It was a bad call to stop, but now it’s an equally or worse call to start again.
Renewables win on essentially every measure and get better every day while nuclear gets worse every day.
Comment on Reactor goes brrr
ngn@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
how is it getting worse? there were tons of fail-safes
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
It’s getting more expensive year over year, while renewables are plummeting in price.
booly@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Nuclear gets more expensive. That’s worse.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 months ago
That’s a lie. Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces. They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass. Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
That’s a lie.
Not really, no.
Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.
You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.
Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Not really, no.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
Yes actually. Uranium mining isn’t nearly as bad as needing tons of lithium, cobalt, and who knows what that goes into solar panels. Thorium containing materials are literally a byproduct of other mining operations that gets thrown away.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
Nope. Wind generates 11 tons of CO2 where Nuclear only makes 6. Solar isn’t even close. Biomass is the worst of the renewables and is closer to fossil fuels in its pollution levels than the other clean sources of energy.
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Is it? Most people aren’t factoring the cost of energy storage. No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.
It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.
The reality is both renewables and nuclear needed huge state investments to get off the ground.
someacnt_@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This article makes me think I gotta buy some nuclear stocks, but I am hesitant because lemmy might be late on hype cycle. What do you think
Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Nuclear stocks rise and fall with state funding. It’s neither practical to privately ensure a fission recator, nor is it practical to build them privately.
There are better investments.
GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Feel free to put money into it if you believe in it. Given nuclear’s track record with regards to actually making money is not particularly strong though, so I wouldn’t advise doing this if you actually want to make a return on your investment.
kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Another important point is the flexibility of wind and solar. The minimum investment to get some power out of them is very low, and a park can start generating power before fully completed and can easily be scaled up or down in capacity during construction if estimates change.
Nuclear on the other hand is a huge up-front cost with little flexibility and no returns until completion, which could take a decade or more.
Even if it wasn’t more expensive, nuclear would still be financially risky. Many things can happen that effect power consumption and prices during the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. It can still be valuable for diversification though.
bitwaba@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Meron35@lemmy.world 3 months ago
gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
tbf, we have airplanes, but most goods are still being transported over lands or seas.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Totally totally no downsides.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 3 months ago
What downsides are you concerned about
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Proliferation. Nuclear waste. Long term storage of said waste. Dependence on raw materials that are only available in a few places. Lack of economic viability. Lack of clear timelines for development of new technologies. Monopolistic practices of proprietors. To name just the most important ones. Oh, and the old blowy uppy thing, of course.
azulavoir@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Existing crude power is worse at most of these
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Solved issue, caskets can be stored above ground and take up very little space, buried if it starts to take up too much surface space
Thorium rather than uranium fuel solves this
Just not true
Also not true
Seriously not an issue these days, we don’t build them and run them like the Soviet Union did anymore