this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
384 points (87.1% liked)

Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

2266 readers
115 users here now

#funny

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 63 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Being anti-nuclear is one of the most bizarre positions the western left has internalized.

[–] fanbois@hexbear.net 17 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Nuclear power is literally more expensive at this point than renewables. No, you can't keep using the shitty, cracking, deadly waste producing nuclear plants of the past, not even the power companies want that, and building new ones takes over 10 years, not counting all the planning and beaurocracy you have to go through. And to become CO2 neutral after all the excavation, construction and mining necessary takes another decade. Nuclear power plants are MASSIVE engineering undertakings.

Meanwhile modern windmills can be mass-produced right now and take like 5 years depending on their placement to be both cost and CO2 neutral. After that it's LITERALLY free energy for a good 30 years. And they become cheaper and bigger and more efficient every single year. And btw if you ever pull out an article or a calculation that is older than a year for any comparison, you are dealing with OLD data. They have become far more efficient and flexible in their placement and will likely continue to do so.

The anti-nuclear protests were completely right. Stop playing the people who wanted a safer world without nuclear waste and incidents against the modern climate movement.

TL;DR: Wheels on windmill go brrrr, nuclear power is not a short term solution and never has been.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 37 points 4 months ago (52 children)

Nuclear and renewables are complementary technologies, renewables are a much more volatile source of energy. Also, when people say renewables are cheaper they're not counting the total lifecycle of things like wndmills and solar panels.

[–] HexBroke@hexbear.net 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

when people say renewables are cheaper they're not counting the total lifecycle of things like... solar panels.

Yeah the LCOE of solar is likely ridiculously low because they still work decades after th started 25 year life used in levelised cost calculations

Nuclear in the west is so tremendously expensive we may as give up until China makes SMRs cheap

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean China is already making all the solar panels at this point, so we might as well wait for them to role out nuclear globally.

[–] CloutAtlas@hexbear.net 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Good news, the Chinese artificial sun has reached 403 seconds of stability. Up from 100 seconds 7 years ago. Once it reaches 1000 seconds at 50,000,000 Kelvin, it would mean it produces more energy than igniting the "sun" would cost.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

I do think it's very likely that we'll see fusion working within our lifetimes. If China manages to get a fusion plant online then that really will solve all the energy problems for the foreseeable future.

load more comments (51 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Jesus Christ you're so uneducated it's ridiculous.

So you've got a point nuclear power is considerably more expensive than renewables but that was never the argument. It has always been more expensive than renewables, who possibly thought it wasn't, that's literally never not been the case, even 30 years ago.

The reason to use nuclear power is a base load. Renewables cannot generate the necessary level of energy demand in their entirety with the reliability that we need. It's called base load Google it.

So you need something to provide constant reliable sources of energy, so you've got two options either we build a Dyson sphere and have solar panels all over it, or we have nuclear power stations. And I think you'll agree that a dysons sphere might be a bit beyond us at this point.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago (15 children)

If one thing is more expensive by some criteria guaranteeing something necessary and another thing cheaper by the same criteria not guaranteeing that, then the latter just doesn't exist.

So nuclear energy is cheaper than alternatives for the same purpose.

Just like an active volcano may suddenly let out a lot of magma which is going to be quite warm, but one can't just project as if that amount of heat is distributed over the average period between eruptions, while considering it for heating houses.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] LoveSausage@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Pump water to height when it's windy , let it down when it's not. Load balanced. Not so hard eh?

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 4 months ago

Sure that would work in theory but you would struggle to get any kind of capacity with that system, and of course reservoirs are actually quite damaging to the environment, since you have to flood large areas of land.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Gabu@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

After that it’s LITERALLY free energy for a good 30 years.

If you ignore the other environmental costs, you mean. Just like solar, which causes untold damages from the disposal of mining refuse, but that gets conveniently ignored by first world nations, because most of the mining doesn't happen where you live.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, you can’t keep using the shitty, cracking,

They can be safely renovated, just informing you.

deadly waste producing nuclear plants of the past,

Don't think people are stupid. That deadly waste naturally becomes less deadly over time. There are procedures for nuclear waste processing and burial sites and when those can be reused. The cycle takes many years, but that'd be the same with keeping forests, for example.

[–] smegforbrains@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think that's true. We will have to store our nuclear waste safely for geological timescales: possibly millions of years. Currently only two working reprocessing plants exist in France and Russia and they can be employed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In France currently only 10% is recycled.

Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/?sh=58d3d09f29cf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Ah, I've just mixed up things a bit. I was thinking of fast-neutron reactors. Waste from these is less cumbersome, and the existing waste can be partially reused with them.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 months ago

I have that little suspicion that it was intentionally (efficiency) planted by USSR when it had connections to western leftists (all those "progressive youth summits" and so on), via emotional association with possible devastation of nuclear war etc.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Eh. Fission is in fact a terrible power source. Eternally deadly leftovers, critical failures have the potential to devastate whole regions of the planet for decades or more.

Mining and refining the fuel is similarly harmful to the environment as processing coal. It is also not much cheaper than to go for the actually best solution called renewables. Wind and solar are both reasonably cheap at this point, and for example China was recently in my news feed for building an insane amount of solar in the last year (something like more than the U.S. in the last 10 years combined).

Obviously this is the correct choice for the future, likely paired with fusion power, which when it eventually works, comes with all the advantages of nuclear fission and none of its drawbacks or dangers.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Eternally deadly leftovers,

Somebody doesn't know the bare basics of physics involved.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Im sure we can argue semantics here about reprocessing the stuff, eternal not actually being eternal and so forth, doesn’t really change much.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It does change everything, when people fear nuclear waste, they talk about literally eternal. Otherwise we could say that reforestation is not possible, because it takes 70 years (if you are not just growing wood for fuel, furniture and mulch, but restoring a system).

If it's not literally eternal, then it's a working cycle which can be used and be more efficient.

EDIT: I've realized that the thing I'm remembering was written about fast-neutron reactors, which most are not, so you are right usually. It's actually funny that Russia makes more ecologically clean reactors than USA. Stupid, but funny.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 months ago

China is indeed a great example of what actual transition from fossil fuels looks like. China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country right now because they realize that renewables like solar and wind are insufficient on their own.

load more comments (1 replies)