submitted 2 weeks ago by zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68257855

Nuclear is the best btw.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 1 points 2 weeks ago

Bruh.

Nuclear is capable of generating a ton of energy right besides where is used, renewables have to be transmitted absurdly long distances in most cases.

And mining is every day more automated, sending robots to dig down the materials, and even then, is not like renewables don't need mining also lol.

And yes, they test it, here they're smashing a train full speed to one of the canisters to test it's safety

[-] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Renewables for my house are on my roof. That's not far. My nearest solar farm is ten kilometres away, which is also close.

[-] Therms45@europe.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's beside the point. Nuclear isn't sustainable on the long run, period.And solar can potentially generate all the electricity needed and more by itself.

[-] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 0 points 2 weeks ago

it isn't, transmission is a complex thing to do lol, my country had a full blackout last year because a cascading failure caused by a transmission line.

Nuclear fuel will last long enough for us to both have nuclear fission and the capacity to space mine materials.

solar doesn't work in places that don't have land available to be turned into solar farms, here in chile they do a lot of solar, and cool melted salt solar too, but is far north in the Atacama and they have to bring it in, wich is a huge bottle neck, A nuclear power plant in Santiago would relieve a lot the strain in the grid.

[-] Therms45@europe.pub 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, transmission is a complex thing to do, and that's why more funds should used to improve research in that direction, rather than wasting hundreds of billions on ticking time bombs, so that mining company owners can get richer while making us sicker.

1 hour of sunlight that hits the sunlit hemisphere, contains enough energy to satisfy the needs of the whole planet for 1 year. That's how much solar is better than nuclear.

I really can't believe that in 2026, the idea of generating energy by boiling water, is still considered "advanced tech" just because they wanna use a different fuel. Lol

And no, solar doesn't need land.

[-] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Solar still uses boiling water, thermosolar at least, that has a lot of benefits over the photovoltaic cell, as it can generate energy steadily and even trough the night, here in chile they built cerro dominador, quite impressive thing.

it depends on the geography of the place, in my country it would be reasonably a huge challenge to build farms over the sea because of the geography of here (it's like a underwater cliff)

and still, I'm heavily pro renewables, but that doesn't I won't be pro nuclear also, both are crucial tech to de-carbonize the world.

[-] Therms45@europe.pub 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Photovoltaic is the future, it'sprettyy much unarguably the only technology that can create energy without moving parts or without any sort of burning.

You don't get any more futuristic than this. The only problem with photovoltaic and wind is that they've been actively boycotted.

Here in the UK energy providers habitually stop their own wind turbines just because otherwise the price of energy will get too low. That's how fucked up the system is. And nuclear is nothing more than an astute way for these capitalist pigs in control of the energy sector to keep making money from something that should be free already.

[-] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 0 points 2 weeks ago

I fully agree that solar will be the majority of electricity produced in the near future, but photovoltaic has the disadvantage of following the sun, and honestly, chermical batteries aren't really the solution (and I'm saying this when my country is one of the biggest lithium producers in the world) Gravity batteries are, but surprise surprise, they are water turbines and water pumps lol, they will last way longer than a chermical battery anyways.

Thermosolar has the molten salt as a buffer between the sun and the electricity, you can use it to produce energy steadily, even in the night, wich solves the problem of having to build gravity damns and the associated risk of them.

I'm confident studying mech, because it isn't going away anytime soon.

and yeah, I full agree that we need to reform the power grid and enact at least partial statization.

but still, nuclear is a good tech that can produce clean energy right where is needed, we shouldn't discard it just because renewables are quite O.P.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

chemical batteries are not the solution [because they have too short a life]

Thermosolar [is good because energy is stored in heat overnight]

The key is cost. Renewables and batteries are cheaper over any time period than thermal, much cheaper than any boiling water generator

[-] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

the case for grid-scale batteries is getting stronger every month:

the more people driving EVs the more used EV batteries will become available… EVs require a pretty good energy density, but grid storage can buy up a bunch of dirt cheap EV batteries with 60% capacity and call it a day, and then onsell them for recycling in 10 years for exactly the same price (because the raw materials are the same: recyclers don’t care if the battery has 100% or 60% or 50% max capacity)

other battery tech is also getting much more interesting, like sodium batteries. they don’t have the energy density of lithium, but they’re more durable and have less fire risk. they’re pretty ideal for grid-scale storage, and when commodities of scale kick in with them they’re likely to become pretty common in grid storage and prices and usefulness just gets better from there

also, afaik gravity batteries aren’t really being used… the most common thing these days looks like it’s going to be flywheels, but using them more like capacitors: smoothing out load spikes and maintaining grid frequency (which with PV can go downhill fast)

[-] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago

I agree with most of the comment, but it really bothers me people still call nuclear "clean", it isn't, its the opposite. Yes no co2, but the effects of burnt nuclear fuel are way worse. Yes the crisis comes slower than the current climate crisis but it last for way longer and is way harder to manage.

Co2 I. The atmosphere in large amounts is bad for humanity, no question, we should stop that, but with co2 we at least have an advanced ecosystem which will bring the co2 levels down relatively quickly on human time scales if we stop emitting before the ecosystem is irreparable damaged, with nuclear we dont. There us exactly one way to get rid of radioactive waste, and that is to wait till it stops radiating by itself, magnitudes longer than it takes for co2 to get absorbed by plants.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

No one has done solar thermal for a decade. Your position is so out of date.

The sea here is too deep

There are floating wind generators

You seem ill informed

[-] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 1 points 1 week ago

you would be wrong, cerro dominador on chile started operations recently.

[-] Jean_le_Flambeur@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Bruh

Renawbles are capable of generating a ton of energy manageable distances from where they are used in most cases, even for the cases which they are not it is orders of magnitudes cheaper and better for environment if you make green hydrogen, ship it to where its needed and convert it back into current where you need it considered the absurd amounts of time and cost it takes to manage nuclear waste. Not even considering the cost to mine and ship nuclear fuel, build the reactor and safely dispose of it at the end of its lifespan as its miniscule compared to maintain any sort of storage building for a time longer than the time between humanitys first building and now.
Mining is mostly done by people living under slave like conditions in poor countries. Even thinking having a energy source which needs to CONTINUOUSLY BURN MINED RECOURCES to keep outputting any energy at all is superior to a energy source which NEEDS MINED RESOURCES ONCE TO CONTINUOUSLY output energy until broken by external forces shows the absurdity of your argument

Solar panels need silicium (literally sand) and bor, apart from some plastics and structural metal and glass. Those are way easier and cleaner to mine then radioactive materials, and bor is needed in really small amounts, AND IT DOESNT GET BURNED, YOU CAN REUSE IT.

3.Thinking that smashing a train against something tells you anything about the properties of a material when exposed to time spans of degradation many orders of magnitude bigger than the time humans even started researching material properties....I dont even know where to start with this "argument" its bs on so many levels

[-] Mavvik@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Im not a nuclear bro, but a vast majority of the planet's Uranium is mined in Australia and Canada and both countries have pretty massive reserves. They have strict regulations and safety surrounding uranium operations. Naturally occurring uranium doesnt even pose much safety risk on its own, its the Radon that is generated by decay that causes problems for humans. Im not too familiar with how uranium mining is done but I imagine Radon risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with ventilation.

[-] A_Chilean_Cyborg@feddit.cl 2 points 2 weeks ago

About the point 2.

I live in a thinrd world country, and it angers me to no end when they try to take this moral stand when a lot of times they're the ones who didn't let us all develop in the first place lol.

My country depends on it's mining industry, the biggest copper mining country in the world and i think the 2nd on lithium, they say it's the wage of chile, most of the copper is extracted by the State owned CODELCO, wich money goes to schools and hospitals, and even the one who is mined privately is taxed and has to pay royalties that go to help the people.

Miners aren't even poorly paid for Chilean standards, and they have benefits, they're strongly unionized lol, and mines here have an extremely high tech level, making people don't have to go to risky places, a lot of mines are totally automated, where robots extract the material and take it out, while their operators sit comfortably in a control room in the city.

So don't come to lecture me on these "poor people in third world countries" because you know nothing, you are a firstworlder who had benefited from colonization and political meddling in our affairs, now that we're finally advancing, and making a better country for ourselves, you come to say this thing? Bruh.

[-] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

i agree with the anti-nuclear, but the mining conditions are really far less of a problem with uranium… canada and australia are #2 and #4 in the world respectively

uranium is relatively plentiful, and hugely energy-dense so most places have some that’s viable to extract, and it’s not worth cheaping out on costs to save a couple of $ buying from slave mines given the potential backlash

i actually wouldn’t be surprised if uranium mining is one of the best jobs in the developing world because if they actually want to sell their product they’d have to market their working conditions