Technology

59446 readers

3602 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

394

Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report (newatlas.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

[T]he report's executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.

"The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs," says the report. "But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (18 children)

Does anyone know about the technology that nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers use? Why are they able to operate but we can't use the same technology on land?

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because if the military wants something, budgets are big. And they do not need to make money.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Military expenses, the only socialism acceptable to Americans.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Gotta love how the post office is legally required to show they can turn a profit, but the military has a history of building literal burn pits that essentially burn US tax dollars by lighting equipment on fire and giving soldiers cancer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I don't think the military should show a profit. That would just bring back colonialism. Although, they do make a hefty profit for defense contractors.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

The fact that this was your take away is concerning.

No government service should have to show a profit. If it’s an essential service, then it needs to be done. The only time money should come into it is in regular audits to ensure the budget is being used efficiently.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Yup, the military's purpose is to not be needed. It should be strong enough to deter attack and assist diplomacy (carrot and stick), and no larger. Our (US) military is bigger than that, so it gets used in place of diplomacy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/most-ridiculous-things-united-states-military-spent-money-on

Boner pills, anti-rape lip balm (which they destroyed) and other such brilliant things.

And the margins for DoD contracts can be through the roof.

During her face-off with manufacturing company TransDigm at the hearing, AOC questioned the company’s alleged price gouging on a small metal part, called a “non-vehicular clutch disc,” that the government purchases for the Department of Defense.

According to the congresswoman from the Bronx, the part is about 3 inches in size and costs TransDigm $32 to produce — which is why she’s pissed the company is charging $1,443 per disc. The company reportedly sold the government 149 discs for $215,000.

load more comments (16 replies)