Comment on New clean energy comes out. *look inside* It’s just boiling water again…

• cynar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Coal plants put out more radioactive material than even the bomb factories they call nuclear power plants. Newer plant designs are FAR more fail safe too, and some can actually ‘eat’ the waste from older plants.

  New nuclear is right up there with renewables, with the added bonus of being great for baseloads. The only problem is we needed to be building it 20 years ago, since it takes a long time to design, permit and build them properly. If we try to rely on them now, it will be too late.

  source

  • 0x0@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    since it takes a long time to design, permit and build them properly.

    That’s been rigged by design due to… interests… it doesn’t take that long to build one.

    source

    • cynar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Fully agreed, though it’s also something you really don’t want done on too much of an accelerated timeline. Rushing the construction, when the fail-safes rely on it, and it will be an absolute bitch to fix later, is a poor plan.

      Unfortunately the red tape has become far too risk adverse. E.g. the reactors china is now building were designed in the UK. The UK government killed 5 attempts to get them built through red tape and time killing. Eventually a Chinese scientist found out about the plans. (With permission) he contacted the Chinese government. Sufficient to say, those plans formed the basis for the newer Chinese reactors they are building out now. They are also exporting the expertise, since most western countries have had their skilled engineers reach retirement, before passing on their skills and knowledge.

      In practice, you are looking at 5-10 years minimum, from site selection to power on.

      source

      • 0x0@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        True

        In practice, you are looking at 5-10 years minimum, from site selection to power on.

        Still beats 20.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • woelkchen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Class A whataboutism. Both are dirty, neither is clean.

    source

    • cynar@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      It’s relative harm. New nuclear is far cleaner than coal, and can slot into it’s place in the grid. We should have done this decades ago, but the plans languished till china found out about them. (Much to the designers joy)

      It’s also not an either/or situation. As china is demonstrating, there is a limit to how quickly you can roll out renewables. Doing other, pollution reduction in parallel makes sense.

      Taking nuclear off the table was the biggest win the oil barrons pulled off.

      On a plus side, we will finally find out if fusion is viable in the next 5-10 years. The first over-unity test reactors, designed for sustained operation are being built.

      source

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Renewables are cheaper than building new reactors. Fusion is always viable in 10 years.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • vithigar@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Perfect is the enemy of good.

      source

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Nuclear isn’t good.

        Fully clean technologies exist already.

        source

        • -> View More Comments