4 ms·

I doubt this day will come. The technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies. Time to move on and ca

I doubt this day will come. The technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies. Time to move on and care about the radioactive remains of this technology from the past.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies This is totally untrue. Presently, in advanced economies, it’s cheaper to build solar and wind. If those economics change, what’s deployed will as well. (Or a country risks fuckup à la Deutschland.)
- Krasnol 3y ago
  "Totally untrue"? Just face the facts...https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr... it's over. > If those economics change How are those economics supposed to change? Prices for renewables keep on falling, while those for nuclear never stopped rising. You should come up with some sources for those claims far away from reality... And what "fuckup" is this supposed to be? Germany build 7.9 Megawatt only solar in 7 months this year, and it's just the beginning after 16 years of stagnation. Wake up. https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduktion-sonne-solaranlagen-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduk... https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-gaspreis-spritpreis-energieversorgung https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-ga...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How are those economics supposed to change? With better technology. Again, we agree that right now we should be deploying solar and wind. But because it’s cheapest. The anti-nukes didn’t win, economics did. (Again, case in point Germany versus America.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      What is this "better technology"? It's nowhere to be seen, SMRs are even more expensive. So what are you talking about? Sure, did anti-nukes win. They forced the exit in Germany and the growth of renewables. Huge German subsidies pushed development of renewables for years and made it cheaper for the rest of the world AS A RESULT. You can lie to yourself about it, but it won't change the facts. True environmentalists won. Fake ones like Shellenberger lost.
      - epistasis 3y ago
        I agree with your assessment, but there is still some chance that there's a big innovation in nuclear that we can't foresee. Sure, it's been around nearly three quarters of a century, but there is a chance. People in the industry have not been focused on innovation, so there has not been much exploration of the space, and honestly even going back to the pre-TMI era it wasn't about driving down costs as much as massive projects. Battery tech was stagnant for a long long time before the current decades-long innovation push in lithium ion. I think we could see something like this for nuclear, especially if they get away from thermal conversion to electricity and figure out direct conversion of some sort (this is pure sci-fi right now!) I'm not hopeful, and it won't happen soon, but the space has not been fully explored, IMHO, so there's a non-zero chance oh something disruptive. Perhaps not with the current on the table proposals at the SMR startups, but outside of that there is room for a shakeup. Let's check again in the 2060s or 2080s we'll have something fantastic.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > People in the industry have not been focused on innovatio What are you talking about? Countries all over the world threw BILLIONS at exactly this, and what came out in the end is...hilarious. If we'd have thrown the same kind of money on battery tech, we'd already have surpassed lithium-ion. This is what it's about: you can spend every dollar only once, and there is no sane reason to throw a single dollar at nuclear when there is renewable energy, batteries, recycling, etc..

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies This is totally untrue. Presently, in advanced economies, it’s cheaper to build solar and wind. If those economics change, what’s deployed will as well. (Or a country risks fuckup à la Deutschland.)

Krasnol 3y ago
"Totally untrue"? Just face the facts...https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr... it's over. > If those economics change How are those economics supposed to change? Prices for renewables keep on falling, while those for nuclear never stopped rising. You should come up with some sources for those claims far away from reality... And what "fuckup" is this supposed to be? Germany build 7.9 Megawatt only solar in 7 months this year, and it's just the beginning after 16 years of stagnation. Wake up. https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduktion-sonne-solaranlagen-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduk... https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-gaspreis-spritpreis-energieversorgung https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-ga...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How are those economics supposed to change? With better technology. Again, we agree that right now we should be deploying solar and wind. But because it’s cheapest. The anti-nukes didn’t win, economics did. (Again, case in point Germany versus America.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    What is this "better technology"? It's nowhere to be seen, SMRs are even more expensive. So what are you talking about? Sure, did anti-nukes win. They forced the exit in Germany and the growth of renewables. Huge German subsidies pushed development of renewables for years and made it cheaper for the rest of the world AS A RESULT. You can lie to yourself about it, but it won't change the facts. True environmentalists won. Fake ones like Shellenberger lost.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      I agree with your assessment, but there is still some chance that there's a big innovation in nuclear that we can't foresee. Sure, it's been around nearly three quarters of a century, but there is a chance. People in the industry have not been focused on innovation, so there has not been much exploration of the space, and honestly even going back to the pre-TMI era it wasn't about driving down costs as much as massive projects. Battery tech was stagnant for a long long time before the current decades-long innovation push in lithium ion. I think we could see something like this for nuclear, especially if they get away from thermal conversion to electricity and figure out direct conversion of some sort (this is pure sci-fi right now!) I'm not hopeful, and it won't happen soon, but the space has not been fully explored, IMHO, so there's a non-zero chance oh something disruptive. Perhaps not with the current on the table proposals at the SMR startups, but outside of that there is room for a shakeup. Let's check again in the 2060s or 2080s we'll have something fantastic.
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        > People in the industry have not been focused on innovatio What are you talking about? Countries all over the world threw BILLIONS at exactly this, and what came out in the end is...hilarious. If we'd have thrown the same kind of money on battery tech, we'd already have surpassed lithium-ion. This is what it's about: you can spend every dollar only once, and there is no sane reason to throw a single dollar at nuclear when there is renewable energy, batteries, recycling, etc..