5 ms·

I've noticed there are a lot of people on this site who favor nuclear energy. Given that it's just a technology choice, and that there are much cheaper [1], fa

I've noticed there are a lot of people on this site who favor nuclear energy. Given that it's just a technology choice, and that there are much cheaper [1], faster, options available I wonder why? --- [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quI_8xYSWYE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quI_8xYSWYE

petercooper 3y ago
A good video! Just to attempt a potentially frivolous answer to your question, the "race" in her video is about economic factors and this is often not particularly interesting to engineering minded folks, whereas nuclear power has all sorts of fun challenges, options, and processes going on. It's more interesting, perhaps, even if it's not the best option in a pragmatic sense.
- JohnCClarke 3y ago
  TBH: That's I think too!
mrguyorama 3y ago
There is a pervasive narrative in certain groups that renewables fundamentally cannot do "the job" of providing power for all of humanity. They cherry pick issues from current small scale deployments, ignore all the times and places it works just fine, and claim that only nuclear can handle our needs without reducing our way of life. This is done at least by some in order to attempt to get funding redirected away from solar and wind and storage projects and research into the money pit of nuclear power plants and research. They do this because they actually care about having to rely on fossil fuels for as long as possible. This is why a lot of conservatives in Texas believe their winter storm horrors were caused by wind turbines, which they often call "windmills" for some reason, even though if you call a magazine "a clip" they will rip your head off and complain that you shouldn't be allowed to make policy about something you don't understand.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Wait, I'm confused. In countries with heavy renewables investment in Europe, there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it, and there are days when the wind doesn't blow quite as much so they have to import energy instead. That is a fact, right? Not some right wing propaganda. So if we know this is a fact, how can we address the fact that renewables dip below what we need from time to time? How do you handle the baseload? I don't think that's "cherrypicking" - more like a fundamental issue that as far as I can see has only couple ways of being addressed - either have plants that run on fossil fuels, or.....nuclear power. Out of the two, nuclear wins easily when it comes to environmental cost, no? Like....is literally anything I said in any way controversial?
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    At least one thing you said is a bit bizarre: > there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it "Oh no! Our power generation is making so much energy that we have to sell even more of it and make even more money! What a disaster!" You do get that power companies want to make money, right?
    - gambiting 3y ago
      And you do get that you completely failed to address anything that I asked, instead launching into a seque about something you've made up entirely in your head since I never said energy surplus is a bad thing? And no, I really don't want you to continue debating this point - I'd like you to answer my original question thank you.
      - olddustytrail 3y ago
        Ok, nuclear is not dispatchable and therefore sucks at coping with spikes in generation or demand. You need either gas turbine (responds in minutes), hydro (seconds) or battery (milliseconds). "Base load" is not a good thing, it's a "this is useless for anything else, so all we can use it for is base load" thing. Does that answer your question?

petercooper 3y ago

A good video! Just to attempt a potentially frivolous answer to your question, the "race" in her video is about economic factors and this is often not particularly interesting to engineering minded folks, whereas nuclear power has all sorts of fun challenges, options, and processes going on. It's more interesting, perhaps, even if it's not the best option in a pragmatic sense.

JohnCClarke 3y ago
TBH: That's I think too!

mrguyorama 3y ago

There is a pervasive narrative in certain groups that renewables fundamentally cannot do "the job" of providing power for all of humanity. They cherry pick issues from current small scale deployments, ignore all the times and places it works just fine, and claim that only nuclear can handle our needs without reducing our way of life. This is done at least by some in order to attempt to get funding redirected away from solar and wind and storage projects and research into the money pit of nuclear power plants and research. They do this because they actually care about having to rely on fossil fuels for as long as possible. This is why a lot of conservatives in Texas believe their winter storm horrors were caused by wind turbines, which they often call "windmills" for some reason, even though if you call a magazine "a clip" they will rip your head off and complain that you shouldn't be allowed to make policy about something you don't understand.

gambiting 3y ago
Wait, I'm confused. In countries with heavy renewables investment in Europe, there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it, and there are days when the wind doesn't blow quite as much so they have to import energy instead. That is a fact, right? Not some right wing propaganda. So if we know this is a fact, how can we address the fact that renewables dip below what we need from time to time? How do you handle the baseload? I don't think that's "cherrypicking" - more like a fundamental issue that as far as I can see has only couple ways of being addressed - either have plants that run on fossil fuels, or.....nuclear power. Out of the two, nuclear wins easily when it comes to environmental cost, no? Like....is literally anything I said in any way controversial?
- olddustytrail 3y ago
  At least one thing you said is a bit bizarre: > there are days when they make so much energy they have to export it "Oh no! Our power generation is making so much energy that we have to sell even more of it and make even more money! What a disaster!" You do get that power companies want to make money, right?
  - gambiting 3y ago
    And you do get that you completely failed to address anything that I asked, instead launching into a seque about something you've made up entirely in your head since I never said energy surplus is a bad thing? And no, I really don't want you to continue debating this point - I'd like you to answer my original question thank you.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      Ok, nuclear is not dispatchable and therefore sucks at coping with spikes in generation or demand. You need either gas turbine (responds in minutes), hydro (seconds) or battery (milliseconds). "Base load" is not a good thing, it's a "this is useless for anything else, so all we can use it for is base load" thing. Does that answer your question?