world with. So who cares if yet another Valley or field is ruined? There's plenty more where that came from! And for many years that was the case.

What are the economic costs to deal with clearcut valleys, tailing ponds, manufacturing waste, abandoned mines, and various other wastes? Often the problem of governments and the taxpayers to deal with long after the initial profits have been taken in those quarters, years and decades. After a lifetime overall is not wonderful but fuck them, I got mine!

So which the economic scale are we thinking?

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

So which the economic scale are we thinking?

I guess the one where investors pull their money out of new nuclear?

I'm having difficultly following your analogy. I'm not sure the horses to ICE comparison is illuminating in relation to SMRs.

this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
277 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59736 readers
756 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS