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

World News

39142 readers
2650 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
[–] Relo@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (21 children)

Why go nuclear when renewable is so much cheaper, safer, future proof and less centralised?

Don't get me wrong. Nuclear is better than coal and gas but it will not safe our way of life.

Just like the electric car is here to preserve the car industry not the planet, nuclear energy is still here to preserve the big energy players, not our environment.

[–] flipht@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Renewable instead of nuclear, but nuclear instead of coal.

We need a mix. Centralization isn't the biggest problem. Literally anything we can do to reduce emissions is worth doing, and we won't be going 100% on anything, so best to get started on the long term projects now so that we can stop turning on new plants based on combustion.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if it takes 2 decades to get a new plant going, it's a nuclear plant's worth of fossil fuels we don't need any more, and therefore worth doing.

If it isn't fossil fuels, it's automatically better.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The main problem with nuclear power plants isn't the radiation or the waste or the risk of accident. It's that they cost so damn much they're rarely profitable, especially in open electricity markets. 70-80% of the cost of the electricity is building the plant, and without low interest rates and a guaranteed rate when finished it doesn't make economic sense to build them.

The latest nuclear plant in the US is in Georgia and is $17 billion over budget and seven years later than expected.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s that they cost so damn much

The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.

rarely profitable

Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn't able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.

And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren't killing the planet.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won't come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Isn't a lot of that due to organization structures in US power Markets? I remember reading that a lot of times costs on electrical power go nuts due to near fraudulent managers.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear plants are immensely profitable, just not on time scales politicians are interested in. You're deep in the red for 10-20 years and then after that it prints money

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So after 10-20 years of construction and cost overruns and 10-20 years of operating at a loss you start making money.

And that's assuming electricity rates don't drop in that time. Which they are as renewables get deployed more and more because they don't go 100% over budget in time and money.

If we get started building nuclear power plants now, how much will storage and transmission tech improve before they're even completed, let alone profitable?

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not 10-20 years of construction AND 10-20 years at a loss, it's 10-20 years of construction at a loss. Not great, but up to 40 years as you suggest sounds a lot worse because it's a misrepresentation.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

How long do you think it will take for a nuclear power plant to earn back the $34 billion it takes to build one? They're definitely not making that much money the first year the plant is online.

[–] cloud@lazysoci.al 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No we don't, you can use only renewables and just cut the useless spending

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We can and should be doing both. Use the money our governments are giving to fossil fuels in subsidies. $7 trillion PER YEAR (that's 11 million every minute) in public subsidies go to fossil fuels. Channel that to nuclear and renewables and there's more than enough to decarbonise the grids with both short- and long-term solutions.

What we definitely should not be doing is closing perfectly working nuclear power plants.

[–] JonDorfman@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Power generation and power use need to be synchronous. Renewables generate power at rates outside of our control. In order to smooth out that generation and bring a level of control back to power distribution we would need a place to store all the energy. Our current methods are not dense enough and are extremely disruptive/damaging to the environment. Nuclear gives us a steady and predictable base level of generation that we can control. Which would make it so we don’t need to pump vast quantities of water into massive manmade reservoirs or build obnoxiously large batteries.

[–] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nuclear (with the exception of France because they're special) is limited to being a base load as you alluded, but power demand varies throughout the day. Nuclear can't vary on a 24 hour scale to follow the load so we need renewables and energy storage or hydroelectric to make up the difference. That's what "nuclear OR renewables" misses

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I can't imagine a future without solar, wind, and nuclear power.

not unless we find out we are wrong about thermodynamics.

[–] freecandy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wind and Solar are "renewable" to a certain scale. If you dump gigantic wind farm in the middle of a jet stream, for example, you can impact downstream climate cycles.

[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

that's why we could be aware of all the externalities.

solar could be deployed on the ocean but that will certainly lower sea temperatures.

let's terraform intentionally rather than just accidentally.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

You don't need to imagine a future without nuclear in the mix - there are plenty of places doing fine with renewables and without coal or nuclear right now.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Yeah, the cost is the real downside to Nuclear. However, for every Nuclear plant running, that’s a lot of batteries it other energy storage that don’t have to be built today in order to have clean energy. Because even if we were utilizing nuclear like we should, we would still need to be building a shit ton of batteries to keep the cost of energy coming down.

[–] Relo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 2 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/0kahih8RT1k?si=PMtmP4edaGDcMy-R

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] psoul@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

For what I’ve read, it’s beats nuclear tech exists and is ready to be built at scale now. Renewables are intermittent in nature and need energy storage to work at scale. We don’t have the tech for a grid wide energy storage.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Because it gets dark and the wind stops blowing and industry still operates when those things happen. Nuclear is not a forever solution, but a necessary stop-gap.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not actually required at all though, thats all FUD from the big energy monopoly that hate anything that can be owned and run by people that aren't them - there are endless options for making a stable grid using renewables and they're all considerably cheaper, quicker to make and a lot more resilient.

Nuclear gets pushed so hard because it protects the billionaires monopoly that's the only reason.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Relo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes renewables need to come with storage.

[–] Cylusthevirus@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Storage technology isn't there yet. Nuclear is. The only viable approach is "all of the above." Anything less is foolishness and oil industry propaganda.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And where do you think all the materials for that come from? Eind turbines, solar panels and batteries require huge amounts of (rare) earth materials that need to be dug up in very -let's say ugly- mines.. lithium for example, is now the core component for most of our batteries and lithium mines are polluting as hell. If we want to have all the lithium we need for all of our storage capacity, well need to destroy beautiful places like the Atacama desert because if we don't we won't have enough lithium.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The rare in 'rare earth' is not related to scarcity, many of the most common elements in the crust are 'rare earth materials' lithium is a great example because it's hugely abundant especially in salt water where it can be extracted at the same time as desalination - which is especially good paired with wind and solar because it can rapidly switch power usage so excess energy at peek times can be used which helps stabilise the grid, then when generation is low it can pause to conserve power. Also ideal for placement directly tied to solar where sun and saltwater are plentiful, such as the equator.

The other good thing is that lithium is infinitely recyclable and battery tech keeps evolving to require less of it in its chemistry. Theres endless other battery technologies and energy storage methods available too, lithium is great for cars and phones because of the energy density but for grid tied storage that's not really an issue.

load more comments (14 replies)