this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
652 points (86.9% liked)

Science Memes

11068 readers
2875 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 3 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago)

But if the magic rocks (facility) cost more than creating energy from the water the magic rocks need for cooling...

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 hour ago

Anon is dumb. Anon forgets the nuclear waste. Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive. So much that energy won by these rocks is more expensive than wind energy and any other renewable.

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org 56 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

1000005010. Don't feed the troll 💩

[–] iii@mander.xyz 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

As long as you don't care when the electricity is produced

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 10 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Storage is a solvable problem. Whereas we don't have the resources to power the world with nuclear plants.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Storage is a solvable problem

I'm not convinced it is. Storage technologies exist for sure, but the general public seems to grossly underestimate the scale of storage required to match grid demand and renewables only production.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I think you underestimate how much storage power is currently being build and how many different technologies are available. In Germany alone there currently are 61 projects planed and in the approval phase boasting a combined 180 Gigawatts of potential power until 2030. Those of them that are meant to be build at old nuclear power plants (the grid connection is already available there) are expected to deliver 25% of the necessary storage capacity. In addition all electric vehicles that are assumed to be on the road until 2030 add another potential 100GW of power.

Of course these numbers are theoretical as not every EV will be connected to a bidirectional charger and surely some projects will fail or delay, however given the massive development in this sector and new, innovative tech (not just batteries but f.e. a concrete ball placed 800m below sea level, expected to store energy extremely well at 5.8ct / kilowatt) there's very much reason for optimism here.

It's also a funny sidenote that France, a country with a strong nuclear strategy, frequently buys power from Germany because it's so much cheaper.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 18 minutes ago) (1 children)

It's not just power that's needed (MW), also stored energy (MWh).

Germany consumes on average 1.4TWh of electricity a day (1). Imagine bridging even a short dunkelflaute of 2 days.

Worldwide lithium ion battery production is 4TWh a year (2).

It's also a funny sidenote that France, a country with a strong nuclear strategy, frequently buys power from Germany because it's so much cheaper.

Isn't that normal? The problems with renewables isn't that they generate cheap power, when they are generating. Today windmills even need to be equipped with remote shutdown, to prevent overproduction.

The problems arise when they aren't generating.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 minutes ago

The watthours is what gas is for. Germany's pipeline network alone, that's not including actual gas storage sites, can store three months of total energy usage.

...or at least that's the original plan, devised some 20 years ago, Fraunhofer worked it all out back then. It might be the case that banks of sodium batteries or whatnot are cheaper, but yeah lithium is probably not going to be it. Lithium's strength is energy density, both per volume and by weight, and neither is of concern for grid storage.

Imagine bridging even a short dunkelflaute of 2 days.

That's physically impossible for a place the size of Germany, much less Europe.

[–] Ooops@feddit.org 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Another important note about France: They are the second country alongside Germany heavily pushing for an upscaled green hydrogen market in the EU. Because -just like renewables- nuclear production doesn't match the demand pattern at all. Thus it's completely uneconomical without long-term storage.

The fact that we seem to constantly discuss nuclear vs. renewables is proof that it's mostly lobbying bullshit. Because in reality they don't compete. It's either renewables+short-term storage+long-term-term storage or renewables+nuclear+long-term storage. Those are the only two viable models.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 29 minutes ago* (last edited 27 minutes ago)

upscaled green hydrogen market

That's been the talk in town for 40 years now. Green hydrogen has never gotten beyond proof-of-concept.

The fact that we seem to constantly discuss nuclear vs. renewables is proof that it's mostly lobbying bullshit.

Sadly, it's because the political green parties available to me are anti-nuclear.

It's either renewables+short-term storage+long-term-term storage or renewables+nuclear+long-term storage.

Why is nuclear+short term storage not an option, according to you?

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 25 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

No it's about nuclear waste and where to store it, it's about how expensive it is to build a nuclear power plant (bc of regulations so they don't goo boom) and it's about how much you have to subsidize it to make the electricity it produces affordable at all. Economically it's just not worth it. Renewables are just WAY cheaper.

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 30 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Funny how people think waste is why we don't use nuclear power.

You noticed how we're all fine breathing in poison and carcinogens? Still haven't banned burning fossil fuels.

It's a money problem and a PR problem

[–] Hoimo@ani.social 1 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)

And much of the PR problem is related to waste. The main push towards alternative energy sources comes from people worried about the long term consequences of burning fossil fuels. These same people worry about the long term consequences of nuclear waste production, so nuclear sabotages itself on this front.

[–] el_abuelo@programming.dev 1 points 33 minutes ago

Exactly, bad PR.

Waste isn't actually much of a problem - it's just been portrayed as one.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 2 hours ago

No it's about nuclear waste and where to store it,

Is this video inaccurate? This isn't meant as a gotcha comment. https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

[–] beeng@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 5 hours ago

Fire's waste is just all particulates in the air which we all share.

[–] bouh@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

Renewable are so cheap, especially when we don't need as much energy! Fortunately we won't need as much energy in winter now. :-)

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 64 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Funny how nuclear power plants are taboo, but building thousands of nuclear warheads all over the globe is no issue.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 28 points 8 hours ago (7 children)

Funny how building nuclear power plants that can only (if you have dipshits running them) kill a nearby city is taboo, but climate change that will kill everyone is acceptable to the moralists.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 8 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Funny how solar, wind, and batteries are way cheaper and faster to build yet people are still talking about nuclear.

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

If only people weren't fearmongering about nuclear 50 years ago we'd have clean energy today.

"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, second best is now"

[–] Hoimo@ani.social 1 points 32 minutes ago

That saying works for trees. We didn't make trees obsolete with better technology.

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Stopping nuclear from being built is the problem.

We would have had a lot more clean energy than we do by now if we let the nuclear power plants that "would take too long to build!" be built back then, because they'd be up and running by now.

More letting perfect be the enemy of good.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 hour ago

Nuclear may have been good 10 years ago, but it isn’t really good anymore. This is like saying “if I had bought a PS2 in 2002 then I would have had fun playing Final Fantasy XI Online. Therefore, I should buy a PS2 and FFXI Online so I can have fun in 2024”. That ship has sailed

[–] bouh@lemmy.world -2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

A nuclear power plant cannot destroy a city.

[–] Batbro@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

I guess destroy != Make unlivable

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›