• usrtrv@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think that’s too simplistic of a view. Part of the high cost of nuclear is because of the somewhat niche use. As with everything, economies of scale makes things cheaper. Supporting one nuclear plant with specialized labor, parts, fuel, etc is much more expensive then supporting 100 plants, per Watt.

    I can’t say more plants would drastically reduce costs. But it would definitely help.

      • hswolf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        Of course It is, the incompetent and ignorant people that try to hinder it’s use is the problem

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          The nuclear industry is 100% responsible for the operational record of the nuclear industry.

          • SaltySalamander@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Reading comprehension isn’t really your strong suit, eh? “The incompetent and ignorant people that try to hinder it’s use is the problem”

            • Turun@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              If you are hired to do a task and then overrun the budget by 14B$ I wouldn’t exactly call it furthering the cause. More like incompetence and/or trying to detail the project.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Cool, so you’re either going to have to completely get rid of all the nimbys and people that don’t understand nuclear, then build a massive population of qualified workers to build them and staff them and then fund them in the hundreds of billions for at least 2 decades to build up the knowledge base required to be able to build them quickly and efficiently.

          Or accept the reality that nuclear is dead in the water.

    • Knusper@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      The source article actually talks about this and measured data suggests nuclear cost actually went up, despite more capacity being built.

      This is the first time, I’ve read this anywhere. More sources/studies would be really important. And there is lots of interpretations to be had on the why, but assuming the article isn’t completely off the mark, that’s cold, hard data suggesting that your (perfectly reasonable) assumption is actually wrong, after all.

      • usrtrv@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Interesting, I’ll have to look at the source article.

        But as far as I’m aware the total amount of nuclear power has been decreasing in recent years. This might change with China’s future plants.

        I’ve also read about small modular reactor designs gaining traction, which would help alleviate the heavy costs of one off plants we currently design and build.

        Not saying the source is wrong, just saying that’s what I used to form my opinion.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        bullshit regulatory costs can increase infinitely without nay change to the underlying engineering or economics. that’s 100% the cause of the price increses

        • Knusper@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Possible. But well, whether these regulations actually are bullshit or not, kind of doesn’t matter. A dumb solar panel won’t ever need to be regulated as much. If that’s what makes it cheaper, it still is cheaper.