I guess that's a positive spin on heat waste, I'm sure there are a lot of negative consequences from hot waste water going into streams...
Not like nuclear is the only thing that does this though, this is a problem with data centers too.
Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just approved a new construction of a reactor for the first time in 10 years, to the Bill Gates backed Terra Power. Cool, except it's projected to cost $4 billion and the government is expected to cover half the cost, to build a reactor with 345 MW of capacity.
In contrast, solar panels cost about $1 million per MW, so an equivalent amount of peak capacity from solar would cost about $345 million, or about 1/12 the price. Solar won't run all day, but the nuclear plants will also continue to cost money to run after construction is complete.
Looking at the different LCOE estimates of each type of power generation shows that advanced nuclear is around $80/MWhr and solar+battery for all day demand tracking is about $53/MWhr.
Basically nuclear is only economically viable with government support at this point, and we should be asking whether we'd rather have the government support towards other forms of energy.
What is the bottom bar on that graph? And how it contributes to the overall cost?
Also how long until a Trump (or future) administration cuts those pesky nuclear regulations.
Humans are the ultimate risk with nuclear an humans fucking suck.
Im pretty sure i read that already happened
Look all I’m saying is we shouldn’t mix big lizards and nuclear power. Trust me bro, there’s a documentary.
How they actually actually do.
Mining for the rare earth elements used in solar panels is pretty ugly, too. But once they’re taken out they can be reused, it’s not like coal or oil where you use it once and it’s gone forever.
That's why the actual solution is degrowth, not a technology of any kind. Nuclear is better than coal, renewables are better than nuclear, but none are good.
Uranium and rare earth elements mining are cause of massive biodiversity reductions, political destabilisations, wars, and they have to be transformed, transported and disposed (and we use a lot of fossil energies for that). So no it's not green, it's just less brown (and the direct effect are mostly sensible in third world countries, so nobody cares in the first world).
Moreover, nuclear and renewables never caused a reduction of coal in a global perspective. They just added themselves to the mix.
We should ban petrol except for ambulances and fire engines
Ambulances and fire engines are probably an example of a top choices to convert to ev. They don’t drive far at all and they are parked at a central location most of the time.
Also puts incentives to install solar panels at hospitals and fire stations.
A lot of progress has also been made in hybrid/organic solar panels in recent years. The things state of the art stuff can do is frankly nuts.
(Me reading this while watching Beyond 2000, an 80's show describing state-of-the-art tech (of its time), having speculations of solar energy tech)
Does “how they actually do” include whitewashing the energy industry with Fox News?
Hey! That's my town.
For anyone curious, We have a nuclear plant that uses cooling canals in the coastline instead of cooling towers, here's what they look like.
The temperature change and marshy environment in Florida creates the perfect condition for Crocs (Not gators, those live inland in the everglades)
"FOR THE LAST TIME KEVIN, THE COOLING TOWERS ARE RELEASING STEAM. THEY ARE NOT 'BURNING' URANIUM"
I have solar panels and my backup power company runs three hydroelectric dams in the area, which have replaced the nuclear power station.
How much do they pay you to spout bullshit?
"Fuck you, got mine"
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AEA87585FB0365719098E2C0D06B31
Nature =/= Nature Communications
Excellent breakdown of flaws, this one is the most damning to me:
Cancer sites are not considered. Exposure to radionuclide pollution from Uranium fission products is known to be associated with specific tumors (thyroid cancer, lung cancer, leukemia) due to the chemical nature of the products of its decay chain (radioactive isotopes of Iodine, Radon, Cesium). Stratifying by tumor site would have provided evidence to support the assumption that tumors are caused by radiation exposure.
Who cares if you find more bladder cancer if this radiation isn’t associated with bladder tumors? This makes the study absolutely stink of a conclusion looking for evidence, especially in combination with the failure to use the actual radiation data readily available from nuclear sites.
That's what PubPeer is best for. :) Highly recommend grabbing the browser extensions, it helps contextualise a lot and authors do respond.
Thanks for making me aware of it, I dunno how active the humanities side of it is but I’m definitely going to be checking my sources on it when I’m doing class work 👍
A little banner will pop up on wikipedia and journals if the article itself has comments or its' cited ones do. It's relatively unintrusive. It's less active on humanities journals, but still around. :)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
