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.
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.
That’s a lie.
Not really, no.
Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.
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.
They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.
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.
Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.
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.
Not really, no.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. 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.
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.
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.
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:
- Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
- Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities
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?
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
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.
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.
Run low on water, stop reaction. Fission products keep getting hot even though reaction stopped. Not enough water to cool them off. Shit.
Thorium Thorium Thorium Thorium Thorium
Uranium it is, then!
thankfully modern ones like molten salt reactors have passive safety, where they stop the reaction if overheating occurs.
edit: My mistake, there’s no active commercial molten salt reactors.
But nuclear power is very safe nowadays because of the multiple fail-safes, which some can still be passive like emergency cooling.
I much rather get electricity from magic rocks than destroying rain forest in developing countries drilling oil, gas or mining coal.
The biggest risk in nuclear is environmental disasters like in Fukushima’s case, which is the last significant nuclear incident in past 13 yearsAnd are those modern molten salt reactors in the room with us now?
2 MW. Fantastic. And only 8 years until it reaches continuous operation. How long will it be before that is anywhere near utility scale?
Ah yes, the passive safety of the molten salt spontaneously catching on fire when in contact with air and can’t be put out with water.
deleted by creator
You can’t stop decay heat. It’s just molton salt reactors can operate at much higher temperatures and if it loses active cooling passive cooling with just air and infrared radiation while the salt passively circulates could be enough.
Isn’t molten salt just energy storage? Heat up salt when you have excess of energy, take heat out when you need it. The worst disaster there is just the container melting.
No, there are molten salt thermal batteries, but they aren’t the same as molten salt nuclear reactor. In a nuclear reactor the fissile material is dissolved in the salt for some reason, and the molten salt acts as a moderator or something. Apparently its safe because if the reactor power fails, the salt ‘freezes’ which prevents fission from occurring. Seems like complex extra steps to me but what do I know.
“Can’t have a meltdown when you’ve already melted the fuel” is pretty much the whole idea there.
MSRs have negative temperature reactivity coefficient and outlet temps around 700C at atm pressure. PWR is at measly 300C and 150 Bar.
If all control is lost, the salt expands as it heats up pushing the expanded volume out from the reactor core. The fission stops once the fuel is leaves the core region where the moderator is. Reverse is also true: you pull heat off from the loop, so the fuel-salt becomes denser, increasing reactivity. MSRs can naturally “follow” the load, if done right.
there’s no active commercial molten salt reactors.
Experimental ones were all shut down within 5-10 years because corrosion makes them uneconomical to repair.
Fukushima’s case, which is the last significant nuclear incident in past 13 years
Zaporizhzhia (shutdown with IAEA concerns but may not fully report any emission releases) in Ukraine has military attacks against it, with intent of fundraising and politically blaming a disaster on the side that weapons providers, and the media they own, love to hate. Our media normalizes civil war as a response to Netanyahu not having his favorite ruler appointed.
Turn water back on suddenly and realize what happens when water touches an object many times warmer than it’s boiling point.
Just throw some sand and boron on it, she’ll be right mate.
Conveniently leaves the “get the fissile material” and “store the used fissile material” steps out.
Also: build the thing
Also: unbuild the thing
Same applies to geothermal.
lava is really hot
use lava to boil water
use steam to turn a generator
free electricity!
Have we still not been able to progress past all power generation being “use water to turn a generator”? Humanity figured out the water wheel then just kept making it more complex.
What about a piss wheel instead of a water wheel?
Chat is this legit gameplay or an exploit?
Trolls and exploiters at it again. If god intended for us to make nuclear energy then he would’ve made it appear in nature. Stupid scientists making stuff from gods creation.
Well do I have news for you
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Is just trolling.
free
The only completed attempt in last 25 years in US (Vogtle), cost over $15/watt. Before fuel, operations, security, waste disposal plan, and no insurance.
Turnkey (containers full of batteries) systems in China are under $100/kwh. A possible imported cost of $100/kwh.
5gw of solar and 19gwh batteries would have higher capacity factor than nuclear, use same transmission infrastructure size, and cost $7/watt. Where winter production is not enough to fill batteries, the batteries can still be charged by wind or peaker plants that can run a bit more efficiently for a continuous time over a day instead of in bursts.
TBF 90% of the cost of nuclear in the US is political resistance. Not engry meeting
100% of nuclear funding is political bribery. It is unbankable and uninsurable. Through bribery, cost+ funding can be obtained. More bribes = more covering of cost and time overruns.
If what you mean by “political resistance” is that bigger bribes are needed to overcome unpopularity, that is a tiny fraction of the bribery amount. Elected officials do blatantly destructive and unpopular acts all the time. The rate of approvals has little to do with project costs once approved.
Got any proof of big nuclear meddling
Ohio corruption scandal was over nuclear industry bribes. All nuclear projects are publicly funded, and because they are categorically uneconomical, and delay any impact on global warming for 15 years, they are lobbied for by fossil fuel competitors. Boondoggles based on disinformation necessarily require political body to be corrupt and in on it, rather than just stupid.
That’s pretty bad and undeniable. Does this account for all nuclear funding though?
Having no economic value does mean only corruption pretends nuclear energy to have economic value. Another dishonest, but bribed by defense instead of utility operator, motive is weapons.
There is an honest exception of a small town in Arizona (lack of water). They admit their power project costs are astronomical for nuclear compared to solar alternative, but the permanent jobs provided by a nuclear plant raise property values and taxes a bit. This too, no matter how honest the motives, is corruption in obtaining other people’s money to finance a project for local jobs and property values.
Disclaimer: I am a nitpicker, so apologies for this.
I do believe the symbol of the watt should be capitalized: W. Also the SI prefix giga, G. So that would be kWh, GWh, etc.
deleted by creator
Damn, if you call this constant, I’m scared to guess what do you mean by fluctuating https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Hourly-production-and-hourly-average-wind-speed-mast-and-MERRA-for-an-exemplary-month_fig1_276421124
I love these, there’s no way that would ever work
EZ It’s not rocket science
Love my big pot of spicy water.
don’t drink the spicy soup!
Coming up, troll physics explains rocket science.
Would read
Got you fam
Step 1 put liquid in mouth
Step 2 spit liquid fast
Go to step 1
I would hazard a guess that it ain’t work like that.
You need a moderator to facilitate a slow fisson reaction. Some of the produced neutrons have misfit speed to create another fisson reaction.
Also note that fissile and radioactive is not the same, but you used them correctly.
i’m willing to have fizzle reactors on the moon. and mars. but i am not willing to shoot the fizzle materials via rockets to the moon or mars because of rockets tendency to blow up when designed and built by the humans.
i want no earth fizzle.
Chernobyl could have been so much worse.
Considering the unregulated capitalist hell scale we live in, I can’t trust that some mega corp wouldn’t cut corners.
I see all these pictures where the steam seemingly just escapes into the atmosphere.
Are there any designs where the cooling steam condenses and then pools and falls back down as liquid to turn even more turbines via gravity like hydroelectrics dams and then returns to the source pool to be reheated by the nuclear materials?
Ooooo That’s a neat concept
Somone send this to Remi
Jokes on you, this is what humanity has been doing for years. I have one at home as well.
Atom floats on atom
Until you run out of that fissile material when you could just be using renewable energy…
