As far as the waste goes, China is building molten salt reactors that can use the waste to run. That waste has much shorter half lives, like days, and can be stored almost anywhere.
Comment on Anon has a power fantasy
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months agoThe by now miniscule risk of meltdown is not the only downside to nuclear power compared to renewables.
There’s the fact that a nuclear power plant takes a decade or more to build and make operational and we need to replace fossil fuel energy production NOW. In comparison, gigantic solar arrays and wind turbine parks can be ready in a matter of months.
Then there’s the nuclear waste. There’s been discovered one truly forever safeplace to store it in the world, deep down into a mountain in Finland (afair, could be Norway). Even if we (unreasonably) assume that it can all fit there, transporting all the radioactive waste of a world reliant on nuclear energy to Finland would be an environmentally ruinous nightmare.
Lastly, nuclear reactors need cool water to function efficiently and safely. Global warming, the very thing proponents say they’re the best solution for, is making nuclear plants less effective and less safe.
In conclusion, renewables are by far the best solution, not nuclear energy.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
And I’m building a perpetual motion machine that can run forever on a single scoop of dirty cat litter 🙄
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I agree that China says they’re doing things that they have no ability to do, but in this case I’m pretty sure they’re telling the truth. They’re using the designs that the US created 40 years ago. Only reason they were never tested here is the cost and regulations. China can bypass both of those issues.
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Renewables are a solution only in short term. The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output. Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables. Long term nuclear is the way to go. Ideally we should be creating solar and wind parks and focus on making thorium reactors viable so we could switch from renewables to thorium.
Nuclear is the future, just not the kind of nuclear we’re using right now.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Renewables are a solution only in short term
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
The biggest issue with renewables is the relatively low power output
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
Our power demands will only grow in the future and eventually we’re going to hit a wall with renewables
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world’s energy needs in perpetuity.
Long term nuclear is the way to go.
Nope. Which parts of “already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power” did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren’t so fragile.
Nuclear is the future
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it’ll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 5 months ago
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
Let’s say a perpetual motion machine exists and you can create infinite energy from it, but it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy (let’s say 400wh) Would it solve the energy question? The answer is not really. Theoretical you have infinite energy, but in practice you’re still making a finite amount of energy at any given time. If our energy consumption exceeds what the infinite energy source creates then it doesn’t solve the energy question. You can make “infinite” amount of energy from renewables, that’s what renewable means. However if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption then we still need a different source.
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy
That’s not true of renewable energy, so your analogy has already fallen apart. It’s an untrue stereotype concocted by people trying to hold on to their fossil fuel profits.
if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption
It isn’t.
then we still need a different source.
And thus we don’t.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Well for one thing, most sources of renewable energy can be built places where a huge nuclear power plant can’t, such as in the ocean, lakes, on hills or even mountains. In deserts. On a slight incline. Somewhere without a cold stream.
If anything, renewable energy is much MORE space efficient since it doesn’t need a huge flat area and the aforementioned rarer and rarer stream.
GoodEye8@lemm.ee 5 months ago
That’s literally the opposite of true. What do you think the word “renewable” means? 🤦
Let’s say a perpetual motion machine exists and you can create infinite energy from it, but it takes a lot of space and makes very little energy (let’s say 400wh) Would it solve the energy question? The answer is not really. Theoretical you have infinite energy, but in practice you’re still making a finite amount of energy at any given time. If our energy consumption exceeds what the infinite energy source creates then it doesn’t solve the energy question. You can make “infinite” amount of energy from renewables, that’s what renewable means. However if the energy throughput generated by renewables is less than our consumption then we still need a different source.
Which is not a problem when done on a larger scale by now.
And what will we do when all the space is used to and we still need more energy?
Only if we keep doing half measures like now rather than go all in. Wind, solar, thermal and wave energy combined can more than cover the world’s energy needs in perpetuity.
We will run out of space. One nuclear reactor will generate more energy than multiple parks combined.
Nope. Which parts of “already made less effective and safe by climate change that will have become fat worse by the time we build just one nuclear plant, let alone replace all fossil fuel power” did you not understand?
By that time, nuclear power will be rendered all but useless by the necessary conditions no longer existing. Renewables aren’t so fragile.
Less effective is roughly 1% less effective per 1 degree of ambient temperature rise. We will dead before it’s going to have a significant impact.
It really is not. By the time the thorium reactors that have been 10 years away for 30 years arrive, it’ll be too late. The very problem they were supposed to fix will have rendered them inoperable.
You’re thinking only in terms of the current century, I’m thinking beyond the current century. We most likely need renewables to quickly get away from fossil fuels, but eventually we will also move away from renewables because unless we build a Dyson sphere renewables are not enough to meet our future energy demands.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 5 months ago
Yeah I think people don’t appreciate how much the cost of renewables has gone down. If we were making a big push on fixing climate change two decodes ago, then nuclear would’ve been a good route to go. But that didn’t happen, and looking at the cost of renewables now and the timelines needed for nuclear, it simply doesn’t make sense anymore.
Though what Germany did with shutting down their nuclear plants was stupid. Keep existing nuclear going until all carbon emitting power generation is replaced, then consider replacing existing nuclear with renewables.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
That’s largely due to waste, not the actual process of safe construction. If there’s public will, nuclear projects could be fast-tracked without compromising safety, though the costs would probably go up:
The above focuses on costs, but there’s also some discussion about time as well (e.g. waiting for tools and materials).
At least in the US, we have plenty of space for that. Most of Nevada is barren, and isn’t likely to be used by people for anything important. There’s also research into recycling spent nuclear fuel into new fuel:
I don’t know much about water use though, so that could absolutely be an issue in many parts of the world. I am interested in looking into efficient ways to desalinize water, which is important for a whole host of reasons.
The best solution is a mixture of both. We need an inexpensive baseline energy production. Solar, wind, etc are bursty by nature, so we’d need a large amount of energy storage in order to go full renewable. Until I see a practical, inexpensive way to store energy, I’m going to push for nuclear since it’s a clean, stable energy supply.