This is not even wrong, it is stupid and misleading. On a sunny and windy day the cost of solar and wind power is below zero, except for all the stranded capital cost of the machinery sitting idle, so comparisons based on it are meaningless. However on a windless night there is no renewable power of any sort. Even hydro power fails during a drought. That is why baseload power is essential.
So none of the pseudo scientific so called âoemathsâ in these fake comparisons is true. Wake up Slashdot, this is not up to your standards!
Nuclear is base load power. You cant compare it to intermittent power, they are apples and oranges. The only other sort of baseload power that is always available is carbon power. Carbon power is not actually cheap unless you ignore the cost of CO2 pollution. So all the comparisons in this article are actually false. The reason we are having this discussion on Slashdot is because the readers are meant to educated and intelligent. How dare you shovel this crap at your faithful readers!
The TFA brushes over âoesocialâ questions, which actually means false propaganda about nuclear, which is all that this âoereportâ is about. There is a whole industry of fake news about nuclear. That is why Russia has been funding the âoeGreenâ movement while selling carbon to the suckers, but actually using nuclear themselves.
Nuclear waste is feedstock for recycling into more nuclear fuel, so calling it waste is misleading, it is worth billions of dollars. Burying it in the ground is only necessary when you have been refusing to recycle it for decades and preventing proper funding for it using political scare stories in main stream media. More fuel waste = more recycled fuel.
That stranded asset will reduce the cost of switching on more nuclear power stations. It is great that we have so much of it on hand to help the energy transition.
Finally the point of SMRs is that construction of larger more efficient nuclear power plants is being prevented in developed countries because of propaganda by nut groups masquerading as environmentalists. There is no such problem in China so clearly it is a political issue that has nothing to do with actual engineering problems.
The technology has been proved for decades, there is no problem with zero carbon nuclear base load power and the fools who are repeating lies about it should be ignored before they drive us to extinction. The whole point of SMRs is that the power grid needs to expand about 500% over the next few decades to cope with widely dispersed solar and wind power generation. It will cost trillions of dollars. In the mean time MSRs will provide base load at the edges of the network. Thorium SMRs will be temporary installations that will be delivered on the back of a truck and recycled every 10 to 15 years. There will be zero nuclear waste once a proper fuel cycle is established, as it should have been decades ago.