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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://youtu.be/jSFo_92cJ-U
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.
Not really, no.
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.
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.
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.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.