Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The issue with wind/solar is that they lack consistency, they are fantastic when the wind blows and it is sunny, but you can't count on the output.
Nuclear on the other hand is highly consistent and way more environmentally friendly, the waste storage is a solved problem, and far easier to manage than the ash from coal plants.
It is insane how energy dense uranium is, and while the waste is dangerous, it is a tiny amount when compared to the ash from coal plants.
So yeah, get rid of coal/oil/gas power generation, replace it with nuclear, use the interim period until nuclear material has run out to build out the wind/solar capacity, and add battery storage facilities to enable consistent output.
You're right, but probably being downvoted because the wording you've used is the same as that used by conservatives to reject renewables all together.
Nuclear is not "the" solution, but it's part of the energy mix of the future, particularly as we transition away from petrol and diesel transport, and gas cooking and heating.
In some cases it just doesn't make sense. Australia for example has never had a nuclear industry and doesn't have the requisite population density. It would take thirty years to build a nuclear plant and in that time we could build the same capacity with solar and wind.
However, if you already have a nuclear industry and do have large dense population centres then it's a great alternative to coal.
Ah, that explains the weird response I got about lemmy.zip being fascist, thank you for explaining it!
You are absolutely right, nuclear is not the solution, it is an interim solution giving us 100-200 years of remarkably clean energy, if we designed a standard reactor that could be built inside existing fossil power plants, I think we could cut down on the build time by 80%, though that requires that we have approved designs.
I also believe that we in Sweden/Scandinavia should build large underground nuclear waste disposal sites, and offer to take care of nuclear waste from around the world, we have stable bedrock, our politics have been stable for decades. If would be a nice income stream while solving the issue for other countries. It has to be done, and we are well suited for it.
You can mostly solve the solar issue by building more solar, it generates power in virtually any weather, maybe less but then you just build more to account for it. And when it's not sunny it's normally windy.
Also grids normally span multiple areas, you don't build all your solar in the same spot, you spread it around so it's sunny somewhere.
Batteries or even pumped hydro also solve the problem of power being generated at a different time than needed.
Outside of the US, solar capacity is being added at speed because it has become so cheap.
Yeah, solar IS fantastic, but as someone who lives in northern Europe, when we need stable power, in the winter, there is very little sun.
I realize that I am probably projecting our climate onto the entire nuclear question world wide, and that is unfair.
I just want us to shut down fossil plants as soon as possible, while maintaining a supply for baseload, and the way I read it, the grid isn't ready for dispersed power generation yet, and while solar is very cheap, it isn't yet able to deal with a baseload in northern europe.
There is also a geopolitical question here, the vast majority of solar panels and wind powerplant components are made in China, until we can produce our own panels and components of similar quality/cost we are in a quite vulnerable position if we become dependant on China for everything needed for power generation.
Nuclear obviously have similar issues, but seems less so as Europe has the capability of building our own reactors, and the cost is less of an issue due to longer lifetimes.
Eh, I freely admit that I am quite tired of the anti nuclear crowd who for decades has been against nuclear power out of fear and not reason, and thus prevented closure of fossil plants earlier.
China alone is pushing the world into the renewables age. For the rest of us, we just follow the wave.
Nuclear does not have similar issues. Nuclear is a super long game that basically leaves a few states left to explore and invest in this area. Nuclear power is basically a bespoke option that needs to be developed like an art piece and an investment. Any nuclear power installation requires massive budgets, massive budget overruns, and over 10 years of development and installation which will overrun as well. By the time a nuclear project breaks ground, only the next generation will possibly enjoy whatever power is generated.
Nuclear also requires massive investments of teams of specialists. They basically need teams to operate over huge periods of time to retain the institutional knowledge of building, maintaining, and improving upon these installations. In that sense nuclear is similar to rail companies in that we want teams with over 100 years of experience in this business to maintain a certain level of competence.
Nuclear is fun to drop like in SimCity or Civilzation, but it is completely, seriously inaccessible for many.
Are you the only Lemmy user who missed Technology Connections recent video?
I don't really watch that channel, never got into it
Solar plus battery is much cheaper than nuclear. And it adds immediately. Nuclear takes years and doesn’t come online til the project is finished. Solar comes online incrementally and can be anywhere.
True, however I live in northern Europe, even with huge batteries and large solar infrastructure, I have doubts that it will be enough during winters.
Also I am annoyed at the anti nuclear crowd who for decades prevented nuclear power from being built, and increased our use of fossils.
I shouldn't let it cloud my general judgement of solar however.
Iceland pretty much runs on thermal energy. You can also use hydroelectric dams, tidal energy and wind energy. And a lot of countries are using that instead of fossil fuel. Of course, there's lunatics like Merz, who wants to literally replace renewables with nuclear, but the less said about that b-st-rd the better.
Well planned hydroelectric dams are fantastic, but they do disrupt ecosystems quite badly.
That does it I’m filtering out that entire instance, fuck you Lemmy.zip, fascists mouthpiece fucks
What?
How does nuclear power equal fascism?
lol 😂
what does nuclear have to do with facism