5 ms·

I don't understand why we are still obsessed with Nuclear. Nuclear produces toxic waste, plants are costly and take years to start functioning. Compare that wi

I don't understand why we are still obsessed with Nuclear. Nuclear produces toxic waste, plants are costly and take years to start functioning. Compare that with what Tesla Energy did with the electric stabilising grid in Australia, within 100 days! For a solar plant all you need to do is deploy panels and battery. Nothing else. And yet lobbyists, I presume, will advocate clean coal, clean petrol and whatever clean thing they are probably paid to market.

RealityVoid 8y ago
Nuclear has obvious advantages as a network baseline and if you think about it all energy is nuclear. Also, usually the choice posed is not nuclear or solar, it's nuclear vs coal. And, from my point of view,(although this might sound like an insane, non-pragmatic issue I am thinking about) if we, as a species ever want to become a multiplanetary species, mastering nuclear is a must. That way we will be able to create our own, micro-solar system wherever we will go.
- justatdotin 8y ago
  > usually the choice posed is not nuclear or solar, it's nuclear vs coal. usually? historically. sure last century that was the choice. Today, no one in their right mind would build either a nuclear or a coal plant. in my part of the world, there is no coal, no nuclear, only solar and gas. And the solar is cheaper than the gas. Coal and nuclear cant get a look in, and no one is going to build a new gas plant. But new solar is popping up all around me, at block, microgrid and array scale.
  - thewhitetulip 8y ago
    Exactly. We need solar because it is distributed. For nuclear we need a lot of money, and it is dangerous. Coal is horrible. Solar is cheap and much better
- lispm 8y ago
  > obvious advantages as a network baseline Given that they are currently large centralized reactors with very little flexibility, combining them with distributed solar makes no sense.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
akvadrako 8y ago
Do you know what electric stabilising is? It's mostly there to keep the frequency stable. Nuclear is for base load power.
- thewhitetulip 8y ago
  I know what stabilising is, the fact that I clearly mentioned it should've told you that right? And I am not trolling anyone, I'd like to know if Nuclear could be as cheap and quick to implement as Solar projects? And also, we remember Chernobyl right? It is now a solar plant! And Australia is now thinking to setup solar for base power, eventually we will have solar for base power too and it'll still be much cheaper and safer than nuclear!
StreamBright 8y ago
You know what batteries are? Toxic waste. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2482910/technology-law-regulation/lithium-ion-batteries--high-tech-s-latest-mountain-of-waste.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2482910/technology-law...

RealityVoid 8y ago

Nuclear has obvious advantages as a network baseline and if you think about it all energy is nuclear. Also, usually the choice posed is not nuclear or solar, it's nuclear vs coal. And, from my point of view,(although this might sound like an insane, non-pragmatic issue I am thinking about) if we, as a species ever want to become a multiplanetary species, mastering nuclear is a must. That way we will be able to create our own, micro-solar system wherever we will go.

justatdotin 8y ago
> usually the choice posed is not nuclear or solar, it's nuclear vs coal. usually? historically. sure last century that was the choice. Today, no one in their right mind would build either a nuclear or a coal plant. in my part of the world, there is no coal, no nuclear, only solar and gas. And the solar is cheaper than the gas. Coal and nuclear cant get a look in, and no one is going to build a new gas plant. But new solar is popping up all around me, at block, microgrid and array scale.
- thewhitetulip 8y ago
  Exactly. We need solar because it is distributed. For nuclear we need a lot of money, and it is dangerous. Coal is horrible. Solar is cheap and much better
lispm 8y ago
> obvious advantages as a network baseline Given that they are currently large centralized reactors with very little flexibility, combining them with distributed solar makes no sense.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

akvadrako 8y ago

Do you know what electric stabilising is? It's mostly there to keep the frequency stable. Nuclear is for base load power.

thewhitetulip 8y ago
I know what stabilising is, the fact that I clearly mentioned it should've told you that right? And I am not trolling anyone, I'd like to know if Nuclear could be as cheap and quick to implement as Solar projects? And also, we remember Chernobyl right? It is now a solar plant! And Australia is now thinking to setup solar for base power, eventually we will have solar for base power too and it'll still be much cheaper and safer than nuclear!

StreamBright 8y ago

You know what batteries are? Toxic waste. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2482910/technology-law-regulation/lithium-ion-batteries--high-tech-s-latest-mountain-of-waste.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2482910/technology-law...