stop shilling for industry, bootlicker
Actually, the industry is fully investing in wind and solar and wouldnât touch nuclear with a long pole, because excessively expensive.
In case of Germany, theyâd quite literally fire up coal over nuclear. Like holy shitâŠ
im fact theyâre closing one of the last scaled down power plant simulator, where scientists and students could have a hands down experience in learning about It
im not german, but its so sad, the thing was even made of glass so you could literally see the process
In Australia the coal and gas industries appear to be pushing nuclear quite hard, mainly because they distract from the renewable options preferred by the market. They know that while weâre arguing over literally every other power source, they can just keep burning holes in the ground.
They solve different problems. Nuclear is cheaper than the batteries needed to make solar/wind reliable.
âSafeâ. Yeah. Letâs talk about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. All that was kinda not so safe, donât you think?
You mean the modern reactors who are still not in a commercial productive state? But even if these would be NOW ready to actually be available itâs still so that there are a vast overwhelming majority of the old reactors which are not as safe as the meme was insinuating.
All of those were caused by human mistake. But this does not mean that they must be discarded. Because human mistake happens. If it is with a solar panel, itâs inconsequential. Not with a nuclear reactor. So yes, it is an issue to consider, but in truth all it means is that we have to be VERY careful
Nuclear is by far the safest form of energy production. Even with the big accidents, the impact hasnât been that big.
Chernobyl was by far the biggest, but that was 40 years ago, in a poorly designed plant, with bad procedures and a chain of human errors. Weâve learned so much from that accident and that type of accident couldnât even have happened in the plants we had at the time in the west. Actually if the engineers that saw the issue could contact the control room right away, there would not have been any issue. In 1984 that was a problem, in 2024 not so much, we have more communication tools than ever. The impact of Chernobyl was also terrible, but not as bad as feared back in the time. In contrast to the TV series, not a lot of people died in the accident. With 30 deaths directly and another 30 over time. Total impact on health is hard to say and weâve obviously have had to do a lot to prevent a bigger impact, but the number is in the thousands for total people with health effects. Even the firefighters sent in to fix stuff didnât die, with most of them living full lives with no health effects. And what people might not know, the Chernobyl plant has had a lot of people working there and producing power for decades after the disaster. Itâs far from the nuclear wasteland people imagine.
Fukushima was pretty bad, but the impact on human life and health has been pretty much nonexistent. The circumstances leading up to the disaster were also very unique. A huge earthquake followed by a big tsunami, combined with a design flaw in the backup power system, combined with human error. I still to this day donât understand how this lead to facilities being closed in Germany, where big earthquakes donât happen and there is hardly any coast let alone tsunamis. Itâs a knee jerk reaction that makes no sense. Studies have indicated the forced relocation of the people living near there has been a bigger impact on peopleâs health than anything the power plant did.
Compare this to things we consider to be totally normal. Like driving a car, which kills more people in a week than ever had any negative impacts from nuclear power.
Or say solar is a far more safe form of power, even though yearly hundreds of people die because of accidents related to solar installations. Or for example hydroplants, where accidents can also cause a huge death toll and more accidents happen.
And this is even with the non valid comparison to the current forms of energy where we know itâs a big issue. But because the alternative isnât perfect, we donât change over.
Comparatively speaking, itâs safer than coal mining. Wikipedia Nuclear Accidents by Death Toll
This is just so fucking dumb. Yeah coal sucks. We should get rid of coal as quickly as possible. But saying nuclear is safer than coal while ignoring all other forms of energy that are orders of magnitude safer is as disingenuous as it gets.
Nuclear power is actually safer than almost everything, period. Even with the major accidents. Yes, even renewables and other âgreenâ energy.
See this commentâs chart, for example: https://lemmy.ml/comment/11910773
200 years vs. 70 years. IDK if this is comparable. Also it is so that with nuclear accidents theres a lot of additional environmental damage, not just the human casualties.
Not defending coal mining here, coal is no good energy source by all means.
Coal is often radioactive when it comes out of the ground, and thanks to poor regulations, is often radioactive when it goes into the powerplant, leading to radioactive particles coming out of the smokestacks and landing anywhere downwind of the plants.
More people have died from radiation poisoning from coal than from all of the nuclear accidents combined. But, as you said, 200 years vs. 70 years. But, also, nuclear is much more heavily regulated than coal in this regard due to the severity of those accidents. The risk of a dangerous nuclear power plant is nowhere near as large as commonly believed. It doesnât take long to find longlasting environmental disasters due to fossil fuels, from oil spills to powerplant disasters. Theyâre used so heavily that itâs just so much more likely to occur and occur more often.
All this to say that fossil fuels suck all around and we should be looking at all forms of replacement for them, nuclear being just one option we should be pursuing alongside all the others.
ITT: ignorant people with 20+ years old knowledge.
Nuclear energy has been safe for a long time. Radioactive waste disposal is better than ever now.
Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.
Itâs far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldnât even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.
Thereâs a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesnât require much of a change from their current business model.
Agreed, building a nuclear facility takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. However⊠This doesnât need to be the case at all.
A lot of the costs go into design, planning and legal work. The amount of red tape to build a nuclear plant is huge. Plus all of the parties that fight any plans to build, with a heavy not in my backyard component.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly. Back in the day we could build them faster and cheaper. And these days we build far more complex installations quicker and cheaper than nuclear power plants.
The anti-nuclear movement has done so much to hold humanity back on this front. And the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost.
You canât cut the red tape. The red tape is why weâre able to say nuclear is safe.
the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost
Huh? Nuclear fusion doesnât have any downsides or upsides. Because it doesnât exist. Weâve never been able to generate net power with fusion. (No, not even that story from a couple of years ago, which only counted as âinputâ a small fraction of the total energy used overall. It was a good development, but just one small step on the long journey to it being practical.)
Being anti-nuclear was a poor stance to have 20, 30 years ago. At that time, renewables werenât cost effective enough to be a big portion of our energy generation mix, and we should have been building alternatives to fossil fuels since back then if not earlier. But today, all the analysis tells us that renewables are far cheaper and more effective than nuclear. Today, being pro-nuclear is the wrong stance to take. Itâs the anti-science stance, which is why it has seen a recent rise among right-wing political parties and media organisations.
I have never heard being pro-nuclear is the anti science stance and it being on the rise among right wing political parties. All the right wing is talking about it more coal and less things to be done about the climate.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed and not anti science at all.
I believe nuclear can help us get to the future we want and we should have done it a lot sooner. Nuclear doesnât mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.
Thatâs a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiativesâŠ
The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.
The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.
For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 yearsâŠno.
Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? Thatâs new.
First, no, thatâs not what I said. If youâre only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.
Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesnât scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you canât just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also donât want to be generating more than is used.
Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload âuntil we have adequate storageâ, the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that donât already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.
I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 Iâd have said yeah, we should do it. But every time Iâve looked into it over the last 10 years especially, Iâve had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldnât be building nuclear; itâs just an inferior option to renewables.
Aaaw, someone doesnât like the tone used? Well thatâs unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?
Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables wonât be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.
Itâs not an XOR problem.
Australian politicians have been arguing about nuclear energy for decades, and with whats going on now, petty distracting squabbling while state governments are gutting public infrastructure
The most frustrating thing is the antinuclear party is obviously fine with nuclear power, and nuclear armaments, just look at the aukus submarines
labors cries about the dangers to our communities and the environment are obviously disingenuous, or they wouldnt be setting a green light for the billionaire robber barons to continue tearing oil and minerals out of the ground (they promise to restore the land for real-sies this time)
Anyway, a nuclear power plant runs a steam turbine and will never be more than what, 30% efficient?
Photovoltaic cells are even less efficient, I think theyâre somewhere between 10-20% efficient. I think the way to go would be a solar collector, like the Archimedes death ray, but much much bigger.
The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why not✠Rooftop solar on peopleâs houses? You bet! Geothermal? If local conditions are favourable to it, absolutely!
Instead of a small number of massive power plants that only governments or really large corporations can operate individuals can generate the power for themselves, or companies can offset their costs by generating a little power, or cities can operate a smaller plant to power what operations in their city arenât handled by other means. Itâs not a one-size-fits-all approach.
This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but havenât yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. Theyâre one-size-fits-all by definition, and only have the ability to operate alongside other modes with the other modes filling in a small amount around the edges.
That is already a thing and itâs called concentrated solar power. Basically aim a shit load of mirrors at a target to heat it, run some working fluid through the target and use that to make steam to turn a turbine. There are a few power plants that use it but in general it has been more finicky and disruptive to the local environment than traditional PV panels would be.
Pumped hydro? Or one of the many other non battery storage options, or just over production
Pumped hydro requires a specific sort of place and not sure thereâs enough of them for most countries to rely on.
How viable is pumped hydro? It would be good if feasible, but last I checked, there were not enough places where you can install them.
Redox flow, sodium ion, iron air, etc.
There are some 600+ current chemical-based battery technologies out there.
Hell for me, once sodium is cracked, that shit is so abundant that production wouldnât have many bottlenecks to get started.
Will Li-ion battery companies let that happen? They want profit, which means they want to keep the high battery cost.
Weâre not gonna make any of those targets. Make peace with that and prepare accordingly. Pick a shitty future. Mad Max at worst, Elysium at best.
AMOC collapse, Carbon Sinks failing. Weâre boned. Cooked. Soon to be roasted. If our Govtâs ever react at all, itâll be far too little far too late by the time they do.
Fuck I wish the politicians would give this to us straight like that.
Why is Alboâs party spreading memes about three eyed fish instead of saying âyeah Duttonâs nuclear plan is safe, but it maximises fossil fuel use in the short term and weâd prefer to focus on renewablesâ
Itâs unsafe, not renewable, not independent from natural resources (which might not be present in your country, so you need to buy from dictators) and last but not least crazy expensive.
Need to buy from dictators?
I didnât realize Australia and Canada who has highest uranium reserves are dictators. Canada also used to be highest uranium producer until relatively recently.
There is no need. Though Kazakhstan and Russia may be cheapest if youâre near there.
