this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2025
457 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

75597 readers
2977 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)
[–] FreedomAdvocate -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’ve heard this as well, but in doing this they would either make a significantly smaller and cheaper one that isn’t outputting 5x the power required, or they’d do a deal with the local councils/government to provide lower for them as well.

This “study” is comparing the cost of 80 units of power generation for “renewables” to over 400 units for nuclear. Is just yet another dishonest agenda driven “study” for the anti-nuclear groups.

[–] Cassanderer@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 days ago

Nuclear is the most expensive with long term waste, and is an existential threat.

As if we could trust industry and the government right now, ha.

We already have 4 reactors on active fault lines, others in storm surge areas of ocean, increasingly severe storms. A meltdown is when not if, as is improper disposal of waste and the ones making it sticking society with it's cost.