4 ms·
I think all of those are not really true when we are thinking about modern plants that you would build if you were really serious. If you really go into nuclea
by nickik 5y ago
I think all of those are not really true when we are thinking about modern plants that you would build if you were really serious.
If you really go into nuclear today you would try to use something like Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt reactor or something like that.
- Nuclear kills less people, that is worth some tiny risk
- Nuclear waste is actually a resource for the future. You can get things like nuclear batteries, medical isotopes and so on. Not to mention reusing the fuel in next generation reactors.
- Nuclear plants take ages to build because they are big, next generation reactors are 10-20x smaller
- Next generation Nuclear reactors are built underground and have a very strong defense on top. In war time you could reinforce that. That said, for most nation that matters, this is not a huge concern.
> I cannot fathom why nuclear is preferred to a safe, distributed, clean grid of solar panels.
Because its reliable and produces energy even if a vulcano covers the sun and you have a few days without win. It gives you power when and where you need it, no need for a gigantic storage and transmission infrastructure. Maximum reuse of existing infrastructure.
> Maybe one day when humanity is a space faring race we could look to nuclear to support us then, but using nuclear on earth today is a bad decision.
That crazy. Just based on first principle nuclear is the best and most dense energy source. We can use it with 60s tech, and we could do much better today. Why would we only use it in some far future when the technology exists now.
- oezi 5y agoNuclear at this point is dead in the water. The upward trajectory of renewables is so strong that building nuclear plants is no longer viable. If anybody would change course now and start planning and building new nuclear plants it will be at least 10 years before these go online. By this time wind and solar will be another magnitude cheaper and nuclear will not be able to compete.
- nickik 5y agoSo your logic is, only wind and solar can improve and nuclear can never improve.
- oezi 5y agoI certainly can improve but it hasn't. Rather each year it has gotten longer to build reactors and more expensive. The trajectory is so negative that I am pessimistic it could match solar and wind at this point.
- nickik 5y agoFor a long time, one had every possible advantage and has been given massive subsidies and regulatory requirement. Its of course different from country to country but the basic story is the same in most of the western world. Germany has spend billions over billions on the green transition for 20 years. Had Germany used the exact same money, to build as many reactor as possible as fast as possible and put them right next to existing coal plants they would likely be much further along. Nuclear potential is insane. Like, just look at energy density. Nothing has as much energy density. And based on first principle, the total amount of resources required to do the transition with nuclear, is massively smaller then anything else. Giving it the best possible shot and fullest possible support in the situation we are in, is just absolutely necessary.