[newacct583]

> treat it as literally unlocking the next level of human development

That was literally the way it was thought about a three quarters of a century ago. It... didn't work out.

It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources, and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.

[throwaway894345]

> It... didn't work out

It did work out. The only reason we don’t have more of it is because of anti-nuclear FUD campaigns.

> It's just not there. It's fine. It's safe enough. But it's outrageously expensive relative to other equally advantageous sources,

It’s disingenuous to compare unreliable energy sources with reliable energy sources and claim the two are equally advantageous. We can make renewable energy reliable at significant cost, so we must compare that cost with nuclear. Moreover, the price projections for SMRs handily beat out fossil fuels and reliability-adjusted figures for renewables.

> and all the magic technologies needed to "fix" that are always a decade away.

This is rich considering (1) we know what the “fix” is and it’s not magic (mass produce nuclear reactors i.e., SMRs) and (2) the plan for reliable, economic renewable energy is “pray for an unknown miracle breakthrough in storage” as though that will be discovered and scaled in less than a decade…

[JoeAltmaier]

No longer true. New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive. If we can stop thinking in terms of a quarter century ago, we can finally get to that future we used to imagine.

[newacct583]

> New reactors coming that are way, way less expensive.

They've been "coming" since the 1960's. Start yelling about building stuff when they've arrived.

[throwaway894345]

I’ll refer you to my sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29057596):

> Gotta love anti-nuclear folks. They work to hinder nuclear development and then point to the lack of nuclear progress as “evidence” that nuclear is a pipe dream.

[JoeAltmaier]

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210912-why-china-...

https://thoriumbaby.com/china-sees-thorium-breakthrough-in-g...

https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/updates/

[cplusplusfellow]

> prevent building things by any measure possible

> yawn when we say we can build new things and to wake you up when we have them

These actions aren’t compatible with progress.

[quonn]

I read exactly the same on HN 10 years ago.

[throwaway894345]

Gotta love anti-nuclear folks. They work to hinder nuclear development and then point to the lack of nuclear progress as “evidence” that nuclear is a pipe dream.

[newacct583]

Stop with the conspiracy theories. There are no "anti-nuclear folks" in this thread. It's a bunch of people looking at a balance sheet and trying to decide on how to prioritize energy spending. And nuclear doesn't fit. Maybe it will. But it doesn't. It's not there. If you have $100M to spend on non-carbon electricity right now you build a wind farm, not a reactor.

That's the problem you have to fix. Make something people want, basically.

[sudosysgen]

Yes, and the countries that actually make these reactors in quantity such as South Korea, China, have made many at reasonable prices.

[vimy]

It’s only expensive because of excessive safety guidelines which are the result of fearmongering.