this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
1342 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
4065 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"with wind the single-biggest contributor.... Power production costs have declined “by almost half” .... And the clean energy sector has created 50,000 new jobs.... Ask me what was the impact on the electricity sector in Uruguay after this tragic war in Europe — zero."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I don't understand the nuclear energy hate. Of the nonrenewables it is the cleanest, and it is not always possible to run 100% renewable, (they depend on natural factors such as sun or wind), while nuclear is constant and always producing. Look at Germany and how it is polluting using gas and fossiles, it would be a million times better it they used nuclear energy.

[–] AA5B 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nuclear is just not practical. Even if you discount the risk of severe impact if anything ever goes wrong, and the long term impact on the environment if the fuel and waste chain. we’ve countless case studies that it’s just too expensive, too complex to build, too much putting all your eggs in one basket.

Making up some numbers but I think the scale is right …. Which would you choose:

— $12B and 10-20 years to build a nuclear plant, requiring highly specialized fuel and employees.all or nothing: you get no benefit the whole time it’s under construction so payback is multiple decades. Given the specialty fuel, employees, security, it’s the most expensive choice to operate

— $1B and 10-12 years to build a wind farm, but you start getting income as soon as sections come online. Fuel cost is zero and one being out for maintenance has negligible impact in production/profit. You get payback practically as soon as the project is built and it’s all gravy from there

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Adding to this, while the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine, nuclear needs water to evaporate. In a world where droughts during summer get ever more common, nuclear/coal is not the 24/365 solution it once was. The future has to rely on a diverse mix of different energy sources, if it wants to be resilient.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Coal is not affected by droughts, though. Nuclear for better or worse is the most reliable and clean source we know today. Biggest hurdle with renewables is storage. Let's see if hydrogen is the way. But then again, storing large quantities of hydrogen might result in a big boom of something goes wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

AFAIK coal power plants often(always? Idk) use steam to drive their turbines in order to generate electricity. I'm not arguing against nuclear, but for a very diverse mix. Warm dry summer -> solar. Rainy dark winter -> hydro & wind. If we keep burning fossils, including nuclear, until we can switch to 100% renewals, I'm okay with that. The big advantage of renewals is the comparatively low cost of phases where no electricity is produced. A solar farm doesn't generate cost at night. Coal and nuclear plants can't just be "switched on and off" at will, and if they don't produce, still need a lot more attention. But for the meantime, they are necessary, until we either overbuilt so much renewables to cover for "no wind/sun/rain" situations, or get some storage solutions (batteries, hydrogen, biofuels,...) Implement on a large enough scale.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That steam is closed circuit though. But yes, they need cooling water and perhaps pollution cleaning water. So I guess they are affected by droughts as well.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Because it's an obvious psyop that took over almost every social media platform. No one was talking about nuclear then BOOM everyone was talking about nuclear all of a sudden with exactly zero mainstream public input from politicians or even marketing from nuclear power companies. People hate nuclear, because some of us have been alive long enough to remember Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima (the worst nuclear disaster in human history, 2011).

Here's a list of every single nuclear meltdown/disaster/catastrophe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents

The fission reaction to boil the water to spin the turbines is clean, but literally every single other facet of nuclear production, from mining, to enriching, to transport, to post-reaction storage (where nuclear waste inevitably always leaks) is disastrous for the environment.

[–] Bgugi 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure you're glossing over Germany replacing nuclear with coal, which has been probably been the largest story in nuclear since Fukushima.

Even including major disasters, nuclear is one of the safest and cleanest sources of power, and the only one poised to seriously displace fossil fuels in many places.

If anything, "Sunshine and rainbows" renewables are a psyop to help entrench fossil fuels long-term.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If anything, “Sunshine and rainbows” renewables are a psyop to help entrench fossil fuels long-term.

Specifically in regards to the "if it's not perfect we shouldn't even try" crowd, that's exactly what it is. Imperfect solutions we can implement now are infinitely better than perfect solutions that come years too late

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

"Don't allow Perfect to become the Enemy of Good."

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Decades and decades of fossil fuel company FUD about nuclear that they managed to get the greens to buy into a long time ago.

[–] Pretzilla 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, not FUD. it's the radioactive waste issue. And enormous expense.

And a security issue. Think of the mess if war/terrorism comes home and adversaries starts blowing them up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

It's a good energy source in principle and Germany definitely should have let their reactors run longer, but it's just too damn expensive to build new ones. I'm not aware of any serious private installations of nuclear that are being built right now. One small modular reactor company in the US recently announced they will need twice as much money as previous estimated to build one.

Meanwhile, a ton of people and companies are building solar and wind everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even worse, they prematurely closed their nuclear power plants, even recently. 🤦‍♂️

[–] Vrtrx 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You seem to be the type of person that doesn't understand that you just can't easily decide from one day to another to keep nuclear power plants online, that where decided to go offline soon over 10 years ago. Supply chains already adapted, technically necessary inspections weren't performed because it would soon shut down etc. You just cant easily revert a plan to turn off all nuclear power plans by a certain date from 10 years ago just days or weeks before that date.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Did I ever say that, though? Global warming didn't happen yesterday, it's well known for decades. The decision to close npps in first place wasn't very clever, not revoking the decision later was even worse (I don't know what was the last possible date to revoke it, I admit - but it's not easy is a bad excuse). This brilliant plan is resulting in huge pollution while having plenty of renewable sources and spending a ton of money on those.
Edit: grammar

[–] Vrtrx 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah in a perfect world, Germany would have kept their npp and phased out coal first instead but it's not a perfect world sadly and considering the npp operators were heavily campaigning against renewables Germany probably wouldn't have invested that much in renewables if npp weren't phased out. The only problem now is that Germany didn't keep their momentum for investing in and expending renewables