New research shows renewables are more profitable than nuclear power - eviltoast
    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      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.