• prototypez9er@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Chasing profit is how we got here. This shouldn’t be the basis of the decision. If it’s the only thing we can use to drag conservatives along though, I guess it’ll have to do.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not about chasing profit though, it’s about getting to net zero as quickly as possible using finite resources. Any money that goes to nuclear could be going to renewables, which would get us there more quickly.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        This article is about profitability, not cost to net zero. They are very different things. It also ignores the cost of scale, go all in on say solar today and that doesn’t make more panels available, the increased demand would raise prices and suddenly its not so profitable.

        Nothing is as simple and easy as people want it to be.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          However, the researchers show that in terms of cost and speed, renewable energy sources have already beaten nuclear and that each investment in new nuclear plants delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable energies. “In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO2 emissions,” the researchers pointed out.

          They talk about profit to get the attention of money people, but the ultimate goal is decarbonization. Hell, the title of the source article is “Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate”.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Two of the researchers are economists, and the third is an environmental economist. I’d rather get my opinions on decarbonization and nuclear energy from actual scientists and people who run research reactors.

            It’s just money people talking to money people. I don’t trust an economist to make a value judgment on science when all they’re looking at is profit. I actually actively distrust them. They’re interested in investments and profit – nuclear has an undeserved stigma and it makes its profit in the long term, not the short term that they all seem to love.

        • zik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You seem to be implying that there’s some problem with going to renewables but there isn’t. It’s just quicker and cheaper than nuclear to do so. It’s not like it’s breaking new ground either - plenty of places have already done it.

          Nuclear is the hard way of doing this, not renewables.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not implying there is a problem with renewables, I’m actively stating that markets will change if you increase the demand massively and that you can’t just say that a market state today would continue if you change all the driving forces behind it.

            What generally is statable is that diversification in markets stays stable. if you buy all the options then you keep the power in the buyer and the costs stay as low as possible.

        • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Solar price still decreasing and the demand never been so high. That’s the faster energy deployment.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Demand has never been so high. If we wanted to go all in on solar and get to net zero on it, that demand would be 100x higher.

            Right now, the driving reason behind solar prices going down is to encourage more demand. If that demand were to jump suddenly, then that driving reason is gone, and suddenly it makes more sense to charge more as supply can’t keep up.

            Maybe you’ll understand the point better now.

            • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was speaking about the market, the solar panel price. Many developing countries now invest in solar power to meet their energy needs with the cost of solar energy technologies decreasing and the availabilities of governments subsidies. The Ukrainian conflict may have an impact on the market but nothing is sure.

              The path to Net Zero is mainly Solar and Wind. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050

              • echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right now, the driving reason behind solar prices going down is to encourage more demand. If that demand were to jump suddenly, then that driving reason is gone, and suddenly it makes more sense to charge more as supply can’t keep up.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wait, do you really expect us to believe that increasing solar will increase its price? Have you looked at the cost of solar over the past decade? Do you understand the economy of scale as it applies to all 3 (solar, wind, and batteries) because I don’t think you do.

      • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Any money that goes to nuclear could be going to renewables, which would get us there more quickly.

        That’s a false dilemma. Nuclear and renewables provide different things, so they shouldn’t be compared directly in an “either or” comparison, and certainly not on cost. Nuclear power provides a stable baseline, so you don’t have to rely on coal/gas/diesel powered generators. Renewables cheaply but opportunistically provide power from natural sources that may not always be available but that can augment the baseline. The share of renewable energy in the mix is something engineers should figure out, not “the market”.

        Also, monetary cost shouldn’t be the only concern. Some renewables have a societal cost too, for example in the amount of land that they occupy per kWh generated, or visual polution. I wouldn’t want to live within the shadow flicker of a windmill for example.

          • Zink@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s an interesting point buried at the end of that article: electricity quality. With batteries in the loop, supply can scale with demand almost instantly, versus the time it takes for various types of power plant to adjust output.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wonder if this has any impact on another piece of the puzzle, high voltage direct current (HVDC) which we need to transport electricity over large distances with minimal loss.

            • oo1@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s an equally buried link to a death by powerpoint that made me pray for a blackout before i could get anywhere close to understanding how that bar graph was constructed.

              I can’t vouch for the following being a necessarily better source, but this one seem a lot more upfront about some of their assumptions and sensitivities. In this adding storage to wind is seems to be +tens of dollars per MWh; a fair amount more than the +1-3 dollars per MWh shown in the cleantech article.
              https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/

              So i’d like to know where these cheap battery cost assumption comes from - is it proven tech, available at scale , at that price?
              just seems a bit too good to be true.

          • chaogomu@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Reading that… It basically seems to say that we can live with intermittent blackouts when wind and solar fail.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t provide different things, they both provide electricity. Nuclear is only really suited to base load, whereas renewables can be spun up and down to match varying demand - however renewables are also more than capable of covering base load, because it’s all just electricity.

          The only thing nuclear provides that renewables don’t is grid stability. Nuclear turbines have large rotating masses, when loads are switched on and off they keep spinning the same speed, helping to maintain voltage and frequency. Meanwhile renewables are almost all run via inverters, which use feedback loops to chase an ideal voltage and frequency, but that gives them an inherent latency when dealing with changes on the network. However, there are other ways of providing grid stability.

          It’s not a windmill. It doesn’t mill anything. The technical term is Wind Turbine Generator (WTG), but usually they’re called wind turbines or just turbines. A group of turbines make up a wind farm.

          Land occupied is not much of a concern when most renewables (and nuclear, for that matter) tend to be installed away from population centres. It feels like you’re grasping for reasons now.

          Suffice it to say, I work in the electrical industry, and this isn’t the first report that’s come out saying renewables are cheaper, better value and quicker to build and get us to net zero when compared to nuclear. That isn’t to say nuclear isn’t important and shouldn’t be built, just that nuclear shouldn’t be a priority in pursuit of phasing out fossil fuels. At the end of the day, demand will only go up, so building a lot of renewables before building nuclear won’t exactly be going to waste. We’ll need all of it.

          • chaogomu@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Renewables cannot be spun up. You have to massively over build to do that. And even then, you’re still depending on availability of sun and wind.

            If you need more power than is available, it’s done with natural gas peaker plants at 10x the normal cost of electricity.

            On the flip side, a stable base load of nuclear, can be spun up and down over the day to meet expected load.

            • TWeaK@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s exactly the suggestion, over-build renewables right now to get to net zero, then fill out the generation portfolio with nuclear. The demand will only go up, so that excess renewables will eventually be used to capacity anyway. The study is laying out what the priority should be right now, when climate change has already got its foot well in the door.

            • Zink@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Renewables can effectively be spun up or down as long as they have batteries. That way, they can usually be generating as much energy as possible regardless of demand.

              • oo1@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                In that case it’s the batteries being loaded and unloaded, not the renewables.

                Storage can be connected to the grid anywhere and charged whenever power is cheap - from whatever sources are generating at that time. It is effectively an independent investment - assuming your on-grid / grid scale.

                As far as i know the only major renewable electricity generation that is intrinsically linked to storage is reservoir based hydro with reverse pumping capability though even that increases costs and is a quite situation dependent if you want a lot of peaking power…

                Nuclear fanboys could equally argue to add batteries so as to convert baseload into shape, or peaking.

                • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. It costs less and requires less mining to use the most expensive and wasteful storage option. The only reason there aren’t more is a lack of sufficient investment in VRE required to make them useful.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Adding 1GW that runs 80% of the time with months long outages to a grid that has 10GW of power available 95% of the time and 3GW 5% of the time doesn’t fix the issue and requires charging $4000/MWh rather than merely $200/MWh to pay back your boondoggle.

          All the people chanting “baseload” understand this but pretend not to.

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously. By this logic fossil fuels are cheaper, thus better!

      This is how we get garbage like carbon credits, trying to capture the cost to the environment in dollar amounts is just more symptoms the fallacy of using economics in lieu of physics.

  • kemsat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah no shit. We already knew nuclear was not profitable, but it’s clean & makes tons of power, so it’s a good deal for everyone that isn’t a business & wants cheap & clean energy.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d love for you to see the Uranium and Thorium mines in Canada and tell me how clean that looks to you.

      • m3m3lord@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uranium and thorium mines are just as clean as the rare earth metal mines needed for PV cells. This is kind of a moot point. We need carbon free energy now and solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear are all part of the mix of solutions needed. There are many considerations currently being made to determine which technologies should be used in what locations.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Make sure to compare with a West Virginia mountaintop-removal coal mine.

    • vaseltarp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point of this research is that renewable are cheaper. So why would we invest our money in the more extensive option?

      • DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Government isn’t business. It should not be chasing a profit margin. The decisions should be around sustainability, ecological friendliness, and robustness against failure

          • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Least we forget the US is like the only country who won’t recycle their nuclear waste. We have enough sitting to generate power for like 140 years. Waste isn’t useless it can still be reprocessed…

        • dangblingus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, government is a business. They are beholden to the same profits and losses that any other business is subjected to based on market conditions. The government has to answer to shareholders (citizens) and it’s creditors (BoC and other countries).

          • DreamButt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If only there were organizations of people who were known for building really high quality technology without a profit motive… Like some kind of space program 🤔🤔

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              They had a profit motive, like space race, cold war and all that. You know, USA and USSR were really preparing for The Global Thermonuclear War back then.

              And, of course, all the people participating in that were being paid.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Nah, due to Negative Externalities and things like Tragedy Of The Commons it’s quite common for companies to be making massive profits whilst destroying the very environment they need to thrive.

            I mean, look at Polution, look at Global Warming, look at Overfishing, look at the 2008 Crash - without an external entity (i.e. the State) to force them to change their ways or rescue them, most economic entities in the pursuit of profitability will act in ways that systemically will eventually destroy the very things they need to be profitable.

            Stuff like Negative Externalities is pretty basic Economics.

            That naive idea of your of how economics works probably came from stuff you heard from politicians, not from reading books…

            • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              While without a profit motive of any kind they won’t exist.

              I really don’t get how those things you mentioned existing negate what I said. These are orthogonal. Well, except for that weird logic that it’s about choosing between two teams, but nobody can be that stupid, right?

      • nxdefiant@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear should be the only non renewable power we use at scale. Oil makes sense for emergency situations (it’s portable and is stable forever) and where energy density is most important (like aircraft, for now). Coal can fuck right off.

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Though most people’s idea of “old bad gas” is defined not by pure gasoline, but ethanol-containing gasoline. Ethanol gasoline is hydrophilic – leave a can sitting over winter, and you’re going to get some rough running and billowing water vapor coming out the exhaust. Pure petroleum products are way more stable.

      • thenightisdark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In my opinion clean is anything that doesn’t emit out of smokestacks.

        Also in this case it doesn’t emit out of smoke stacks while the sun’s down and the wind’s not blowing.

        Dams are terrible for the environment so hydro is out. Nuclear is cleaner than hydro.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        people say “clean” when they mean “doesn’t produce greenhouse gasses”. Nuclear power is absolutely not “clean”. Waste sites will need to be monitored for like a thousand years to prevent everything from natural disaster leakage to terrorist aquisition of nuclear materials. The reality is a new powerplant is just the 5% down payment on a nuclear waste mortgage.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Waste sites will need to be monitored for like a thousand years to prevent everything from natural disaster leakage to terrorist aquisition of nuclear materials

          Or build breeder reactors to convert the waste back into fuel and eliminate it entirely. Building nuclear power would literally reduce the amount of nuclear waste we have versus doing nothing.

          And yet, all these pseudoscience anti nuclear people who talk about nuclear waste all the time don’t seem to be advocating for that. Curious, isn’t it?

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Look the psuedoscience anti nuclear people aren’t going to be what kills nuclear power.

            The problem is the option is to “replace pseudo science oil barons with pseudo science nuclear power barons.” Society isn’t largely run by scientists, its run by lawyers and business idiots.

            If you operate under the assumption nuclear will be treated more carefully and delicately than oil, well I too would like to live in that star trek communism universe.

            It will get dumped in water supplies. It will end up in food supplies. The reality is there is a difference between “looks good on paper” and “even some lawyer who doesn’t believe in germ theory won’t fuck it up”.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s a very valid point, but it isn’t unique to nuclear. Solar panel manufacturing produces some nasty chemical waste. Some might be manufactured using hydrofluoric acid even, which scares the living shit out of me.

              There are going to be safety and waste issues with everything, and they’re going to be different types of hazards. I would rather drink water contaminated with some nuclear waste than have contact with hydrofluoric acid. Ideally I’d like neither.

              I’m not entirely sure what the solution is. It’s hardly worse than oil (which also uses HF!), but that’s not adequate. What we need is regulations and regulators that make it cheaper to throw as much safety factors as possible on something vs pay fines for violations. I’m confident we have the technology needed, we just need to make sure it’s actually used.

          • nao@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            If the pro nuclear people managed to build something that actually eliminates nuclear waste, it would take away most arguments of the anti nuclear people.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The question has always been what does one do when the renewables aren’t providing enough power (ex: nights, etc). The current solution is natural gas. It would be a big improvement if we would use a carbon-free source like nuclear instead.

    • 0xD21F@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is an old and proven method for load balancing intermittent power sources. Would like to see more of that as geography permits.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Actually it isn’t if you stop only looking at places that are also suitable as power plant, that is, have a big river flowing through them.

          You can do pumped hydro in an old mineshaft.

          • persolb@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Can you? To store the energy you need to pump up; to use it you need to flow back down. Where is the ‘down’ or ‘up’ from a mine shaft?

            I’d also question if the volume would be worth it.

            Edit: maybe you are thinking compressed air?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              …the up is at the surface and the down is at the bottom of the mine shaft? I’m not talking about horizontal ones, of course. You let water in, generating power, and then, to regenerate empty space and with that the capacity to again generate power, you spend energy to pump it up.

              As to volume, there’s some gigantic mineshafts, but even small ones might warrant small installations it’s not like some pipes and a pump and generator are much of an investment. Of course, don’t try that in a salt mine geology will play an important part.

              And lastly: Mineshafts aren’t the only option. There’s a lot of mountains, and they have many sides, and also plateaus and valleys. Build two concrete basins, connect them via pipe, ship in water from somewhere, voila, pumped hydro storage.

              • persolb@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I guess I wasn’t clear where on the surface the storage is. Do they still make a dam type area to store the ‘high’ water, or is it just a different part of the mine which is closer to the surface?

                I was able to find some mine numbers… yeah; insane. Especially something like an open cut mine which is functionally already lake shaped.

      • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That will not remotely cover baseline loads and is not without significant efficiency loss due to the pumping phase.

        • 0xD21F@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          All commonly used forms of energy storage have some efficiency loss. Pumped storage is not perfect but my understanding is that it usually comes at a 10-25% loss, which isn’t all that shabby all things considered.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The growing idea is to just have a shit load of renewables, everywhere. The wind is always blowing somewhere, and the sun shines through the clouds. If you have a ridiculous excess total capacity then even when you’re running at limited capacity you could still cover the demand. Basically, most of our renewable infrastructure would actually be curtailed or offline a lot of the time.

      • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        And that opens up opportunities for energy intensive industries like aluminium or hydrogen production to run whilst there’s an excess of energy

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m all for green hydrogen production, it’s using hydrogen in place of fossil fuels that bothers me. We already have a shit load of demand for hydrogen from industrial uses, and it would take 3x the world’s total renewable capacity in 2019, dedicated solely to hydrogen production, to meet this with green hydrogen. If we start adding transportation into that demand we’ll never make it, and it will be far less efficient than other energy sources (eg batteries).

          So yeah, we should have green hydrogen production, but we shouldn’t listen to those same people when they say they think it should also be used for transportation. That’s just trying to increase the size of the market to increase profits.

          • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Hydrogen works well with a renewable grids because you can take advantage of the times there is excess energy production so that power doesn’t just go to waste.

            We do need to be careful because hydrogen is often sold as a pipe dream by gas companies to convince us to use gas (e.g. “this new gas turbine power plant can be converted to hydrogen”, even though that’d be a workload less efficient than fuel cells).

            As for its use in transport, it looks like battery electric vehicles have won that battle for personal vehicles. Both have their advantages but in practice there are few enough fuel stations for hydrogen and enough chargers that that’s not going to flip.

            However, batteries are entirely unsuitable to long distance, high load transport like trucks. Ideally they’d be replaced by rail, but that’s not happening anytime soon in many places so hydrogen likely will be the solution there.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Here’s an example of what can be done with 5 hours of storage. 5 hours is a 25% participation rate of V2G where the participants offer a third of their battery capacity.

      https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/

      If going with the (false) assumption that nuclear can hit 100% grid penetration, it would take decades to offset the carbon released by causing a single year of delay.

      The lowest carbon “let’s pretend storage is impossible and go with 100% nuclear” would still start with exclusively funding VRE.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          lol at a rando discrediting an article that gives supporting data. Did you even read it? Write your own well supported opinion and submit it here. We’ll wait.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh is that a new rule? You can’t point out garbage, bias sources unless you’ve written a dissertation on it? Fucking rube.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Great comeback. Very cute.

                But why don’t you go ahead and go get a juice box and let the adults speak.

                • rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  TIL an “adult” is someone who denigrates a link without even reading it or having any substantive data points to support their points. Sounds like you have plenty of juice boxes to give out.

    • relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      consumers may also help reduce system costs by adapting their electricity consumption to the availability of renewable energy

      From the linked paper. They mention some other options for storage like batteries (plenty of environmental issues there though) but based on the quoted text I have a hard time taking this seriously if they actually expect people to change their behavior.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Plug in car. Press the “I would like to only pay $100/yr to fuel this please” button.

        Later when you leave for work press the “I would like the house to be cool when I get home and also want to pay half as much for AC” button.

        Buy the 1.5m wide water heater that stores 10kWh of hot water and lasts a week between heatings rather than the 70cm one that lasts a day.

        Such an unconscionable burden.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think innovation at the consumption end is going to help a lot. On Technology Connections I saw an electric induction stove that could be powered from a regular socket. It had a battery that would trickle charge throughout the day and then use the batteries to power the induction cooktops, as well as a couple of plugs. If widely deployed and in other appliances, with a little smarts that could provide power leveling at the home level.

        Another solution would be adding some intelligence to water heaters. Have a temperature control valve on the output where you set the temperature, and program the water heater get to 160-180°F when electricity is cheap. This would be a thermal battery that would easily level out demand for electricity for heating water.

        Or you could do thermal storage by heating a house very warm/cold prior to a large cold snap/heat wave, and letting it coast down/up to a temperature instead of heating/cooling a lot during the cold/hot weather. He’s got a video on this technique here

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Another solution would be adding some intelligence to water heaters. Have a temperature control valve on the output where you set the temperature, and program the water heater get to 160-180°F when electricity is cheap. This would be a thermal battery that would easily level out demand for electricity for heating water.

          This has been done for close to a century in wind or run of river hydro heavy countries (as well as some coal ones).

          The water heater has a buffer tank and is attached to a meter that only runs when a signal is sent across the power line. This stores about 20kWh for a 300L tank.

          Modern insulation would allow going up to a few m^3 for a couple weeks’ worth.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Combine that with some radiant floor heating on a nice thick concrete slab and you could use the battery for home heating. (Though it would need a lot of water.)

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Not enough power from renewables? Just turn off your fridge for a few days and you’ll be fine!”

        Honestly that sentiment has strong “blame the consumer” vibes that seems to pervade climate arguments.

        Sure, people can reduce consumption, but at best its a stopgap, not a solution.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s stuff like heaters and to a degree things like washing machines that can shape the time they’re active to whenever there’s a lull.

          Consider Britain: Each time the BBC runs a popular show you get an energy usage spike once it’s over because people are getting up and make themselves a cuppa. Doesn’t really make sense to run the heater in the tank for your shower at the same time, or charge your car, that can wait a bit.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have to start looking at personal renewables more? Each home could have their own small windmill or solar panel. Let’s point in that direction.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What makes you think personal renewable are going to be more efficient than large scale renewables? The sun doesn’t magically shine in the middle of the night on personal homes, the wind doesn’t magically blow only in residential areas…

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear is a terrible fit for peaker plants, that’s not how it works. If it isn’t selling energy at as close to 100% of the time as is feasible it’s losing money.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Nuclear is not, and cannot be, a gap coverage solution. Due to xenon/iodine poisoning and decay heat management you need to keep a reactor critical as long as possible to be economical. That’s independent of the problem of keeping the water hot that fossil fuel generators share. You can’t just turn a reactor on and off.

      • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It can provide a baseload though where solar can provide extra power during the heat for places where the summer and days are the power intensive part, rather than winter and nights. You still need a short-term stop gap as the sun sets but it’s still hot out, but even if that was just powered by NG it would be a huge step forward. Adding greener energy storage options to store extra power nuclear or wind could generate overnight would be better.

        Btw, could a small percent of nuclear reactors be turned on/off seasonally, potentially transporting fuel between the north in the winter and the south in the summer?

        • roguetrick@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, but if you spend the money making a reactor, you really should just use it. Uranium is pretty cheap, it’s the reactor that’s expensive.

          • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair. If a grid was just powered by batteries, solar, wind, and existing nuclear plants, which would be the most effective to turn off when demand is too low?

      • a_statistician@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Columbia station load follows within a certain range set by nearby hydro. It can be done. The economics aren’t even that bad, as fuel is one of the cheaper inputs to the reactor.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Keep the reactors running to avoid that issue. As long as they are providing enough power when the renewables aren’t, we successfully cut out natural gas from the power grid.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The best solution is having EVs plugged into the grid at night. VTG is the easy solution to peaker needs.

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then you are getting into the issue of the power company eating up your charge cycles on your EV battery. Who pays for the fact that my battery now has half the design lifetime due to constant cycling because it’s feeding the grid?

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          These are easily solved details. For example, by providing power on the grid you are in essence a power company. Perhaps you get reimbursed based upon what you provide. You know net metering is already a thing, right?

          • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m just saying that we might need to get away from the idea that a car battery is solely an owner expense. They’d have to be subsidized or there would be huge equity issues. And yes “I do know about net metering,right.”

            • rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes you are correct in stating that if you used your car battery for grid usage you would need to get reimbursed for that. And I gave you an easy solution. This could actually be a profit center for EV owners and if you have your car plugged into the grid at peak times, you would get reimbursed more per kWh (ie TOU) with the net metering. Win/win for everybody except utilities and fossil fuel providers.

    • alvvayson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The renewables-only crowd is just ignorant about this simple fact.

      The future of energy will be dominated by solar and nuclear power. With hydro, geothermal and wind playing supporting roles, depending on geography.

      The only question is, how much fossil fuels do we burn until then?

      Those who oppose nuclear are really just in favour of burning fossil fuels in the interim. But the inevitable switch to nuclear will come as fossil fuels are depleted.

      Nature has given us the atom as the most dense and durable way to store energy. That will never change.

      • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Typical energy density of ore in a new uranium mine burned in an LWR is about the same of coal.

        All of the economic/not too damaging stuff together would power the world for about 3 years.

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Profitability is so much not the point here and also, there’s no reason for different energy production sources (especially ones that are base power vs incidental power) to be in conflict. Do both of them.

    • theragu40@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      We don’t have to like it but unfortunately profitability is by far the number one driver for…well everything. So little is accomplished by way of altruism. People are greedy. The best way to successfully incentivize climate action is for environmentally friendly actions to become the most profitable and be advertised as such.

      So I agree with you that both options should be used. But I disagree that profitability is not the point. Money is always the point and always has been.

    • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah exactly. None of it is profitable if you can’t meet instant demand changes at any time of day. Build the nukes to meet full demand needs and supplement them with “more profitable” options for redundancy.

      • NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of this is profitable if you can meet demand power at will either.

        It’s just a scarcity game that those in power use to keep things ticking along.

        What is infrastructure to most, is a tuned revenue machine to a very few.

        The purpose of a system can be determined by its output, and it’s working quite well in that aspect.

        • luckyhunter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve never had a rolling black out or brown out but we burn coal around here and there are proposals for some small nuclear sites. Yes there’s some solar and wind as well but we are a net exporter of energy to the western states.

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is, actually, a conflict. Renewables are more dynamic in production. You can turn them on and off quickly, you can scale them quickly too. You can’t do that with nuclear plants. Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit. That’s why the nuclear energy sector is friends with the coal sector.

      Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from Poland: https://twitter.com/stepien_przemek/status/1642908210913853442

      Example of Nuclear-Coal friendship from the USA: https://www.energyandpolicy.org/generation-now-inc/

      A deeper understanding here: “The duck in the room - the end of baseload” https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/the-duck-in-the-room-the-end-of-baseload

      • escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Baseload is not a goal, it’s a limit.

        I would love to know what oil company you heard that from, since it’s absolutely not true. You can both turn them off quickly (faster, in fact, than LNG or Coal), start them up quickly (sub minutes) and change production quickly. These have all been features since 1960’s era reactors, and we’re around 10 generations past them.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they might be referring to turning down the reactors, which I think is an actual difficulty with them. By no means however is it a reason to not use them, it just means you employ it wisely. Have it meet most of the demand, and use solar and wind and others to supplement to full demand.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s not difficult. Nuclear is extremely expensive.

    With renewables you just sell it to the grid for whatever gas generated electricity is going for. Which is currently still a fucking lot. Thanks Russia.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nah, the power company likes the profits from nuclear way better.

    The secret is that they can bill the ratepayers for all the cost overruns, while keeping the extra profits on the cost-plus construction contract for the shareholders.

    (Source: I’m a Georgia Power ratepayer being absolutely reamed for Plant Vogtle 3 and 4, and the Georgia Public Service Commission isn’t doing a single goddamned thing to hold Georgia Power to account or to help people like me.)

  • Ziro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Stop all the hate for nuclear. It’s just a way for the fossil fuel industry to cause infighting among those of us who care about the climate. If we can make energy free or close to it, we should. The closer everything comes to being free the better.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      People pushing nuclear is a way for fossil fuels industry to keep us reliant on them for the next 20 years while we build power plants.

      • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        More than that as we will need to pay them to maintain storage which they won’t be keen to do without tons of government and tax payer assistance

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear is the future. Stop trying to deny it. We should all be running it by now this shit was made like 60 years ago. But no, we’ll just eat smog I guess. Damn my feeds are kind of depressing today.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It blows my mind we are avoiding this? You want jobs? Clean stable energy? Its fucken here dude. Just build some plants. They only need to be properly maintained to avoid disaster. If we truly are an intelligent species that should be easy as hell.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I hate that its true, but yeah. Our city management accross the nation has long been pocketing maintenance budgets. Cause shit is run down everywhere in “the greatest nation”.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “disaster” is a big word for what happens with a nuclear accident.

          The fire in Hawaï or the climate change are disasters. A hurricane is a disaster. Chernobyl or fukushima were disasters in the media much more than in the reality of things.

          Cars kill more people every year than nuclear energy did since we use it. In fact, this is still true even if you account for atomic bombs…

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Energy should be nationalised. Energy does not need to be run for profit. It should be at a cost.

            • OnionQuest@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even if it’s nationalized we still want energy generation as low cost as possible so we can use the national budget for other things.

              • prole@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, but cost isn’t the sole (or main) consideration when you remove profit-motive.

                Also, you only need to break even, so it will always be more affordable than private sector.

              • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                That just goes for everything, though. Thats not specific to any one industry. Clean and abundant energy will come at a cost and that should just be acceptable.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No its not, anyone thats actually gone over the basic numbers knows this. Nuclear power is expensive to build, takes decades to start and takes a lot of highly skilled workers. Wind is cheaper per MW, more profitable, buildable in 6 months, can be put in even remote areas, does not require highly skilled workers for normal operation and is more carbon efficient.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We should probably use both. How much mw/hr does wind produce compared to nuclear? Once nuclear is up and running what are the continual costs and what are the benefits? Theres a lot more to ask here than just “what is more profitable”. Your points on winds’ adaptability is good as well as your points on timeframe. But I don’t think a single energy source is the actual answer. I’m thinking we supplement these energy sources with each other and that would bring us completely off fossil fuels.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How much mw/hr does wind produce compared to nuclear?

          That depends entirely on how much of each you build, but wind is less expensive to build per MW than nuclear. Once nuclear is up and running what are the continual costs and what are the benefits? Nuclear costs more to run as the systems are far more complicated in order to make them safe and you need a relatively large workforce of highly trained mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineers which cost a lot to employ. Whereas for the most part wind farms are completely autonomous, in exchange for very few benefits. The profitibaility takes into account quite a lot really and so its better to build the more profitable one as you can then use that profit to build more, which gets us off of fossil fuels faster./

              • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That nuclear produces more MW/HR than wind at an exponential rate.

                https://www.ans.org/news/article-1462/wind-power-and-nuclear-power/

                “Capacity factor is the feature highlight of this info-graphic poster. To make a graphic representation of how this compares to one nuclear power plant rated at 1154 megawatts (MW), this shows the full count of all 2077 2-MW wind turbines in a 24"x36” poster. This is what would be required to match the nuclear power plant output even if this array of turbines could hypothetically run continuously at only 25 percent of its rated capacity."

                I’m giving you sources. You can downvote but I don’t see your numbers reflected in any study.

                • gmtom@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Okay? I never said anything contrary to that though? So what’s your point?

                • ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It’s produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor… They’re still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.

                  To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn’t economic. Renewables are

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    K, but this isn’t about profits. This is about not destroying the environment, which nuclear can help with (you know if nobody bombs the plant)

    • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But it’s also about cost. Nuclear is far more expensive upfront, more expensive to maintain, and more expensive to decommission. Cheap, agile renewables will be an easier option for the vast majority of the planet

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        We would be really stupid to worry about money when trying to save the planet. But, what did I know, I’m just some guy on the internet

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Financiers tend to worry about money, yes.

          First option: a wind/solar plant with costs that aren’t going to increase substantially, power being sold within a couple of years therefore repayments will begin quickly.

          Second option: a nuclear proposal - massive costs upfront, that will inevitably skyrocket while the completion date slips and slips, and power being sold 10-15 year in the future so repayments are a long way off.

          It’s not a difficult choice.

          If your argument is that we should nationalize the energy sector so government can get involved more directly to mitigate financing issues, sure. We both know that’s not going to happen.

          • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            How does one provide power when the renewables don’t provide enough power (nights, etc)? Our current solution is natural gas. Nuclear is a huge step up as a carbon-free provider.

            • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Storage, there are many options. Pumped hydro is great for places with elevation change, molten salt is great for desert climates. Batteries, green hydrogen, compressed gas, etc.

              We’ve been storing energy for thousands of years. It’s not difficult in the way nuclear fusion, SMRs, or thorium are difficult.

              We’re also moving towards EVs. I’d like to see investment in using a fleet of connected EVs as a giant battery. Your energy company can pay you for making 10-15% of your EV battery available for grid storage and you can opt out if you need that extra range for a trip.

    • rusticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Helium is the only element in the periodic table that is non renewable.

        • Bideo_james@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Different isotypes the one you buy for baloons is not the same type thags used in nuclear reactors

        • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There was a strategic helium reserve that the US government operated, but it was defunded and drawn down to depletion because of capitalism (gov’t doing it means corpos can’t make $$$ doing the same thing for twelve times the price).

          • fubo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The National Helium Reserve was started in the 1920s to store helium for military airships and barrage balloons; but airplane technology got a lot better and so we don’t use airships or even many balloons for military purposes anymore. So the original purpose of the reserve never turned out to be all that useful.

            Helium is found alongside natural gas, and there is still plenty of helium production in the US. Until we get a real room-temperature superconductor, every MRI machine consumes liquid helium for cooling. This and other industrial uses make it profitable for natural gas producers to keep extracting helium.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That sounds like “pie in the sky”:

      The problem with fusion reactors is exactly the containment of the plasma and avoiding that it dissipates its heat through light emission.

      If that was solved we would be better off doing fusion with plasma rather than fission, since even deuterium (a heavier form of hydrogen atoms because it has 1 neutron in the nucleous) can simply be extracted from the water and the H+H fusion reaction releases more energy than any fission reactions (and, funilly enough, would produce the much rarer helium, that’s needed for those reactors of yours).

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with fusion reactors is exactly the containment of the plasma and avoiding that it dissipates its heat through light emission.

        That’s one problem. Neutron embrittlement is another.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I was just addressing the previous post.

          In all fairness I only checked what’s going on with fusion once in a while as my background is Physics (as in, I started a degree in it and then ended up going to EE because in my home country there really only are jobs for theoretical physicists, not the more hands-on kind) and hence only know it at a superficial level (of somebody with the background to understand Particle Physics but not a domain expert).

          Yeah, I do know about the embrittlement of the container walls due to neutron emission from the fusion reaction (no idea how bad or not that is compared to the rest), but last I checked plasma containment was still a bit of a problem as was the plasma cooling through photon emission (mind you, that might not be as much of a problem for the kind of temperature of the plasma the previous poster was mentioning, which - I assume - are less that what’s need to induce fusion).

          That said, all in all it just sounds strange to use fission to generate a plasma - I mean, bloody fire generates a plasma (the flame is a plasma) - so I don’t quite see the point of generating plasma with the whole overhead of a nuclear reaction rather than, say, high powered lasers, high-voltage currents (yeah, lighting is plasma) or just plain old chemical reactions.

          That whole thing sounded a bit too much like “fancy sciency words thrown around to deceive the ignorant” so common in scams.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Until we are able to sort out the cost/tech to make a green-sourced grid (such that the role of utilities is to capture surpluses from when the sun shines and the wind blows and sell it back when transient sources aren’t producing) nuclear is going to be an important part of a non-carbon-producing energy portfolio.

    Already it’s cheaper to bring new solar and wind online than any other sort of electrical production; the fact that those are transient supply sources is the last major obstacle to phasing carbon fuels entirely out of the grid. If nuclear can be brought safely online it could mean pushing the use of fossil energy entirely into use cases where energy density is critical (like military aviation)

  • pizzazz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gotta love anti nuclear activists getting more and more desperate. You’re being decarbonised. Please do not resist.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would love to be decarbonised, but unfortunately i dont have the patience to wait 2 decades for it to happen.

      • escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How long do you think it takes to build renewables? It’s been about 20 years since most countries have started implementation and no country is 100% reliant on renewable energy or could store even a night’s energy needs without generation.

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can build a 50MW wind farm in 6 months

          https://www.edfenergy.com/energywise/all-you-need-to-know-about-wind-power#:~:text=Wind farms can be built,last between 20–25 years.

          It’s been about 20 years since most countries have started implementation and no country is 100% reliant on renewable energy or could store even a night’s energy needs without generation.

          Lot to unpack here.

          There are actually a few countries that have 100% renewable capacity such as Iceland or Scotland and a lot more that are very close.

          Yes we could be 100% renewable by now but the ff industry has done a lot of lobbying and conservative politicians have dragged their feet.

          It has been a lot longer than 20 years since countries started building nuclear, yet were not 100% nuclear, is that a fault of the technology? or the politicians and NIMBYs?

          Wind works at night, so you dont really need to store a nights worth of energy, especially as energy consumption is much lower at night.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        nuclear energy is stagnant and decaying.

        Do you think you may be confusing the cause with the effect?

        • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alright, tell me how many more nuclear reactors are needed globally. Let’s just start with decarbonizing electricity production.

          And, next, tell me how long do you think that will take, judging based on the average reactor construction time since, say, 1990.

          Or look it up, maybe someone wrote an article with such a response.

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

            You’re grasping at straws. If you care about climate change, and you trust in science, there’s only one valid viewpoint on nuclear energy. I welcome dissenting opinions however and would be more than happy to hear why you disagree. Just know that I took courses in college on nuclear reactors and their design as part of my degree, as well as environment engineering, and I currently work in the green energy field – by no means am I automatically correct, but I want to see an argument that’s based in science and recent scientific studies and analysis, let’s say anything past 2015.

            • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The best time to build them was decades ago, so clearly the second best time is to… Never? Your argument is taken straight from the oil and coal industries – it would take too long to build up renewables infrastructure, so let’s just not do it? We shouldn’t build windmills, because you can’t tell me how many we need globally?

              You seem to be unaware of the plans and needs to reduce GHGs. We do not have decades to waste.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re right, and that’s why it would be foolish to build exclusively nuclear. It’s also foolish however to not build any nuclear. The long lead time means we need to start ASAP so it’s ready ASAP. With proper government action targeting bottlenecks in the process (I believe there’s only one manufacturer in the world for a certain type of reactor shielding) we can speed that up.

                Diversification is the way to go. At the very least, we should build enough reactors and breeder reactors to consume existing nuclear waste and drive that to effectively 0.

                On top of all that, the bottleneck for deploying solar and wind en masse isn’t actually solar and wind facilities (although we certainly need those) but our electric grid. It needs an upgrade in order to integrate alternative energies, and I believe estimates on doing that are ~10 years. We might end up in a situation where a nuclear reactor is actually faster to build, depending on the type.

            • rusticus@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I could not disagree more. Renewables are cheaper safer easier to deploy and secure the grid. Nuclear is dead.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nuclear is the safest energy. It has the fewest deaths per kWh produced. Some modern reactors are able to consume nuclear waste to generate fuel as well. If you want to minimize nuclear waste, we need to build at least some reactors to shove existing waste into.

                • rusticus@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nuclear keeps our already unsafe grid more unsafe. It’s too expensive and accidents, while rare, are disastrous. Nuclear is dead.

  • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its a relatively recent development however since the panels and turbines got quite a bit cheaper. Nowadays solar/wind ends up fairly similar and Nuclear is about 3x the price (with gas being more and coal being nearly 7x more). That is only some of the story as you need some storage as well but it doesn’t end up in favour of Nuclear. 15 years ago Nuclear was a clear win, its just not anymore the price of Solar come down fast.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you include the full costs of the nuclear programs including the various subsidies, wind has been cheaper for decades, possibly since before nuclear was a thing.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      anyone with a basic understanding of economics?

      Like either we spend fuck tons of money subsidising nuclear to make it profitable or we can focus on wind and companies will build it themselves because its profitable.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What do you think is more likely: that I don’t understand the basics of how capitalism works? Or maybe that the comment was a criticism of the worship of the “free market,” and considering profit-motive to be the be-all, end-all?

        • gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well considering you’re conflating a market economy with capitalism…

    • Dr_pepper_spray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I care. I care that we don’t make a rash decision for a potential short term solution. Why not ramp up solar / wind and other alternatives?

      • escapesamsara@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Storage, we have less Lithium than you seem to think, and pumped hydro is not a solution – not that it’s not a universal solution, it’s simply not a solution. Implementation costs more than a nuclear reactor and maintenance and security costs are way, way higher than a nuclear reactor. We, unless you want to adopt a powerless overnight lifestyle, need on-demand power generation. Nuclear is the best, safest, cleanest, most feasible option for that until we remove all precious metals from energy storage technology.

        • rusticus@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree. Nuclear is too slow costly and a huge security risk for an already unsafe grid. We need energy decentralization in addition to decarbonization. Renewables like solar and wind are 100% the best step.

    • Heavybell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The planet is fine, and will be fine after we’ve gone, much like it was fine after the other mass extinctions. What’s dying is the environment that supports human life. Less snappy, granted, but I feel like emphasising that this is our problem and not something we should do for others might be worthwhile.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you never get tired of being pointlessly pedantic? Yes, the planet, as in the big rock floating in space, will continue to exist. Thanks.

        • Heavybell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a point to my pedantry here. Did you read my whole post or just the first few words?