5 ms·

Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too. I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the

Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too. I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas. The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.

fragmede 1y ago
why is the cost a problem in and of itself?
- funnym0nk3y 1y ago
  Because cost is an incentive to do or not to do things. You know, not everyone can have everything.
- lawn 1y ago
  Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.
  - bmicraft 1y ago
    If they'd pushed nuclear then whatever monetary support they could win over for their cause would reach a lot shorter.
  - oezi 1y ago
    Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).
lawn 1y ago
It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability. So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy. Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.
- energy123 1y ago
  > It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.
- funnym0nk3y 1y ago
  Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still. Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well. So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.
  - scuderiaseb 1y ago
    Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution. Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.
    - chneu 1y ago
      Battery recycling is a thing
    - hattmall 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
WithinReason 1y ago
Cost of nuclear is high due to low investment.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  You do know that nuclear power peaked at almost 20% of the global electricity mix in the 1990s? How many trillions should we hand out to the nuclear industry to try ”scale”?!?!?

fragmede 1y ago

why is the cost a problem in and of itself?

funnym0nk3y 1y ago
Because cost is an incentive to do or not to do things. You know, not everyone can have everything.
lawn 1y ago
Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.
- bmicraft 1y ago
  If they'd pushed nuclear then whatever monetary support they could win over for their cause would reach a lot shorter.
- oezi 1y ago
  Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).

lawn 1y ago

It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability. So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy. Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.

energy123 1y ago
> It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.
funnym0nk3y 1y ago
Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still. Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well. So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.
- scuderiaseb 1y ago
  Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution. Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.
  - chneu 1y ago
    Battery recycling is a thing
  - hattmall 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

WithinReason 1y ago

Cost of nuclear is high due to low investment.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
You do know that nuclear power peaked at almost 20% of the global electricity mix in the 1990s? How many trillions should we hand out to the nuclear industry to try ”scale”?!?!?