780
Power Sources (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Blake@feddit.uk 100 points 1 year ago

When it comes to generating electricity, nuclear is hugely more expensive than renewables. Every 1000Wh of nuclear power could be 2000-3000 Wh solar or wind.

If you’ve been told “it’s not possible to have all power from renewable sources”, you have been a victim of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

This is all with current, modern day technology, not with some far-off dream or potential future tech such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors or breeder reactors.

Compared to nuclear, renewables are:

  • Cheaper
  • Lower emissions
  • Faster to provision
  • Less environmentally damaging
  • Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
  • Decentralised
  • Much, much safer
  • Much easier to maintain
  • More reliable
  • Much more capable of being scaled down on demand to meet changes in energy demands

Nuclear power has promise as a future technology. But at present, while I’m all in favour of keeping the ones we have until the end of their useful life, building new nuclear power stations is a massive waste of money, resources, effort and political capital.

Nuclear energy should be funded only to conduct new research into potential future improvements and to construct experimental power stations. Any money that would be spent on building nuclear power plants should be spent on renewables instead.

Frequently asked questions:

  • But it’s not always sunny or windy, how can we deal with that?

While a given spot in your country is going to have periods where it’s not sunny or rainy, with a mixture of energy distribution (modern interconnectors can transmit 800kV or more over 800km or more with less than 3% loss) non-electrical storage such as pumped storage, and diversified renewable sources, this problem is completely mitigated - we can generate wind, solar or hydro power over 2,000km away from where it is consumed for cheaper than we could generate nuclear electricity 20km away.

  • Don’t renewables take up too much space?

The United States has enough land paved over for parking spaces to have 8 spaces per car - 5% of the land. If just 10% of that space was used to generate solar electricity - a mere 0.5% - that would generate enough solar power to provide electricity to the entire country. By comparison, around 50% of the land is agricultural. The amount of land used by renewable sources is not a real problem, it’s an argument used by the very wealthy pro-nuclear lobby to justify the huge amounts of funding that they currently receive.

  • Isn’t Nuclear power cleaner than renewables?

No, it’s dirtier. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised environmental harm caused per kWh for each energy source. It takes into account the energy used to extract raw materials, build the power plant, operate the plant, maintenance, the fuels needed to sustain it, the transport needed to service it, and so on. These numbers always show nuclear as more environmentally harmful than renewables.

  • We need a baseline load, though, and that can only be nuclear or fossil fuels.

Not according to industry experts - the majority of studies show that a 100% renewable source of energy across all industries for all needs - electricity, heating, transport, and industry - is completely possible with current technology and is economically viable. If you disagree, don’t argue with me, take it up with the IEC. Here’s a Wikipedia article that you can use as a baseline for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

[-] Stoneykins@mander.xyz 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Excellently written!

I am so tired of people who have no idea how good wind and solar are/have gotten smugly declaring that wind and solar will never be good enough to meet energy demands...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago

ITT oil and coal propaganda proving propaganda and fear mongering work.

Nuclear is safer in every single regard. Even including weapons nuclear energy has harmed fewer humans than coal or gas by far.

[-] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

In Australia, nuclear is being used as a propaganda tool by the coal lobby to defend their interests against renewables because the build time is so long (and I suspect because the miners are more or less the same).

Large scale solar with batteries is 1/6th the cost, 5x faster to build, better for the environment, better for energy independence, and doesn't carry the risk of an event that'll render an entire country uninhabitable. I'm yet to hear a decent argument for nuclear.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blake@feddit.uk 15 points 1 year ago

Is nuclear safer than solar and wind?

[-] Clarke311@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Technically yes, people keep dieing on the windmills.

This is not me saying we need to build less solar or wind. We still need to build more and we also need small modular reactors to provide base load. If we had the battery capacity to store renewables at scale I would be for it however we do not.

[-] Blake@feddit.uk 16 points 1 year ago

Do you have a source for the claim that wind and solar are more dangerous than nuclear?

I looked myself and from what I saw Solar and wind were safer than nuclear, not to mention cheaper and cleaner.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 55 points 1 year ago

Obligatory Kyle Hill videos because keyword “nuclear energy”:

https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

https://youtu.be/J3znG6_vla0

Some things to note:

Going back to 1965, air pollution from fossil fuels has cost us around 81 million lives. 4,000 people in China die every day due to fossil fuel pollution. 1 in 5 premature deaths can be attributed to fossil fuels.

Radiation in pop culture is portrayed as difficult to contain, but that isn’t the case. We know how to do it well, and we already do it.

Pop culture depictions fail to illustrate the radiation that is released into the air, unable to be properly managed, as a result of fossil fuel production and consumption.

[-] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

Containing the radiation isn't the same as resolving the nuclear waste problem.

[-] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 year ago

That's why we've already seen breakthroughs in reactors that use nuclear waste for fuel.

[-] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Which if they were practically feasible, still wouldn't be running for another ten years. Whereas the time and money and resources looking for breakthroughs in that ten years, could easily go to renewables and hey, they don't need a breakthrough solution for nuclear waste. They already work and already are cheaper. Literally the solution. Right there.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 17 points 1 year ago

We would have had that solved a long time ago if it weren't for a few factors.

The first is that a significant amount of radioactive waste is short-term. Like, literally inert after a couple years. The reason for that is because the vast majority of radioactive waste isn't actually inherently radioactive. Most of it has become radioactive as a result of coming into extended contact with highly radioactive sources. However my understanding is that despite being short-lived, you must dispose of it the same way you'd dispose of nuclear fuel rods. This is an issue that could be resolved by separating the short-lived stuff from the fuel rods and returning the short-lived stuff to a landfill once radioactivity drops to background radiation levels.

Factor 2: paranoia. We had a potential permanent waste site in the middle of nowhere, in an extremely geologically stable area in the US that has virtually no chance of flooding, however people thought that radioactive waste buried beneath a literal mountain would somehow still poison them. So Yucca Mountain was never fully completed. Afaik it's technically still on the table but it's been completely defunded thanks to NIMBYs, so instead nuclear waste is being stored across the US at various nuclear plants which are less geologically stable, have a higher chance for flooding, etc. This also hampers state and national efforts to clean up decommissioned plants and nuclear accidents. The waste has to go somewhere; if you have no where to safely store it, you can't clean it up.

Factor 3: if I understand correctly, we could hypothetically design nuclear plants with reactor chains that produce dead fuel rods (fuel rods that are completely spent). However, a lot of weapons-grade material would be produced during the intermediate stages. For sooome reason everyone freaks out when they hear you're making weapons-grade radioactive material, even if you promise you're just using it to generate power. I can't imagine why /s

The problems with nuclear storage are actually pretty easily solved, it's just that no one wants to because they'd rather pretend nuclear doesn't exist to begin with. I swear, we could have a one-time pill that makes you fully immune to every radiation-induced disease and people would still freak out about nuclear. Hell, there was an article I saw a month or two about how a bunch of researches discovered that turning used graphite control rods into diamonds resulted in low-power batteries that could be used for things that require a small amount of power over long durations (like SSDs or RAM). Iirc something about the diamond's structure meant it contained its own radiation as well, meaning it didn't need any radiation shielding either despite generating energy via radioactivity.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[-] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

Containing the radiation isn't the same as resolving the nuclear waste problem.

[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 54 points 1 year ago

Nobody wants to maintain anything.

When you fail to maintain coal, gas, wind, or solar, it just stops working for the time being.

When you fail to maintain nuclear systems (be that poor understanding, lack of training, negligence, whatever), things go very bad very quickly.

This is before you get into wider issue's like waste management and environmental concerns.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 47 points 1 year ago

Oh boy, another hot take from a well educated and informed source, I’m sure.

80% of what you think about nuclear is fossil fuel propaganda, 10% is because the soviets are dipshits, and the last 10% are reasonable concerns that redundant safety system upon redundant safety systems address.

[-] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

While we're criticizing sources, do you have a source on those percentages?

[-] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the internet, where 90% of percentages are made up. Including this one.

[-] Pantherina@feddit.de 12 points 1 year ago

Let me tell you about the "Asse" in Lower Saxony, Germany...

There is no way to safely store nuclear waste. It makes entire landscapes unusable, it lasts nearly forever and... the waste management is done by the state, not the company!

Nuclear power is some capitalist bullshit that outsources the waste and risks to the state. Only in that case its profitable in any way.

Solar and Wind are so much easier, solar extremely. If we could change out loads, focus everything on the day and simply not use that much at night, we wouldnt even need that much wind. Decentralized, local networks of Solar Power are the future.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 11 points 1 year ago

sigh I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but it sounds like you might need to hear this too:


We would have had [the storage of nuclear waste] solved a long time ago if it weren't for a few factors.

The first is that a significant amount of radioactive waste is short-term. Like, literally inert after a couple years. The reason for that is because the vast majority of radioactive waste isn't actually inherently radioactive. Most of it has become radioactive as a result of coming into extended contact with highly radioactive sources. However my understanding is that despite being short-lived, you must dispose of it the same way you'd dispose of nuclear fuel rods. This is an issue that could be resolved by separating the short-lived stuff from the fuel rods and returning the short-lived stuff to a landfill once radioactivity drops to background radiation levels.

Factor 2: paranoia. We had a potential permanent waste site in the middle of nowhere, in an extremely geologically stable area in the US that has virtually no chance of flooding, however people thought that radioactive waste buried beneath a literal mountain would somehow still poison them. So Yucca Mountain was never fully completed. Afaik it's technically still on the table but it's been completely defunded thanks to NIMBYs, so instead nuclear waste is being stored across the US at various nuclear plants which are less geologically stable, have a higher chance for flooding, etc. This also hampers state and national efforts to clean up decommissioned plants and nuclear accidents. The waste has to go somewhere; if you have no where to safely store it, you can't clean it up.

Factor 3: if I understand correctly, we could hypothetically design nuclear plants with reactor chains that produce dead fuel rods (fuel rods that are completely spent). However, a lot of weapons-grade material would be produced during the intermediate stages. For sooome reason everyone freaks out when they hear you're making weapons-grade radioactive material, even if you promise you're just using it to generate power. I can't imagine why /s

The problems with nuclear storage are actually pretty easily solved, it's just that no one wants to because they'd rather pretend nuclear doesn't exist to begin with. I swear, we could have a one-time pill that makes you fully immune to every radiation-induced disease and people would still freak out about nuclear. Hell, there was an article I saw a month or two about how a bunch of researches discovered that turning used graphite control rods into diamonds resulted in low-power batteries that could be used for things that require a small amount of power over long durations (like SSDs or RAM). Iirc something about the diamond's structure meant it contained its own radiation as well, meaning it didn't need any radiation shielding either despite generating energy via radioactivity.


Also,

the waste management is done by the state

Maybe in Germany, but afaik in the US it's done by the company until it's time to move it to a permanent storage facility. Because permanent storage facilities don't exist in the US, that means the company has to take care of it indefinitely. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have it in the indefinite care of the US government than in the indefinite care of a company.

Decentralized, local networks of Solar Power are the future.

You're partially right imo. Those would be great, but you're offloading cost on the individual, who are already being squeezed by capitalism. Additionally, iirc centralized wind and solar can cause a significant disruption to the local ecosystems. Are they preferable to coal and gas? Hell yeah! But you cannot convince me that miles of turbines and solar panels are less disruptive than a properly maintained nuclear plant.

Ideally we'd be building fusion plants at this point, but I feel like I haven't heard any major fusion-related news lately which makes me worried that funding might be falling off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Nuclear power is capitalist bullshit" is not the hot take I was expecting. And it's utter horseshit.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Insulting people you disagree with is a rather poor way to win them over and/or create productive discourse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Haui@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 year ago

We tend to forget the negligence humans are capable of.

But to be fair, abolishing nuclear was a trick to expand oil, gas and coal afaik. At least the funding came from there iirc.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Qvest@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Waste management and environmental concerns are already bad with coal power (even worse than nuclear power, in the sense that nuclear doesn’t launch waste into the air as far as I know, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong)

Although, yes, security has to be higher for nuclear power, but nuclear is not as bad as most people think

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Rooty@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

ITT: People regurgitate oil company propaganda verbatim.

[-] motor_spirit@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Love that the meme format uses water and hydro isn't fuckin mentioned

[-] racsol@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

The thing with hydro is that it is limited by the hydrography of the country.

Once you've built all damns it was possible, that's it. And that usually only covers a just small portion of a country's energy needs.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] thisNotMyName@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Oh yes, let's focus on an extremely expensive energy source! Let's get rid of dependencies of dicatotors by making us dependent of other dictators to get uran! Why waste any more time on energy sources that pay off after a few years when we can have an energy source they'll still have to pay for in 100 generations? So genious!

[-] hh93@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

Not to mention how long it takes to find good spots since noone wants to have one in their backyard and even if you have a spot it takes almost a decade to build m

Also you need to guarantee cooling which is going to be a bigger and bigger problem in the coming years...

So much better than spending a fraction of the money to build renewables much faster with less risk...

[-] Xariphon@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Right? I'm pretty sure everyone downstream of Fukushima likes it this way. The people who are hoping we don't need an actual priesthood, or glowing cats, or whatever, to warn people about nuclear waste thousands of years in the future after the fall of all current civilizations, like it this way.

Let nuclear continue to waste away as the terrible idea it always was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ElectroVagrant@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

replace skeleton with cooling rods and this meme gets better tbh 😂

[-] lorty@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago

Nuclear had its time. Solar and wind is cheaper, can be distributed and has a fraction of the waste and supply chain issues.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] VinesNFluff@pawb.social 12 points 1 year ago

The lack of love for Hydroelectric makes me sad

Hydroelectric power is the backbone of electricity here in Brazil :P

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Pollution? That's a problem for future Homer.

[-] SternburgExport@feddit.de 11 points 1 year ago

We have learned nothing from history.

[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago

Fossil fuels have killed orders of magnitude more people and, get this, release more radioactive pollutants into the environment, than nuclear energy.

[-] Rozauhtuno 18 points 1 year ago

Yes, but the radioactive particles released by fossil fuels are invisible, so I don't need to worry about it! 🤡

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cswine@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

too bad the average person equates anything with the word 'nuclear' in it as atomic bombs

[-] Crampon@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Yes. But warm metal is scary to the lead poisoned boomers. We can't have warm metal.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
780 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

46464 readers
1380 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS