this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
873 points (95.5% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
27176 readers
3970 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
tbf, we have airplanes, but most goods are still being transported over lands or seas.
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.
how is it getting worse? there are tons of modern fail-safes
It's getting more expensive year over year, while renewables are plummeting in price.
Nuclear gets more expensive. That's worse.
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.
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.
Not really, no.
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.
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.
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.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
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.
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.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
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.
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.
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.
Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/
I'm going to work on the assumption that you're working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we're actually at.
In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That's why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.
Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it's just going to get worse from here on out.
I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:
Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it's being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.
Can you link a source that isn't pay walled?
Nuclear reactors are not useful for grid firming in a renewable grid, because they have to be running at 100℅ all the time to be anywhere near economical.
Renewables (wind-/solar) aren't the most predictable sources of energy, so they need something to jump in when power demand is higher than supply. Nuclear reactors can't deliver on that use case, while battery-storage, pump storage, biomass etc. can.
This means a grid with 30℅ nuclear would have to stop wind turbines and solar panels (free energy, since they are already built) instead of powering down more costly biomass. This results in more expensive renewables (as they aren't used to their full capacity).
Believe it or not you can turn a reactor off if necessary, or up and down. Crazy I know.
Biomass isn't practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas. Actually thinking about how much land use it would take, it might actually be worse than gas overall. Biomass is only really sensible when talking about material we would waste anyway like food waste and other waste that can be burned, but that would barely make a dent in our energy needs.
Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn't be talking about renewables at all.
As for "free energy", no energy is free. Solar panels and wind turbines still have a finite life span. Nuclear fuel is cheap enough to the point where it too might as well be free if we are willing to call wind turbines free. This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.
Taking the long term impact of coal, gas and oil on our climate and nature into account, renewables are cheaper. The cost of destroyed infrastructure through (ever more likely) extreme weather events alone is immense and often not taken into account, not to mention the impact on food.
The amount of money countries have is limited. If the goal is to replace coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible it's more efficient to use cheaper technology.
Yes, my point was about already built solar and wind turbines, that lose money the moment they are not running. The same is true for a powered down nuclear reactor, as the fuel isn't the expensive part of the operation.
My point is that technology that is expensive even if not curently in use, does not make for good backup power. This makes renewables and nuclear not a good combination, as it's quite expensive.
Yes, biogass is only an option as an addition and shouldn't be used continuously (for backup power it should be fine).
Those are future technologies never used commercially (if at all). Thorium reactors are not even in the testing stage yet, it's even worse if you look at acinide burners. I'd like to switch to low emission energy now, not in a few decades.
So, I don't know why you're taking a stand for Uranium today. It used to be a good technology 30 years ago, but today it just doesn't make any sense anymore.
First factor is cost. Renewables (Solar + Wind especially) have really really gone down in cost (see this link and this link), and the population will favor the energy source that is cheaper in the long run.
Secondly, the environmental impact of solar is really not that big. When we talk about how much CO2 solar produces, it's mostly because that solar needs silicon and that needs energy to be purified. And that energy mostly comes from coal, gas or other non-renewables today. But guess what, as the solar revolution progresses, that emission goes down as well, so solar actually becomes more environmentally friendly over time.
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
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.
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.
https://youtu.be/jSFo_92cJ-U
Totally totally no downsides.
What downsides are you concerned about
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.
Existing crude power is worse at most of these
What is "crude power"?
Coal/oil/gas
People arguing against nuclear power for it's cost and unclear timeline usually don't argue for coal, oil and gas.
Wind and solar are cheaper, continue to get cheaper and can be built within years, not decades.
Also, renewables are a proven technology while proposals for new nuclear reactor tech have usually never been deployed successfully (as in running continuously and actually contributing to the grid).
Oh yeah absolutely.
But every argument against nuclear applies to the crude trio too, and I have heard people saying to specifically keep the status quo over nuclear power...
Oh I agree. Keeping the status quo is a terrible idea and will get increasingly more expensive (as in increased likelihood for extreme weather events which are bad for health, food, infrastructur, ...).
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
An interesting watch: Thorium Reactors
I didn't watch the whole thing but his dismissal of uranium 233 as "hard" to turn into a bomb is flat out wrong. It has many of the properties of plutonium 239 and would be perfectly fine for an implosion fusion/fission device. You just need to chemically reprocess the fuel from a reactor to get it, just like they did with plutonium. The first Soviet fusion bomb was uranium 233 instead of plutonium for christ sakes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233
If you think nuclear waste is a "solved issue" you just show how little you understand the subject matter. So you're going to store nuclear waste above ground for a couple of millennia? How's that going to work out? And thorium reactors might some day become a viable technology. But that is at best decades away. That is not a solution for any present day problem. And what about all those old and aging legacy reactors that are being kept running beyond their design lifespan? Surely nothing can go wrong there.
But it doesn't matter. Despite all the irrational exuberance of the nukebros it's just not going to happen. The economics were never there and still aren't.
Literally yes, it's not just left out in the open air, they're stored in specialized containers that use inert gas and concrete to block the radiation from getting out. They can also then be buried beneath the ground for extra protection
It is most certainly not decades away at best unless fear mongering managed to slow research more than it already has done, but that's not an issue with the technology at all
You update them, which is how they're operating beyond their initial designed lifespan. Current idea in the field is to replace aging uranium reactors with molten thorium as they're apparently pretty simple to convert over
To quote you on this topic:
You're telling me humanity will able to manage nuclear waste for hundreds to thousands of years, given the fall of multiple great societies over the last few thousand years?
It's not even a solved problem how to communicate danger with signs[1], and you think knowledge about where nuclear waste is being stored will be preserved for a thousand years?
I really envy you for your optimism in humanity.
[1] https://youtu.be/lOEqzt36JEM
You put it in a hole, done. Humanity is capable of that, for sure
We won't ever know if it is/can be, due to not ever knowing what future societiesoght perceive. We're doing our best, and can rightfully assume even a fully wiped humanity will learn to stay away from things with our warning symbols on them after a few die from radiation, if that even occurs
You can also pour shit tons of concrete and other stuff around it to make it clear even without signs that something you do not want is in here
Looking at the discussion where this hole should be doesn't give me confidence. Everyone wants long term storage, but no one wants it near themselves.
We're producing nuclear waste for half a century and there's still no long term storage location. The generation who created this early waste is currently dying away and I don't think the generation after wants to deal with the problem either.
Because of fear mongering, it is not dangerous to stick it in a hole and be done with it
Its not a problem