4 ms·
If only we had the technology and ability to produce enormous quantities of energy non-stop 24/7 365, no matter day or night wind or no wind.
by cloudie78 2mo ago
If only we had the technology and ability to produce enormous quantities of energy non-stop 24/7 365, no matter day or night wind or no wind.
- throwitaway222 2mo agoBUT NUKES! All jokes aside, yes, we should invest massively in nuclear.
- shafyy 2mo agoNo we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.
- bcrl 2mo agoDeaths per terawatt-hour of nuclear is still lower than any fossil fuel per https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
- fragmede 2mo agoWe absolutely will solve it. That's called fusion.
- hocuspocus 2mo agoYou don't even need that. Fast breeder reactors are enough.
- teravor 2mo agowhile at it you might as well argue for highly enriched fuel for compact SMRs. the politics of the threat of proliferation kills it in the crib.
- hocuspocus 2mo agoI'm fine with this, recent geopolitical events showed that proliferation might have deterred the world's biggest bullies.
- rgmerk 2mo agoI've no doubt that fusion will be solved, technically. I am hugely skeptical that it will be solved economically given that it suffers from many of the problems currently pricing coal and nuclear out of the market.
- google234123 2mo agoNuclear material literally came out of the ground...m you can put it back..we have literally infinite amount of rock under us
- harimau777 2mo agoThe problem is keeping it out of the water table.
- laughing_man 2mo agoNuclear waste isn't a problem. It takes up a tiny amount of space, and can be reprocessed if necessary.
- bell-cot 2mo agoNuclear's top 3 problems: 1. Any equipment or substance that is both nuclear and potentially dangerous has some sort of magical mutant super-power to stimulate superhumanly idiotic behavior in a non-trivial fraction of the people handling/operating/managing the equipment or substance. That behavior is almost always coupled with pathological denials - both from the mutant super-idiots and their supposedly non-mutant peers. 2. General population humans are quite aware of problem #1, hence extremely distrustful when any human experts or organizations try to reassure them as to the safety of anything nuclear. 3. That "reprocessing" ain't nothing resembling "put on a lead apron and pour it through a coffee filter". Instead, it's a quagmire of chemicals and processes that'd still be horrific if nothing nuclear was involved, plus weapon proliferation overtones, plus all the problems noted in 1. and 2. above.
- laughing_man 2mo agoNuclear's top 3 problems: 1. Plant construction is very expensive, and not in small part because people who don't actually understand the technology take every opportunity to tie up construction in the courts and regulatory agencies. 2. General population of humans are quite aware of #1, so even though they know nuclear wins on a technology basis, they know it will be unduly expensive, preferring to knuckle under to the mob instead of doing the right thing. 3. People not familiar with the technology don't realize that while we don't generally do reprocessing in the west, it's primarily due to cost, and that Japan will start reprocessing 800 tonnes of fuel per year starting next year. The technology is the safest way we have to generate power, and could be the lowest cost if the regulatory environment was adjusted properly. It's just a shame there are so many people who are irrationally opposed.
- bell-cot 2mo agoSounds like anyone who needs actual, delivered, at-scale power (in the real world) should immediately adopt an "Anything But Nukes" policy. Vs. those with both the unquenchable zeal and bottomless resources to win a multi-decade crusade to prove that they're Ultimately Right (but no short-term need for electrical power) should embark on an epic quest...
- hocuspocus 2mo agoNuclear waste is a nice problem to have, and fairly simple compared to most pollution sources associated with our lifestyle. No need to worry though, on the current trajectory I doubt our civilization will have the opportunity to deal with it.
- 0x457 2mo agoIts literally solved decades years ago.
- graeme 2mo agoWe also haven't solve carbon waste, and carbon waste seems like a dramatically larger problem than nuclear waste. Not considering this tradeoff has led to much carbon waste.
- throwitaway222 2mo agoWe absolutely should invest in nuclear. We won't have enough with solar anymore. AI and EVs alone have blown our projections off by 1000x at this point. Can't put the genie back in the bottle either. I'm not saying there are no risks, but if we don't start making more nuclear power companies, Elon will and he will go from $1T to $8T. Who am I kidding, he's probably the only one that can turn them around in 2yrs with nextgen tech. Everyone else is going to keep faking it and build them in 20 years for 100x budget.
- rgmerk 2mo agoNuclear reactors across the US and Europe have been a complete project management omnishambles and consequently have been massively costly and massively late. SMRs are vapourware and are similarly economically uncompetitive. Just build solar, wind, and batteries, and we'll worry about solving for the last 15% of electricity demand when that is actually a live problem (for which there are solutions that don't involve nuclear power and don't rely on magic beans being invented).
- hocuspocus 2mo agoLarge-scale offshore wind projects in Europe are now nearly as slow and sometimes more expensive than nuclear. Solar + batteries are still not enough for countries that have long and grey winters.
- rgmerk 2mo agoCite your sources. While there have been cost increases in offshore wind projects in recent years, they remain well under nuclear costs as far as I’ve been able to find. I’d add that any new nuclear projects, if anyone is courageous enough to attempt them, are likely to face similar cost increases because many of the same factors apply to them.
- harimau777 2mo agoThe problem is that the people who want to build nuclear plants are precisely the people I don't trust to build nuclear plants. Personally, I think we should look at a structure similar to the military for running the plants. No profit motive, enlistment terms, court martial, stigma associated with dishonourable discharge, veterans benefits, etc. The military is the only one I know of with a track record in nuclear energy that I would trust.
- Timon3 2mo ago24/7 365 - unless it gets warm, of course. Luckily that's not going to be- oh no