Anon is dumb. Anon forgets the nuclear waste. Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive. So much that energy won by these rocks is more expensive than wind energy and any other renewable.
Anon questions our energy sector
Submitted 19 hours ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/01977d6f-8d12-4b56-b139-98d3d98d23bc.jpeg
Comments
Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 hour ago
Teppichbrand@feddit.org 4 hours ago
1000005010. Don’t feed the troll 💩
iii@mander.xyz 4 hours ago
As long as you don’t care when the electricity is produced
uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 3 hours ago
Storage is a solvable problem. Whereas we don’t have the resources to power the world with nuclear plants.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 5 hours ago
No it’s about nuclear waste and where to store it, it’s about how expensive it is to build a nuclear power plant (bc of regulations so they don’t goo boom) and it’s about how much you have to subsidize it to make the electricity it produces affordable at all. Economically it’s just not worth it. Renewables are just WAY cheaper.
el_abuelo@programming.dev 5 hours ago
Funny how people think waste is why we don’t use nuclear power.
You noticed how we’re all fine breathing in poison and carcinogens? Still haven’t banned burning fossil fuels.
It’s a money problem and a PR problem
Hoimo@ani.social 49 minutes ago
And much of the PR problem is related to waste. The main push towards alternative energy sources comes from people worried about the long term consequences of burning fossil fuels. These same people worry about the long term consequences of nuclear waste production, so nuclear sabotages itself on this front.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 hours ago
No it’s about nuclear waste and where to store it,
Is this video inaccurate? This isn’t meant as a gotcha comment. youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k
bouh@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Renewable are so cheap, especially when we don’t need as much energy! Fortunately we won’t need as much energy in winter now. :-)
beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 5 hours ago
Fire’s waste is just all particulates in the air which we all share.
Takumidesh@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Funny how nuclear power plants are taboo, but building thousands of nuclear warheads all over the globe is no issue.
fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
Funny how building nuclear power plants that can only (if you have dipshits running them) kill a nearby city is taboo, but climate change that will kill everyone is acceptable to the moralists.
oyo@lemm.ee 6 hours ago
Funny how solar, wind, and batteries are way cheaper and faster to build yet people are still talking about nuclear.
bouh@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
A nuclear power plant cannot destroy a city.
meliaesc@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Funny how whataboutism makes your audience defensive.
Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I’m in Missouri so apparently I’m surrounded by silos
iii@mander.xyz 23 minutes ago
How many fingers do you have?
NONE_dc@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Well, you see, the “Anti Magic Rock” Lobby has immense amount of power because of the money of the still lucrative “burning stuff and pollute everything” business.
SARGE@startrek.website 14 hours ago
It’s the “Burning other magic rocks” party.
iii@mander.xyz 18 hours ago
That, and the green parties (at least in EU).
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
The “green” parties 💵💵
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
Yeah, oil oiled the “green” anti-nuclear protests.
You can tell thats how it was because the cops didn’t beat them as much (or in some big cases at all) as they do even the most insignificant anti-oil protesters.
OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 11 hours ago
The problem isn’t that they exploded one time. The problem is that that one explosion is still happening and likely will be for quite a while.
On the other hand, modern rock exploding plant designs are so much better that it’s very unlikely to repeat itself, so there’s that.
Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 9 hours ago
I’m sure the other rock/liquid/gas burning plants have had no issues along their lifetime and had no hand in demonizing the “new” slowly exploding rock technology after extreme negligence let the one big one happen. /s
I’d take the band aid of nuclear in my backyard vs what we rely on now after learning all of the insider knowledge of someone who personally worked in energy generation that did all of this plus renewables almost their entire professional life.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
You’re right to reject the logic behind that because it’s nonsense. Its not making sense to them because they still presume some kind of good faith when it come to these sorts of things.
The reason we haven’t built more nuclear power stations is because oil, gas and coal companies will make less money, if we build more nuclear power stations.
They have the means, the motive and they have a well recorded history of being that cartoonishly villainous. Nothing else makes sense.
Screen_Shatter@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl really did change things. Prior to those incidents there were plans to build over 50 more nuclear plants in place which got canceled as a result. Currently oil and gas industries will do all they can to keep nuclear from making a come back, but for a long time they didn’t have to do shit thanks to those catastrophes.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 hours ago
They didn’t have to but they did anyway.
Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 8 hours ago
It’s crazy that Mr. Burns from the Simpsons was in nuclear and not coal or oil. Probably a product of the propaganda at the time.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 12 hours ago
Paraphrased but this is right.
And the people were taught to talk about the horrible nuclear accidents that killed a few but completely glance over the unimaginable millions perished in the name of oil, mustn’t even mention the mass extinction events we launched with oil.
We even spread exaggerated bullshit about radiation mutation (wtf? thats superhero comic books fiction!!) and cancer rates (only one really), ignoring how much overwhelmingly more of the both we get from fossil fuel products.
Mr_Fish@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
It’s more like “Bob and Jim died in a fire a while ago, so everyone decided to put up with heaps of people dying to hypothermia and uncooked meat”
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 9 hours ago
The local undertaker family tells the story about Bob and Jim once a week to the whole village (attendance is mandatory).
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
“Ted Kennedy killed more people than Three Mile Island” - Bumper sticker.
That’s said, I facepalm at Fukushima. And desperately want more modern systems
Hugohase@startrek.website 19 hours ago
Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?
mEEGal@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
only antimatter could provide more energy density, it’s insanely powerful.
produces amounts of waste orders of magnitude lower than any other means of energy production
reliable when done well
it shouldn’t be replaced with renewables, but work with them
Hugohase@startrek.website 19 hours ago
Yes, but energy density doesn’t matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.
whome@discuss.tchncs.de 17 hours ago
But it’s not done well. Just look at the new built plants, which are way over budget and take way longer to build then expected. Like the two units in Georgia that went from estimated 14bn to finally 34bn $. In France who are really experienced with nuclear, they began building their latest plant in 2007 and it’s still not operational, also it went from 3.3bn to 13.2bn €. Or look at the way Hinkley Point C in the UK is getting developed. What a shit show: from estimated 18bn£ to now 47bn£ and a day where it starts producing energy not in sight.
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 15 hours ago
only antimatter could provide more energy density, it’s insanely powerful.
Nuclear energy indeed has very high energy per mass of fuel. But so what? Solar and wind power doesn’t even use fuel. So the energy density thing is a bit of a distraction.
ColdWater@lemmy.ca 18 hours ago
Right now we probably use more energy to produce antimatter than getting it back
marcos@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Energy density is a useless bullshit metric for stationary power.
Produces more waste than almost all of the renewables.
Reliable compared to… … … ok, I’m out of ideas, they need shutdowns all the time. Seems to me it’s less reliable than anything that isn’t considered “experimental”.
And it can’t work with renewables unless you add lots and lots of batteries. Any amount of renewables you build just makes nuclear more expensive.
They are an interesting technology, and I’m sure they have more uses than making nuclear weapons. It’s just that everybody focus on that one use, and whatever other uses they have, mainstream grid-electricity generation is not it.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Who gives a fuck about energy density beyond some physics nerds? Unless you’re planning on building a flying nuclear-powered airplane, energy density is irrelevant. This is why solar is eating fission’s lunch.
scholar@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Sometimes the sun doesn’t shine, sometimes the wind doesn’t blow. Renewables are great and cheap, but they aren’t a complete solution without grid level storage that doesn’t really exist yet.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Solar with Battery grid storage is now cheaper than nuclear.
Hugohase@startrek.website 19 hours ago
Thats a chicken/egg peoblem. If enough renewables are build the storage follows. In a perfect world goverments would incentvice storage but in an imperfect one problems have to occure before somebody does something to solve them. Anyway, according to lazard renewables + storage are still cheaper than NPPs.
friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
theguardian.com/…/power-grid-battery-capacity-gro…
US power grid added battery equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors in past four years
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Let’s be clear, the only reason grid-level storage for renewables “doesn’t exist” is because of a lack of education about (and especially commitment to) simple, reliable, non-battery energy storage such as gravitational potential, like the ARES project. We’ve been using gravitational potential storage to power our mechanisms since Huygens invented the freaking pendulum clock. There is simply no excuse other than corruption for the fact that we don’t just run a couple trains up a hill when we need to store massive amounts of solar energy.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Not sure I get what you mean by “slow”.
And it’s not entirely shocking that we have more of the power source we’ve been building and less of the one we stopped building.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
This argument again?
Ooops@feddit.org 18 hours ago
Yes, it’s called reality. I know it’s an ugly thing that just doesn’t go away no matter how hard you want it to.
Mannimarco@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
You go on thinking renewables are ever going to replace fossil fuel while we charge full tilt to our doom
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
Renewables once surpassed fossil fuels, until some brave knight killed all the windmills.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Hey now, someone who knows almost nothing is just asking questions here.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
You are saying we should be kinder to the less fortunate?
That’s a nice thought.
Comment105@lemm.ee 15 hours ago
Not even a joke, that’s a very concise way to put the argument.
Agent641@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Except the retard didn’t just burn his house down, he burned thousands of people’s houses down in such a way that nobody could ever live there again, and came very close to burning down the whole continent in the same way.
(I’m still in favour of spicy rock steam)
Valmond@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Isn’t nuclear energy like super safe and have killed incredibly few people compared to all the other energy sources?
Or are you talking about destilling the magic rocks very much and putting them in a bomb?
frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 14 hours ago
Or to put it another way, we almost ruined a large swath of land and learned from that mistake, but chose not to use it so when we do have to switch to nukes because destroyed our planet we will have forgotten all those lessons and do it again.
moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com [bot] 13 hours ago
Na it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issue with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 12 hours ago
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, not even to mammals living underground.People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 15 hours ago
One time? Wikipedia says over 100 serious incidents and lists about 30 of them. en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_and_…
It’s fine if you like nuclear, just don’t try and claim it was one time. It poses serious risk and should be treated as such.
MataVatnik@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Look up deaths per kWHr of different energy sources and come back to me
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
It has that low death rate precisely because it is heavily regulated.
The typical nuclear booster argument works on the following circular logic:
“Nuclear is perfectly safe.”
“But that’s not the problem with nuclear. The problem with nuclear is its too expensive.”
“Nuclear is expensive because it’s overly regulated!”
“But nuclear is only safe because of those heavy regulations!”
“We would have everything powered by nuclear by now if it weren’t for Greenpeace.”
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 11 hours ago
That’s not my point and I’m already aware.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
Most of those didn’t involve the magic rocks, and most didn’t hurt anyone.
More people die creating the building materials for a powerplant (or a windmills, or a solar panel) than ever during operation. The numbers really don’t matter.
I honestly don’t care what we do, as long as we stop burning coal, oil and gas. The way I see it, every nuclear plant and windmill means we all die a little later.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 11 hours ago
The house burning probably happened more than one time too.
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 11 hours ago
The alternative is not necessarily oil.
frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 14 hours ago
Just put it somewhere noone lives like the Dakotas or places people who don’t matter live, like west Virginia. All the coal miners getting cancer anyway, why not double tap?
MataVatnik@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Low blow on West Virginia. Cool state and nice people. Hoping to move there someday.
Bosht@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
I always wonder where we would actually be at as a civilization if it weren’t for fuckass lobbyists and money hoarding greedy assholes. This is a perfect example. If we’d learned from our mistakes and actually improved on nuclear energy there’s no telling where we’d be at this point.
NeatoBuilds@mander.xyz 15 hours ago
But the profits!
_bcron_@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
“Right in the heart of it is basically a teeny tiny windmill and that just don’t sit right with me” - That one cousin at Thanksgiving
Mora@pawb.social 13 hours ago
For huge countries as like the US: Maybe. You have enough space to also store the trash somewhere for thousands of years.
For small countries, like most of Europe, where the population density is way higher: hard pass.
AngryMob@lemmy.one 12 hours ago
Those same countries that found space for all the rest of their industrial waste?
Nuclear waste has a tiny footprint. Fence off a couple square km for security, dig a small but deep hole, and there ya go.
Obviously oversimplifying, but the point is that nuclear waste is a tiny issue. The entire world’s waste could be stored in a single warehouse if we wanted to (we don’t).
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 12 hours ago
Storage isn’t that much of a problem.
Also it’s contained in specific areas, some nerds are bound to wanna reuse what we now thing of as trash/spent fuel. If it’s still radioactive after it just means it radiates energy, we just didn’t commercially learned how to harness it.
TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
iirc nuclear waste isn’t really that big of an issue anymore, they just drill a really deep hole that’s like a foot across and nobody will ever see it again
don@lemm.ee 15 hours ago
Anon is so dense that he will surpass the Poincaré recurrence time of the Universe, and will exist forever. This also means that for every iteration of the current universe he passes through, another iteration of anon will be produced, such that there will eventually be enough idiot anons to form its own entire universe.
Anon is infinitely and eternally stupid.
yournamehere@lemm.ee 13 hours ago
arent we out of uranium by 2040 anyway? op can have our “nucular” waste anytime. why even waste time on a resource that we cant use in 15 yrs from now? super stupid.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 32 minutes ago
But if the magic rocks cost more than creating energy from the water the magic rocks need for cooling…