Nuclear is the best btw.

  • Dippy@beehaw.org
    3·
    20 分钟前

    Nuclear would be the best if any of the new projects ever came online ever. Solar is winning so hard by being cheapest and fastest, and its not close.

  • Caveman@lemmy.world
    16·
    3 小时前

    Nuclear isn’t the best anymore. Batteries, solar and wind are cheaper and take way less time to build

    • Fornicus@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 小时前

      Don’t forget, that they produce immediately useable energy. No heat loss, due to steam turbines.

      And then there is the timespan that nuclear waste stays harmful. OPs “indestructable” container have to stay indestructable for millions of years.

      If we assume 40 years as a generation, that will be 50,000 generations. The whole history of mankind is only 400 generations.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        2·
        7 分钟前

        have to stay indestructable for millions of years.

        If we assume 40 years as a generation, that will be 50,000 generations. The whole history of mankind is only 400 generations.

        Talk about pulling numbers out of your ass…

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8·
        1 小时前

        And then there is the timespan that nuclear waste stays harmful. OPs “indestructable” container have to stay indestructable for millions of years.

        More like between 30 and 1000 years. Still a long time but you’re being pretty hyperbolic suggesting millions.

  • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    5·
    4 小时前

    Every Nuclear plant one builds is an inexcapable burden for future generations. Every Nuclear plant is built on the assumption the nation in which it stands will be stable forever and no malicious act will be done unto it. It is built with the assumption all eventualities have been considered.

    Once it is built it demands to be considered for all future events - war, change of government, pandemics, etc. And while catastrophes are rare on nuclear plants, they do happen and when one happens it is magnitudes worse than other power-generating systems.

    While we are long past the days of Chernobyl and 3-mile-island, we cannot pretend like nuclear energy is some sort of panacea for all our ills. Especially not when we live under capitalism, where capitalists are the ones that would evaluate when, where, why and how plants should be built and driven.
    Doing so is pure idealism.

    “So you love gasoline???” no dude, that’s a completely different sentence.

  • wpb@lemmy.world
    15·
    7 小时前

    I’m quite pro nuclear, I think the mass decomissioning of nuclear plants that’s been happening in Europe is the wrong move. But this is an incredibly reductive and dishonest meme.

      • BanMeFromPosting [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        2·
        4 小时前

        Oh well when you put it like that I suppose we should just ignore all issues with another type of energy. Surely this will not come back to bite us in the ass like fossil fuels have.

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
      25·
      14 小时前

      Indestructible cask underground is for cowards. In the US we don’t have a long term storage site, so we just ship it around to different temporary sites.

      • Akrenion@slrpnk.net
        3·
        7 小时前

        As far as I am aware there is no final storage for atomic waste anywhere. France wants to build one in 2030 but we’ll see then I guess.

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
          1·
          1 小时前

          Yeah, but at least everyone else has long term storage solutions even if it’s not permanent. The US just has short term storage where you can only keep it for a number of years before having to shuffle it to a different short term storage facility via train or semi truck.

          • Akrenion@slrpnk.net
            2·
            36 分钟前

            According to Wikipedia the first site goes live somewhen this year running for 70 years and the second one was a major groundwater breach that has been cleaned up and is being monitored.

            I’d hardly call these success stories. I love nuclear but it’s hard to sugarcoat the long standing issues.

      • trem@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        9 小时前

        Huh. We don’t either in Germany, but I assumed, it was largely because the whole place is inhabitated. Is there not some desert or Alaska or something in the US, where no one minds?

        • TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today
          1·
          1 小时前

          We actually have a perfect place for it in the yucca mountains that was designated in the 1980s, but the actual construction of it has been held up since then thanks to nimby shit.

          I would love to see the US head towards nuclear power, but I’m not hopeful it’s ever going to happen. By design the federal government just doesn’t have the power to mandate a state to do anything it doesn’t want too, and a functional electric grid powered by nuclear would require more federal control than what is possible in the foreseeable future.

          Our government was designed to grant corporations and the aristocratic class to be able to exert a huge amount of influence over the government. They have decided that it’s a lot more profitable to not progress past fossil fuels.

          • Xerxos@lemmy.ml
            1·
            47 分钟前

            Well, nuclear power, at least for now, is quite expensive. As long as no new technological breakthrough comes along, it’s simply cheaper to use wind and solar as main power producers. Of course, this has its own problem in the form of power storage, but at least we already have the technology for this.

  • shameless@lemmy.world
    31·
    14 小时前

    In Australia, all the people who were vehemently against solar and were calling for building of more coal fired power plants have lately shifted to saying, that Australia needs multiple nuclear power plants.

    Whilst I don’t doubt it probably wasn’t a good thing to have around 20 years ago, solar and wind are so much cheaper and I know a good percentage of homes have made the switch to solar in recent years.

    The only politicians I’m seeing which are calling out for nuclear seem to be very closely aligned with resources companies.

    • JoshCodes@programming.devEnglish
      4·
      5 小时前

      Mining shills who want to spend $10b on concrete manufacturing and uranium mines.

      What makes me laugh is that we could still invest that into mining, get the resources to make solar panels and batteries, then stop because battery recycling is a thing. They can still get rich off it. They just have a set period the mining is necessary while we get the amount required. But by then they could buy the solar farms and generate infinite income from the power generation… Are they all just bad at capitalism or something?