this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
259 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58431 readers
5110 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One kilogram of uranium produces more power than one hectare of solar panels does in two years.
Then there's the waste product to consider.
No, not from nuclear. That's an issue to be dealt with certainly, but I'm talking about the waste from the production and disposal of solar panels that is ongoing because they don't last forever.
Solar panels are mostly aluminum and glass and about 90% recyclable. More importantly, they are inert and not radioactive.
You can't seriously compare nuclear waste to solar panels.
Maybe they're 90% recyclable, but 90% of decommissioned solar panels are not recycled and end up in landfills. The silver lining of nuclear waste storage being limited is we recycle the heck out of it. I guess solar does have a better solution already, though.
I'm not comparing them, I'm saying that it's inaccurate to ignore the effects that solar has.
The chemicals in producing PV panels are toxic. Part of why production got shifted to countries like China is because without regulation on the waste disposal they are so much cheaper to make there. Sucks for the residents, but that's capitalism.
Energy is used to make PV. True of everything, but when solar is advertised it leans heavy on the free energy that the device generates, not how much it took to make it. But at least that energy can come from solar too...except it comes from fossil fuels.
The heavy metals that make up part of the other 10% are the later waste problem. I don't know if you can consider those metals inert since they are considered hazardous waste, but they can't be discounted either. A recycling program to recover everything possible and then controlling the hazardous leftovers would make this less of a point, but we're not doing that fully yet, so there are things going in the landfills now that could leach into the environment.
All of this can be improved of course. I'm just introducing the fact that solar, like anything we do to keep our society at its level, has drawbacks too.
Nuclear has its problems, as I mentioned. I didn't pretend that solar is bad and nuclear is all flowers. But the issues it faces are much different and have their own solutions, and nuclear energy density and flexibility is far better than solar ever could be.
I never understand why people pick their sides and then try to make other choices seem like the antithesis to help their cause. Why not find the best solutions for all of the non-fossil fuel sources, and have them all where they make the most sense? Diversity and redundancy is far better than a monopoly won by falsehoods.
The market found the best solution: renewables.
You are the one here arguing we should be doing nuclear. You are the person here with an agenda.
Of course the market selected renewables as the favored child. "Renewable" and "green" are marketing terms, as is "net zero" and "recycling". I'm not here with any agenda, I just brought up some points about environmental damage that solar can do on both sides of its existence. I guess I ruffled some feathers.
Did you miss my points about having some of both? Or did you just read the first few lines and rage post? I figured this was a forum where we could discuss the pros and cons of all sides, not just hate on anyone with a differing view.
👀
The restrictions on nuclear fuel recycling might be lifted soon, so that argument may very well become moot as well.
Now do the math on the cost of that uranium and the facility you need to turn it into power compared to the cost of the solar.
If you think cost isn't the primary factor in all energy production ... 🤷♂️
Edit: not to mention all the essentially free developed space we already have in spades to deploy solar to: rooftops.
Utility-scale solar comes out to around US$0.06 per kWh (source). Nuclear power comes out to US$0.07 per kWh (source).
Commercial-scale solar costs US$0.11 per kWh. Residential rooftop solar comes out to US$0.16 per kWh.
Edit: This does not take into account the cost of battery capacity or pumped-storage hydroelectric solutions, which are necessary for solar solutions but not nuclear ones. Lithium-ion battery storage costs US$139 per kWh. You'd need at least 500 MWh to accommodation a medium-size city, which would cost US$70 million. If you get 5,000 charge cycles out of the battery, this adds an additional US$0.03 per kWh.
Whoa real information
All of which ignores lots of real world factors that aren't being included in the costs the commenter outlines.
Again, if nuclear were cheaper, you wouldn't all be here downvoting my comments, you'd be discussing all the great new nuclear being onlined.
Renewables have won. They're cheaper and easier to deploy, they're distributed rather than concentrated, and they have lower impacts on the environment.
FWIW: I thought thorium reactors might have had some legs in the 00s, but it became clear those didn't make fiscal sense, either.
It does not ignore any information.
The cost per kWh is the totality of all information. It is the end product. That is the total costs of everything divided by the number of kilowatt-hours of electricity produced.
I understand that you're deeply invested in this argument, but you've lost. You're repeating the same claim over and over, and when proven wrong, you just said "nuh uh" and pretended that nothing I said is true.
Nuclear energy can be cheaper than solar or wind. It is more reliable than solar and wind. It uses less land than solar or wind. All of these are known facts. That's why actual scientists support expanding nuclear energy 2 to 1.
But people will still dislike it because they're scared of building the next Three Mile Island or Fukushima. That, as I explained, is the reason why fewer nuclear plants are being built. Because the scientists, the ones who know the most about these, are not in charge. Instead, it's the people in the last column that are calling the shots. Do not repeat this drivel of "iF nUcLeaR pOweR PlanTs So Good WhY aRen'T tHerE moRe of ThEM??". I have explained why. It is widely known why. Your refusal to accept reality does not make it less real.
That is the end of the argument. I will not respond to anything else you say, because it is clear to me that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. So go ahead, post your non-chalant reply with laughing emojis and three instances of "lol" or "lmao" and strut over the chessboard like you've won.
Because I don't give a pigeon's shit what you have to say any more.
Show me the line items for long term handling of the waste, please. I am curious how much they allocated.
Man, we could generate some good wind power with how fast those goalposts are moving!
You don't have to convince me, if you think it's such a great power source with such low costs you should pitch some investors.
I would think you would be the one trying to understand why nuclear plants aren't being built if their costs are lower and benefits are higher. 🤷♂️
We understand already. The reason is that people are scared by "omg nukes!'. It's the stigma, not unlike that against LGBTQ+ parlors, immigrants, anarchism, and putting dishes in the dishwasher without rinsing them first.
"The people" don't build NPPs, risk-adverse utility companies do. And while public opinion might matter in some countries, nuclear power is just 5% in China, compared to renewables at around 30%.
Yes, and that's my point: companies get significant pushback from people with internalized nucleoelectrophobia. I'm also not sure why we're comparing to China.
Because they don't give a shit what their people think. Yes, they are still building new coal and nuclear power plants, but it's being outpaced by renewables.
Being a dictatorship does not mean you don't care what the people think if it's not about taking away something substantial and potentially excusable from the people. Plus, there's sample size: there are a lot less dictatorships with the capability to build nuclear reactors than there are democracies with the same capabilities.
Even then, China generates the world's third most power from nuclear, being only a bit less than half of the US's output. The percentage is much lower because of just how much the nation depends on coal power.
So many twists and turns here!
Its alright i wasnt going to tell anyone i knew the best energy solution after reading lemmy comments. I haven't voted at all in this thread.
Nuclear definitely has a ton of commitment. It takes like 60 years to decommission one right?
The Trojan Nuclear Plant near my city was closed in 1992. They started moving stuff away in 2003. The cooling tower was demolished in 2006. The various other buildings were demolished in 2008. All that remains are some security posts and abandoned office buildings and empty tool sheds.
Yeah. Minimum is like 20. Note that stopping it from generating power is quite early in the decommissioning schedule.