this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
660 points (69.4% liked)

Memes

45753 readers
1011 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 245 points 5 months ago (45 children)

Safe, sure. Efficient? Not even close.

It's 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 wouldn't even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.

There's 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 doesn't require much of a change from their current business model.

[–] manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml 32 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Photovoltaic cells are even less efficient, I think they're 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.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 14 points 5 months ago

That is already a thing and it's 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.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 11 points 5 months ago

The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why not‽ Rooftop solar on people's 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 aren't handled by other means. It's not a one-size-fits-all approach.

This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but haven't yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. They're 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.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

There are designs for a giant glass cone put in the middle of the desert. Air under the cone gets warmed and it rises up through a couple turbines on its way out of the device.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

But how do we produce enough batteries for renewable energy?

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Pumped hydro? Or one of the many other non battery storage options, or just over production

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Resonosity@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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 wouldn't have many bottlenecks to get started.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] imgcat@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Price driven consumption has been done by industrial users for decades. And countries like UK has been storing energy in storage heaters at home for decades as well. EVs can do wonders here.

[–] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 4 points 5 months ago

Fuck I wish the politicians would give this to us straight like that.

Why is Albo's party spreading memes about three eyed fish instead of saying "yeah Dutton's nuclear plan is safe, but it maximises fossil fuel use in the short term and we'd prefer to focus on renewables"

[–] RangerJosie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We're 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. We're boned. Cooked. Soon to be roasted. If our Govt's ever react at all, it'll be far too little far too late by the time they do.

load more comments (40 replies)