this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
585 points (90.8% liked)

World News

38255 readers
2414 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JohnDClay 7 points 11 months ago (7 children)

What about when the grid is almost entirely renewables? Is nuclear cheaper than just storage? What about storage one it's already been implemented to the point of resource scarcity?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If we had an energy system owned by the people and not ran for profits, nuclear would be a viable, and probably even the preferred, option. We do not. We're probably going to have to fix that to get a practical and reliable clean energy grid.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, it would just bankrupt the state. Just because something is state owned, doesn't mean the cost vanishes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Profit doesn't equal good. Renewables take a lot of materials and fabrication to upkeep. Im sure theres more money to be made in renewable than there is in nuclear, that doesn't imply one is better than the other.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how this determination is affected by the boondoggle that is the public funding of nuke plant construction with huge overruns paid for by consumers.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's getting close to the point where even if you are handed one it's more cost effective to build a wind farm and let it sit.

A MWh of wind is about $33 and O&M for a MWh of nuclear is about $30.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (33 children)

Everyone seems to be focused on electricity production, but ammonia production (ie nitrogen fixation) for fertilizer is often overlooked. Right now it is accomplished mostly with natural gas. If we're supposed to do it instead with wind and solar, we're going to have to rely on simple and inefficient electrolysis of water to generate the hydrogen needed for the Haber process. Nuclear power plants have the advange of producing very high temperature steam, which allows for high temperature electrolysis, which is more efficient.

When you consider our fertilizer needs, it becomes clearer that nuclear power will have to play the predominant role in the transition away from fossil fuels.

load more comments (33 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›