Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

They might, but they can't, because currently no amount of money can get you a permit to build a personal nuclear reactor...

 

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/index.html

 

We don’t even have nuclear subs - we’re hoping the AUKUS agreement will net us some though

 

Gross overkill to start.

Even the smaller reactors used by the navy output over 26 MW of electricity. That is enough power to supply over 2,500 homes.

A billionaire wanting a nuclear reactor to power their home is about as retarded as a billionaire wanting to build a large gas power plant to power their home.

 

But nobody wants them near them.

I suggest you look up the history of NIMBY. California in particular (especially LA) is rife with that.

 

Well that might be good since there were some real worrisome ones built back in the day e.g. the Bataan Power plant in the Philippines which was built on the side of a volcanoe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

 

Actually we are looking to generation of “green” hydrogen and Ammonia. Plus we will be forefront of grid batteries.

https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/hydrogen

https://fortescue.com/what-we-do/green-energy-research/green-ammonia

https://www.australianvanadium.com.au/vanadium-batteries/

 

so the one they use on subs could power 2500 homes? is that overkill?

 

correct, the rich want them nowhere near them, the next town over... maybe

 

I would have one next door.

 

Are you under the impression that a reactor designed 50 years ago poses the same risk as a gen 3 reactor?

 

That's not an excuse for ignoring the public when siting garbage dumps or nuclear facilities.

 

Nope! Just never underestimate the power of human stupidity nd you were talking private ownership

 

The OP issue was cost.

One can look at the new reactors being built in UK to find out what the resulting electricity will cost the public.

And, you can't blame it on siting, as at least one of them is being sited on the property of an already existing nuclear reactor used for power generation.

 

Sure. Paid for by selling record amounts of coal from newly developed mines to Asia and Europe ….and continuing to be the only developed nation in the top five nations for deforestation globally.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

 

They can only make reactors so small. Are you not even aware of this?

But it is not as much overkill as you might think. As the reactor also powers the life support system and all the electronics on the boat. In addition to propelling the over 6,000 ton vessel at speeds in excess of 30 knots.

 

And you fail to actually validate anything you claim.

As always, you simply make claims and absolutely never back them up.

 

I used to live a short distance from two different plants. Both the San Onofre and Vogue nuclear power plants. And neither one ever bothered me.

 

Of course she does. She already tried to make claims based on things she learned from a cartoon for goodness sakes.

 

I think 2500 homes is a bit more than a sub could power

 

how may have been built near rich neighborhoods?

 

No, that is about right.

Homes really do not use all that much power. Only around 30 kWh per day. We have an extensive power infrastructure because of the number of homes, not that homes themselves use a lot of power.

 

How many have been built near any neighborhoods?

What, you think they build them right next to homes?

Tell me, how many power plants at all have been built inside neighborhoods?

*sits back and laughs as you spin in circles yet again*

 

Already have told you - every nuclear plant construction and decommissioning costs are subsidized by the government.

 

And America has clean hands? The bottom line is that we are acting to clean up whereas America is currently pumping more oil than any other country in the world. Takes time to build infrastructure but we will get there