this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
784 points (90.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

27134 readers
4514 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/ExplicitContent


-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

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Broken_Monitor 109 points 7 months ago (51 children)

The number of people who still think nuclear is bad and solar / wind will make up for it is really depressing. We could have had an unrivaled nuclear power infrastructure but those NIMBY assholes stopped it 50 years ago and now we rely on extending existing plants past their lifetimes while running in fucking circles about how to save the planet. Has anyone who wants to “go green” without nuclear ever looked at the power output of these things?? It’s not even the same league! AaagggghHhHhhhhhhhh

[–] [email protected] 83 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

The problems with nuclear power aren't meltdowns, but the facts that it often takes decades just to construct a new plant, it creates an enormous carbon footprint before you get it running, it has an enormously resource-intensive fuel production process, it contributes to nuclear proliferation, it creates indefinitely harmful waste, and even if we get past all of that and do expand it, that's just going to deplete remaining fuel sources faster, of which we only have so many decades left.

It's not a good long term solution. I agree we should keep working plants running, but we can't do that forever, and we still need renewable alternatives - wind, hydro and solar.

And it wasn't some nebulous group of NIMBYs that worked against nuclear power, it was the fossil fuel lobby. I don't know why people keep jumping to cultural explanations for what is clearly a structural issue. The problem isn't some public perception issue, but political will, and that tends to be bought by the fossil fuel lobby.

Also there is good science on why we actually can switch to entirely renewables: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world

[–] lethargic_lemming 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Thank you for providing a bigger picture

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Re: Remaining fuel.

If we built breeder reactors we could use the spent waste fuel to power the entire US for 1000 years. That runs into plutonium existence problems, but it's a political problem, not a resource problem.

However, I still agree with what you've said. We should limit our nuclear footprint to key isotope production, but we really shouldn't be doing that until we've gone full carbon neutral.

Edit: In case you can't see the reply to this comment, my conversation partner has given me more information I didn't have before. Breeder reactors are neat, but they have more issues than I originally knew. (Still a badass concept though :P) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2968/066003007

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't think nuclear power was killed by NIMBYs, at least not entirely. In the 1970s and 80s the financial world started taking a much more short-term view. Nuclear power plants have such a huge up-front cost that you aren't going to see returns for decades. When the market wants numbers to go up every quarter they're not going to finance something that won't make a profit for 20 years.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

That's why we have governments though, for the long time low return infrastructure, like power grids.

Somehow we are willing to spend billions yearly on new roads but can't be assed to build a new nuke plant once a decade to grow power production.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

Suspect a lot of those NIMBYs were led by fossil fuel producers in a NIMBY hat...

load more comments (48 replies)
[–] Sniatch 38 points 7 months ago (16 children)

People who want nuclear plants should also vote for having a nuclear waste storage in your area if that is possible. In germany we still dont have a solution for the waste we already have and the states who want Nuclear Plants are already said no to havin a storage in their state. You cant make this shit up

[–] I_Has_A_Hat 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

As someone who has actually looked into nuclear waste and the current storage techniques instead of relying on knee-jerk fear mongering, yes. Store it in my area. Hell, store the casks underneath my house for all I care. If you are surprised by this answer, it's because you don't know shit about nuclear waste and how little of a problem it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago (14 children)

The waste doesn't pose any danger as long as it's stored securely and doesn't cost that much space. The only downside of the waste is that it needs to be stored forever, but that's a very, very, small price to pay for not destroying the planet..

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Lumisal 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (21 children)

Weird how y'all haven't figured it out yet considering Finland has and Germany has had nuclear power plants for longer.

But I suspect it's more of a lack of wanting to do what's needed for storage because 'politics' and boomers than it is because it's not possible.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] capital 9 points 7 months ago (7 children)

The US has a fuckton of space not being occupied by anyone or anything.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch 37 points 7 months ago (15 children)

I’ve got solar panels on my roof, and being Dutch windmills are in my blood. But I’m also not blind to the reality that both wind and solar will only get you so far. And there’s already a lot of opposition to wind farms - they ruin the view, endanger birds and there’s health concerns due to noise and shadow projection.

If we just build even one nuclear powerplant, we could basically just… not do wind. And we’d have pleeeenty of power for the coming energy transition, change to electric vehicles, etc.

But noooo… nuclear is scary. Especially to the people who only cite Fukushima and Chernobyl in regards to safety. That’s the same as banning air travel because of 9/11 and the Tenerife disaster. Nuclear power is safe, cheap and we owe it to the planet to use it wisely instead of more polluting alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You know what’s scary? The existential threat of climate change.

[–] FinishingDutch 18 points 7 months ago

Absolutely that’s scary. Heck, we’re seeing the effects of it every day. If more nuclear means less coal and other polluting options, I’m all for it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

Are you really saying that to a Dutch? They are the first ones that get affected by rising sea levels, don't worry, they know it's scary.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago (4 children)

"Endanger birds"

A whole lot less than most alternative solutions

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I live in Taiwan and we are decommissioning our last 4 nuclear plants. We also scrapped a newly built nuclear plant because people just don't understand how safe new nuclear plants are. Instead 97% my stupid country is burning fossil fuel for electricity and our citizens are doing Pikachu faces because of the bad air quality.

It's even more stupid is that we are gearing up to electrify the country.... Using fossil fuels.... Which is worse for the environment.

[–] AA5B 9 points 7 months ago

At least electrifying means that you’ll be ready for renewables- that has to be done as well

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid 23 points 7 months ago (6 children)

No, absolutely decommission old and out-of-date plants to avoid anything catastrophic. There is an argument for keeping some of the ones that are there now and even building new ones, but what is happening with the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine is souring me on the idea of nuclear power in general. Not when a war could cause a catastrophe. You can't really war-proof every nuclear power plant.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3 18 points 7 months ago (10 children)

Would you put your own money into nuclear power these days?

[–] MrVilliam 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I would. ROI takes longer, but they're super fucking profitable as soon as they turn a profit at all. They're generally base loaded 24/7 except for about 3-4 weeks per year for refueling outage. I'm 35, so assume 10 years to build and another 10 years before it starts profiting. I'm retired at 55. Sounds pretty good to me.

Edit: source in response to reply asking for it so they will find it :)

[–] partial_accumen 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

I would. ROI takes longer, but they’re super fucking profitable as soon as they turn a profit at all.

Citation needed.

My state has a pair of nuclear plants built in the 70s, 40+ years ago. Not only are they not profitable, they lose lots of money every year. In 2021, these two plants lost $93 million. source - warning PDF

The only way these two nuclear plants became profitable was when Republicans were bribed by the energy company (First Energy) to force increased rates and fees on the citizens through legislated bail out so the energy companies could make a profit while also gutting the green energy initiatives in the state. I'm not even exaggerating any of this. The former Republican speaker of the house is now in prison serving 20 years accepting something close to (from memory) $150 million in bribes. source

If you can tell me when nuclear power gets cheaper, I'd really like to see it. We certainly haven't here.

[–] Diplomjodler3 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Well, in Germany the government basically paid for all the R&D. Then they massively subsidised the construction. Then the nukes were profitable for a while, especially after they got to run them way past their design life. And finally, the government got stuck with most of the bill for decommissioning. So all in all, nukes are a great way for privatising profits and socialising losses, which is what our current economic system is all about.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] psmgx 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure would. I put money into renewable stocks and they tanked hard. Looking at you RNW.

We already run carriers and subs on nukes, supertankers and massive cargo ships could use them too. And arguably should, given they're a huge, massive source of pollution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Iceblade02 8 points 7 months ago

I literally own a bit of stock in the most nuclear-power-related company in my country - so yes.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I found this story to be informative, about why Germany closed their nuclear power plants. I think that context can defuse a lot of arguments about Germany's decision.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] slaacaa 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Exactly. It’s not about building new ones, that’s incredibly expensive with modern Western safety standards. But at least keep the ones already built running as long as it’s safe. Germany really fucked up with this due to populism

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LordKitsuna 8 points 7 months ago (4 children)

It's just not going to happen, it's way too slow to become profitable. There are plenty of nuclear power plants in production that have been in production for 40 years that still aren't profitable.

Storage is going to have to be the thing that makes up for the instability of solar and wind, whether it be in the form of heat storage, hydrogen production, fly wheels, or some breakthrough in Battery Tech.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Energy shouldn't be a business, it's a necessity at this point.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Lumisal 16 points 7 months ago

I'd like to note it's not profitable because it generates so much energy so consistently that it's hard to keep prices up.

That's why nuclear energy should never have been a private sector investment but a government one, or maybe hybrid. That's how it's worked in Finland, and the new reactor we had built plus the growing solar really saved us from the electricity spike after Russian gas was turned off.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›