82
Greens keep ignoring energy density and therefore land use to make the case for a "greener" 100% wind/solar/hydro grid
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
82 points (79.7% liked)
Nuclear
330 readers
1 users here now
Focus on peaceful use of nuclear energy tech, economics, news, and climate change.
From r/nuclear
Looking for moderators
Useful links:
IAEA PRIS - The Database on Nuclear Power Reactors: https://pris.iaea.org/pris/home.aspx
NRC US reactor status: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/index.html
US Nuclear Plant Outage Status: https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/outages/
Milestones in Advanced Nuclear: https://www.airtable.com/universe/expnrIMohdf6dIvZl/milestones-in-advanced-nuclear
What about the waste? http://whataboutthewaste.com/
What about the cost? https://zionlights.substack.com/p/what-is-the-true-cost-of-energy
How long will nuclear fuel last? https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html
Global Energy Footprint https://energy.glex.no/footprint/
Low Carbon Power Nuclear page: https://lowcarbonpower.org/type/nuclear
IAEA PRIS - Under Construction Reactors: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There has been a massive uptick in pro-nuclear astroturfing across reddit (and presumably other social media that I don't use) over the last 18months.
It may be a coincidence that it coincides with the Russian invasion and Europe's efforts to ditch russian gas for renewables. Certainly the fact that the average build time for a nuclear plant being over a decade helps keep us on coal and gas for longer than the rapid deployment times for renewables.
I don't have any proof that it's a russian plot, it could just as easily be the fossil fuel industry at it again. They both have form in this regard so it could be either or both.
That there is a campaign however is undeniable, the uptick in "nuclear is the panacea for all your climate woes" is a hundredfold on 2 years ago.
Renewables are cheaper and faster, and Europe (& Australia for a different reason) have showed how much solar and wind you can deploy in 18months. Nukes take decades to deploy and cost hugely more than renewables.
Yeah, all the nuclear projects they announce go hugely over budget and often get cancelled because the money pulls out because it's impossible to be profitable while all the wind farms and solar installations are doing far better than projected and the cost of construction is constantly falling.
No one actually interested in power generation is looking at what's happening and coming to the conclusion that these oil company shills are trying to push, it just makes no sense.
One only has to look up the wikipedia page of the finnish reactor that just came online. Planning started 2005, with an estimated completion date of 2010 for a flat 3bil. Euros. In the end it took 18 years and 11bil. Euros. And now it shuts down during the summer as it can't compete with renewables.
Meh I'm sure nuclear could or would have it's place, I just don't know if anyone wants to take the risk now since the earthquake in Japan
The earthquake has very little to do with the lack of new nuclear power plants. They simply cost too much, take too long to come online and take too long to turn a profit to be seen as viable, when renewables are already cheaper and less risky and are set to become even less expensive, all the while storage capacity becomes cheaper too.