this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2185 points (94.1% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2347 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.

Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn't be discounted.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Which each have their drawbacks. Just as an example, though not representative of the majority, what do you do about months of no sun in the Arctic Circle for solar power? There is no single solution to this problem. Nuclear is better than fossil fuels by far, and we should not just throw it away out of fear.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

And yet nuclear has killed less than even wind. Obviously death is not the only factor, which is why it should be a combination of both.

Again, it's just an example. There are loads of situations where solar and wind just don't work — and they are both inconsistent, without battery technology nearly good enough to work on the order of days for an entire national grid, which could be potentially needed in the event of a storm.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but one which is much more easily contained and much less dangerous than the CO2 that's constantly being spewed into our air.

[–] EMPig@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (17 children)

And what do YOU know about radioactive waste disposal?

[–] Astrealix@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I know it's a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we're talking waste products. It's not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn't let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] radiosimian@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We can bury it in the ground and it will literally turn into lead. How are you doing with carbon emissions? Got a fix?

[–] EMPig@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I think it's photosynthesis. 'Bury in the ground' is an extreme simplification btw. Also, I am finished with this topic scince long anough. It feels politically biased. If you'd like to reply, I'd hear it gladly. But I m not going to be involved into a discussion.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] dojan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

My country, Sweden, also gets a decent chunk of power from hydro. Back in 2021, about 43% was hydroelectric, and 31% was nuclear.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage. If we could create a battery that doesn't just leak energy from storing, we could generate power in one location and ship it out where it's needed. There could be remote energy production plants using geothermal or hydroelectric power that ship out these charged batteries to locations all over. It would let us better utilize resources instead of having to have cities anchored around these sources.

Or we could generate a ton of power all at once, store it and use it as needed rather having to have on demand energy production

Hell with better batteries even fossil fuels begin to be climate friendly since you could store the massive energy created and know you're using close to 100% of it.

[–] Buelldozer 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It would be cool to see huge investments into battery storage.

Globally humanity already invests over 10 Billion dollars per year in advancing battery technology.

If we could create a battery that doesn’t just leak energy from storing...

In order to build what you are talking about will almost certainly require real room temperature super conductors. We can get close, maybe, with the next generation of Aluminum-Air or Iron-Air batteries but this is big pimping. It's incredibly complicated and difficult.

It's like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it's still some years, if not decades, away.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It’s like Fusion Power. We can see a future where we have it figured out and working but it’s still some years, if not decades, away.

Allow me to share the most frustrating graph I have ever seen

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

We could just use energy to fill a big hole with water and put plastic wrap over top until we need to get the energy back then we pump it through a dam.

Then profit.

Problem solved

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kind of an unconventional battery, but I've heard of solar and wind being used to pump water uphill into reservoirs and then released through a hydro plant when the sun/wind aren't shining/blowing. I'd be curious to know the amount of production lost from storing it this way.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I heard the loss comes from evaporation. Another cool idea I heard was using a mining cart. So its not practical but I think the idea is cook because I'm pretty science illiterate but it got me thinking about what a battery actually is. So you drag a mine cart up a hill with energy produced using renewable energy and then let it go down the hill and collect the stored energy with its motion. Technically there isn't anything like evaporation so you could store the mine cart up the hill with no energy loss.

[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting. Didn't consider the evaporation. I imagine friction could effect the minecarts, but no idea to what degree. Some loss is gonna happen so matter what. If I'm understanding correctly, even nuclear, built away from population centers, will lose some power due to transmission distances.

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Moving batteries seems like a terribly inefficient way of replacing power lines.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Power lines would still mean we need energy on demand though wouldn't it. And if we can transport energy from an area like a huge solar array in the Sahara to Kazakhstan or China it would be better. I was just raising it as an off thought like maybe theres more ways to think about solving this problem than just building plants. What level of storage ability could we have that would let us build a large solar array in the Sahara to power Africa and Europe vs just building more plants. I think our end goal will be energy storage and like you brought up transport/transmission. I think that because I think we have energy production pretty well solved

load more comments (14 replies)