1000005010. Don’t feed the troll 💩
Anon questions our energy sector
Submitted 2 months ago by MataVatnik@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/01977d6f-8d12-4b56-b139-98d3d98d23bc.jpeg
Comments
Teppichbrand@feddit.org 2 months ago
iii@mander.xyz 2 months ago
As long as you don’t care when the electricity is produced
uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 2 months ago
Storage is a solvable problem. Whereas we don’t have the resources to power the world with nuclear plants.
marx2k@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Nuclear: As long as you don’t care about the magic rocks once the magic has decayed to a level where they’re not boiling water anymore
Teppichbrand@feddit.org 2 months ago
Takumidesh@lemmy.world 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
Funny how solar, wind, and batteries are way cheaper and faster to build yet people are still talking about nuclear.
meliaesc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Funny how whataboutism makes your audience defensive.
bouh@lemmy.world 2 months ago
A nuclear power plant cannot destroy a city.
rational_lib@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s because there’s no opposing corporate interest to building nuclear weapons. The way the world works is: profitable shit happens, no matter what the hippies think about it. See: every other environmental issue.
Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’m in Missouri so apparently I’m surrounded by silos
iii@mander.xyz 2 months ago
How many fingers do you have?
Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
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.
InputZero@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Anon isn’t dumb, just simple. Nuclear energy can be the best solution for certain situations. While renewables are the better choice in every way, they’re effectiveness isn’t equally distributed. There are places where there just isn’t enough available renewable energy sources year round to supply the people living there. When energy storage and transmission methods are also not up to the task, nuclear becomes the best answer. It shouldn’t be the first answer people look to but it is an answer. An expensive answer but sometimes the best one.
Also nuclear waste doesn’t have to be a problem. If anyone was willing to cover the cost of burning it in a breeder reactor for power or burry it forever. It just is because it’s expensive.
Aufgehtsabgehts@feddit.org 2 months ago
Also nuclear waste doesn’t have to be a problem. If anyone was willing to cover the cost of burning it in a breeder reactor for power or burry it forever. It just is because it’s expensive.
But it is a problem. Finding a place that can contain radioactive waste for millions of years is incredible difficult. If you read up on it, you get disillusioned pretty fast.
drake@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
When energy storage and transmission methods are also not up to the task, nuclear becomes the best answer.
Obviously, the best answer is to improve energy storage and transmission infrastructure. Why would we waste hundreds of millions on a stupid toy power plant when we could spend 10% of that money on just running decent underground cables.
uis@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Anon forgets the nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste is pretty tame. Compare gloves that were used once to turn valve on pipe in reactor room to shit from coal in your lungs. Even most active kind of waste everyone thinks of - spent fuel - consists from about 90% of useful material.
Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive.
Actually not. Especially cost of energy compared to one of coal.
Asetru@feddit.org 2 months ago
What nonsense is this?
Compare gloves that were used once to turn valve on pipe in reactor room to shit from coal in your lungs.
No shit, Sherlock… The reactor room is shielded by the water. Something you had in there once shouldn’t be overly radioactive and the fact that it isn’t doesn’t say anything about the dangers of radioactive waste.
Even most active kind of waste everyone thinks of - spent fuel - consists from about 90% of useful material.
What does that even mean? How is that saying anything about the dangers of radioactive waste?
Actually not.
new nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh […]. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated […].
CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
The costs used for wind/solar energy never included the cost of the required buffer storage, and even the rare few people who include that never factor in frequency stability which to this day is maintained by the giant steam turbines everyone wants to get rid of. It will not be trivial to solve the frequency stability problem; it will likely require massive investment in pumped water storage, flywheel storage, or nuclear energy, and these costs once finally included in the real cost of wind/solar will hurt its value prospect considerably.
As for nuclear waste: the overwhelming majority of nuclear waste generated over the lifetime of a reactor is stored onsite. Only the smallest amount of material is what will actually remain dangerous for a long time, and many countries have already solved this problem. It’s a seriously overstated problem repeated by renewable-purists who usually haven’t even considered how much frequency stability and grid-level storage have and will add to the cost of renewables, meaning they have not given a full accounting of the situation.
quoll@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
The costs used for wind/solar energy never included the cost of the required buffer storage
Jolteon@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
And even if we just buried all of it, all nuclear waste ever produced could easily be buried in one square mile.
Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
We need a fitting location to safely bury it in. Otherwise it can pollute the ground and water. In Germany for example we dont have such a location. That and the issue of cost, no one wanting to build it, no one wanting to insure it, no state wanting to offer the space and no energy company wanting this energy led to us making the correct decision in moving away from it
Hugohase@startrek.website 2 months ago
Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?
mEEGal@lemmy.world 2 months 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 2 months ago
Yes, but energy density doesn’t matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.
whome@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months 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 2 months 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.
marcos@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
ColdWater@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Right now we probably use more energy to produce antimatter than getting it back
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
Lemmchen@feddit.org 2 months ago
it shouldn’t be replaced with renewables, but work with them
Nuclear energy as a bridge technology is incompatible with renewables.
scholar@lemmy.world 2 months 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 2 months ago
Solar with Battery grid storage is now cheaper than nuclear.
Hugohase@startrek.website 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
This argument again?
Ooops@feddit.org 2 months 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 2 months ago
You go on thinking renewables are ever going to replace fossil fuel while we charge full tilt to our doom
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Hey now, someone who knows almost nothing is just asking questions here.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 months ago
You are saying we should be kinder to the less fortunate?
That’s a nice thought.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Renewables once surpassed fossil fuels, until some brave knight killed all the windmills.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
They didn’t have to but they did anyway.
Baylahoo@sh.itjust.works 2 months 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.
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It’s sad that the coal lobby has convinced so many people that the most reliable clean energy source we’ve ever discovered is somehow bad.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Particularly since coal power stations emit FAR more radioactive material, routinely, than most nuclear “leaks”.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s sad that the coal lobby has convinced so many people that the most reliable clean energy source we’ve ever discovered is somehow bad.
Its bad in the sense that is a crazy expensive way to generate electricity. Its not theoretical. Ask the customers of the most recent nuclear reactors to go online in the USA in Georgia. source
"The report shows average Georgia Power rates are up between $34 and $35 since before the plant’s Unit 3 went online. " (there were bonds and fees on customer electric bills to pay for the nuclear plant construction before it was even delivering power.
…and…
“The month following Unit 4 achieving commercial operation, average retail rates were adjusted by approximately 5%. With the Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery (NCCR) tariff removed from bills, a typical resident customer using 1,000 kWh per month saw an estimated monthly increase of $8.95 per month. This follows the previous rate impact in 2023 following Unit 3 COD of $5.42 (3.2%).”
So another $5.42/month for the first reactor built on top of the $35/month, then another $8.95/month on top of all that for a rough total of $49.37/month more just to buy electricity that is generated from nuclear.
Maybe the power company is greedy? Nope, they’re even eating more costs and not passing them on to customers:
“Georgia Power says they’re losing about $2.6 billion in total projected costs to shield customers from the responsibility of paying it. Unit 4 added about $8.95 to the average customer’s bill, John Kraft, a spokesman for the company said.”
So that $49.37/month premium for electricity from nuclear power would be even higher if the power company passed on all the costs. Nuclear power for electricty is just too inefficient just on the cost basis, this is completely ignoring the problems with waste management.
The next biggest problem with nuclear power is where the fuel comes from:
“Russia also dominates nuclear fuel supply chains. Its state-owned Rosatom controls 36 percent of the global uranium enrichment market and supplies nuclear fuel to 78 reactors in 15 countries. In 2020, Russia owned 40 percent of the total uranium conversion infrastructure worldwide. Russia is also the third-largest supplier of the imported uranium that fuels U.S. power plants, accounting for 16 percent of total imported uranium. The Russian state could weaponize its dominance in the nuclear energy supply chain to advance its geostrategic interests. During the 2014 Russia-Ukraine crisis, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin threatened to embargo nuclear fuel supplies to Ukraine.” source
So relying on nuclear power for electricity means handing the keys of our power supply over to outside countries that are openly hostile to us.
OprahsedCreature@lemmy.ml 2 months 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 2 months 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.
areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 2 months ago
A hydro damn breaking has killed more people than Chernobyl before, and probably will again. Renewables are not perfect either unfortunately. Though some are slightly safer than nuclear.
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 months 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 2 months 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”
Mbourgon@lemmy.world 2 months 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
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
An argument against fossil fuels is not an argument for nuclear.
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 2 months 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 2 months 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
beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 2 months ago
Fire’s waste is just all particulates in the air which we all share.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 months 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 2 months 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. :-)
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
That is an extreme over simplification of a very complicated subject, it’s never that simple.
Having said that: yeah. It was stupid to stop using nuclear energy
Doom@ttrpg.network 2 months ago
I hate this thread.
zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev 2 months 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.
Comment105@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Not even a joke, that’s a very concise way to put the argument.
Bosht@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
leadore@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Just because burning fossil fuels is bad doesn’t magically make nuclear good, or somehow no big deal. The chance for a catastrophic accident mentioned in the meme is only one drawback (which is bad enough–get real, denial is not a strategy here). Just a few other issues:
-
the problem of what to do with the waste: no permanent solutions have yet been implemented and we’ve been using costly-to-maintain “temporary” methods for decades. Not to mention the thermal water pollution to aquatic ecosystems
-
the enormously out of proportion up front costs to construct the plants, and higher ongoing operation and maintenance costs due to safety risks
-
the fact that uranium is also a limited resource that has to be mined like other ores, with all the environmental negatives of that, which then has to go through a lot of processing involving various mechanics and chemicals just to make it usable as fuel.
Anyway I’m not going to try and spell it all out on a forum post–this topic is something you have to put in some effort to learn about, but all this advocacy for a very problematic method of producing power as if it’s a simple solution to our problems is kind of irritating. We should be focusing on developing renewable and sustainable energy.
-
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 2 months ago
TBF a nuclear incident is not like burning just one house down. It’s burning down the whole city and making it unusable for a decade or ten.
drake@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
There is a huge lobby of pro-nuclear think tanks who try to astroturf pro-nuclear shit onto social media. We, scientifically literate, rational people, need to counteract these harmful narratives with some facts.
FACT: Renewable sources of energy are as cheap or cheaper per kwh than nuclear.
FACT: Renewables are faster to provision than nuclear.
FACT: Renewables are as clean, or cleaner, than nuclear.
FACT: Renewables are much more flexible and responsive to energy fluctuations than nuclear.
FACT: Renewables will only get cheaper. Nuclear will only get more expensive, because uranium mining will get harder and harder as we deplete easily accessible sources.
reksas@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
there are millions being poured into propaganda against using anything but fossil fuels, it all stems from there. But i wonder if its better this way or the alternative way where we would use more nuclear energy but since there would be so much money to be made, the rich would use their money to make all safety regulations null. I wish we could just get rid of the source problem.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Gotta be on 4chan to equate a nuclear meltdown with a person’s hut catching on fire.
Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online 2 months ago
He should, reason they ditched them for coal and gas was because big daddy Exxon and BP are pushing for it so they don’t go out of bussiness. FUCK BP AND EXXON!
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
But if the magic rocks cost more than creating energy from the water the magic rocks need for cooling…
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The year is 2289. We know how Dyson spheres work That star is just literally free energy But we blew up a solar system and wiped out a developing race one time and we stopped using it Imagine if hunters had stopped using fire?!?
Fukushima showed us the truth, Nuclear Safety is incompatible with capitalism. I don’t care to find out what other time bombs we build into future plants.
Mora@pawb.social 2 months 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.
LordWiggle@lemmy.world 2 months ago
“are we retarded?” yes, Trump got re-elected, which is proof most of us really are retarded. I’m pro nuclear, just not the form we widely use now, and not in the hands of retarded people. And again, most of us clearly are, and one of the worst is going to be president, again.
So I think the best thing we could do is start a nuclear war which will wipe out the human race. Nature will hopefully recover in about 100.000 to 1 million years. Hopefully dolphins will develop less retarded then us dumb monkeys.
Zerush@lemmy.ml 2 months ago
Isthisreddit@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I feel this is all moot. When we run out of fossil fuels and go off the energy cliff, the nuclear facilities will basically build themselves, assuming there will be anyone around that will even know how to build a nuclear reactor
don@lemm.ee 2 months 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.
000@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Okay but why use a slur to make a point
NONE_dc@lemmy.world 2 months 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 2 months ago
It’s the “Burning other magic rocks” party.
iii@mander.xyz 2 months ago
That, and the green parties (at least in EU).
Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The “green” parties 💵💵
Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 2 months 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.
oce@jlai.lu 2 months ago
I feel like people are interpreting your comment with an American view. As a fellow European I agree, NGOs like Greenpeace are also to blame, and I don’t think those are financed by fossil fuel lobbies.
drake@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
Nuclear isn’t in competition with fossil fuels, it’s in competition with renewables. Renewables are better than nuclear by pretty much every conceivable metric. So fuck nuclear power, it’s a waste of money and time.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Fact: that is a fake statement.
Nuclear is not renewables competition.
Nuclear provides a base line energy production.
Both renewables and fossils produce a variable production line.
So within a rational production scheme the choice is nuclear+renewables or fossils+renewables. As renewables by themselves cannot work. Because there is months over the year when it’s not sunny, not rainy and not windy enough, what do we do for those months? We close humanity during those months because some political dogma says so?
oce@jlai.lu 2 months ago
Are you sure renewables don’t require more extracted resources and more land usage per quantity of energy produced?