●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byKonoWatakushi ( 910213 ) writes:
Stanford’s Questionable Study on Spent Nuclear Fuel for SMRs [neutronbytes.com]
PNAS SMR waste study rebuttal [energyfromthorium.com]
Ted Nordhaus's rebuttal [twitter.com]
The second rebuttal includes a link to a NAS Used Nuclear Fuel Meeting video, which features committee members Allison Macfarlane, Rodney Ewing, and Ed Lyman among others questioning presenters, proving that they have intentionally misrepresented and excluded SMRs in their paper. It is striking how ignorant and biased these "experts" are, and their treatment of the presenters is appalling. (
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
Not going to watch a video, but if you have a peer-reviewed study that rebuts this peer-reviewed study, I'll peruse it.
Why people think videos are acceptable citations is beyond me. What a time waster.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byEntrope ( 68843 ) writes:
You could also read the things being linked, like the Twitter thread that includes very specific criticisms of supposed flaws in this study. For example, are the SMRs in this paper good examples of what is being planned? Or are they, as claimed, shelved and/or less efficient than what SMR designers support?
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
The numbers might be off, but the premise isn't wrong.
SMRs never made sense. They were always going to be more expensive due to per-unit inspection and decommissioning costs. The only benefit is getting to sell the same shit a whole bunch of times. Reactors were built at the scale at which they were built because it was the least bad option. Making them smaller doesn't make them make more sense, it only makes them potentially more profitable because power companies get paid a percentage every time they buil
byEntrope ( 68843 ) writes:
That's a lot of words to say that you have already made up your mind, and mere facts don't matter.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
That's a lot of words to say that you have already made up your mind, and mere facts don't matter.
I made up my mind based on facts. You made up your mind based on nuclear industry propaganda.
byEntrope ( 68843 ) writes:
You literally started that comment with "The numbers might be off, but the premise isn't wrong." You don't care what the numbers really are because you will not let them inform you.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
I said off, I didn't say so far off that the point wasn't still correct. Nobody has yet demonstrated that the new SMR designs aren't going to have the same problems because no one has built even a single demonstration model of the proposed new SMR designs. Yet we are expected to take on faith their promises that their design will work because similar-ish reactors have successfully been operated for short periods. But because we are not all mental defectives, we are not all interested in that bet when the nu
●urrent threshold.
bythegarbz ( 1787294 ) writes:
like the Twitter thread
Your comeback to the complaint about a video is that a Twitter thread is a reputable debunking of the peer review article? The OP named names, a pointless appeal to authority. The peer review process exists for a reason. It's not hard to get published in a peer reviewed journal, many kids at university are able to do it.
byEntrope ( 68843 ) writes:
No, my reference to the Twitter thread was a rebuttal to the blanket dismissal of someone else's argument because it contained, as part of one tweet in a long series that was just one of several citations, an indirect link to a video.
And peer review doesn't guarantee truth, or even good faith.
byangel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) writes:
Because people are idiots.
Normal people can read about 10x as fast as a video goes.
It seams some people can't. It is even worse when it is a software related topic.
They make a video where to click in the IDE, instead either simply making a screenshot and putting a red circle around it, or explaining it in one sentence.
Another issue might be: "they have heard you can make money on youtube" - and the money comes automatically if they post a movie/video there.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...