I don’t give a shit at this point. Just stop with the fossil fuels. Whatever it takes. If employing a team of white working class farmer astronauts to run in a hamster wheel is more politically palatable then let’s fucking do it.
It feels like we are either approaching, or have reached, a point where going zero carbon and straight up dumping unprotected nuclear waste in a population center would lead to less suffering and misery than our current trajectory. Obviously that's not necessary or even possible, but that the situation we are in is extremely bleak and fixing it at this point probably requires a level of ice cold motherfuckerness we've never reckoned with.
employing a team of white working class farmer astronauts to run in a hamster wheel
They're engineers and technicians, but I see you're already familiar with the Canadian nuclear power industry. "Hide and seek for a grand a week, or stand in plain view for two"
If nuclear helps us phase out fossil fuels quicker than I fully support it.
At least where I live that's a big if. Nuclear in Australia is most often used by fossil fuel interests as a stalling tactic because of how long it would take to get up and running and how expensive it would be, compared to renewables.
It won’t, but it’ll help the longterm. We can tackle both longterm and short term goals at once.
What we absolutely shouldn’t be doing is engaging in protectionism, and banning imports of cheap solar panels. We don’t have time for that shit.
Renewables are the main actor for the phase out. Nuclear contribution (less than 8% of the electricity) is ridiculous.
The discussion should just be about either solar/wind/hydro or solar/wind/hydro/nuclear. Let’s start with the low hanging fruit and then keep discussing nuclear.
Nowv kiss🥰🥰. More seriously I don't understand this nonsense of make fighting two great solution that help to stop the use of fossil fuel industry. Plus they are complementary since we can't store great amount of energy and solar and turbine are intermittent energies
They're not as complementary as you might think. Because solar and wind fluctuate during the day, any additional power source also needs to be able to spin up or down quickly. And nuclear doesn't do that, it takes time to do so. Worse, because nuclear is so expensive the only way it gets even remotely close to becoming economically viable is if it's running all the time. And that's precisely what it won't be able to do, because solar and wind are simply cheaper; nuclear will be pushed off the market.
Energy storage is genuinely a cheaper and more viable option these days. I think I saw someone calculate recently that producing the equivalent amount of energy in solar/wind/storage as a nuclear plant would cost less than half the amount of money to build, and even less time than that.
I think nuclear is cool and fusion is probably the future, but for now I don't see it making any kind of financial sense.
Sadly, it's just not. Looking at just the price to generate is just too one sided. Renewables need a lot of expensive infrastructure due to being decentralized, land which you might not have, and experts that are already in huge shortage. Energy storage especially is hard and expensive with current technology due the massive amount of rare earth metals you need for it, and even the current largest storage facility can't even provide enough energy for 2 million people let alone 8 billion of them.
I calculate it and explain it in even more depth here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13508867
TL:DR; currently, renewables + nuclear + storage is the closest we can get to carbon neutral. With just renewables and storage you don't get anywhere close and are still forced to fall back on either fossil, (stored) hydro, or nuclear. Of which the only really viable green option for most places is nuclear. When the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, when the alternative is the exact pollution we are trying to nullify, that should be more important than paying a few cents more per kWh. In that moment the cost for renewables might as well be infinite if they're not producing anything and we don't have enough batteries to store it.
Left: Regular green energy.
Right: Glowing green energy.
Exactly 😂😂
I just don't see why so many people are dead set on only solar/wind/hydro as "green" and nuclear and other more exotic power generation methods that don't emit greenhouse gases are somehow unacceptable.
Isn't the goal net zero? Why are we quibbling about how we achieve that?
Can't we just do whatever we must to get there and move on with our existence?
Mostly because nuclear is incredibly expensive and takes too long to build. If we want to achieve net zero anytime soon, going all-in on renewables is currently the most economically viable option.
Yeah, the best time to start building nuclear plants was 20+ years ago. Unlike most things, the second-best time is not now, however - we're at a point where the massive expenditure for nuclear power generation is just a big question mark as to whether it'll be cost-effective by the time it's finished. There just haven't been enough breakthroughs in the past few decades to improve the cost-effectiveness of nuclear power substantially, while renewables are faster to install, cheaper to replace, and advancing at a rapid clip.
Definitely should still keep any nuclear plants we still have running, though. My home state of Maryland generates over 1/3 of its power through a nuclear plant. Would be 2/3s if the Obama administration didn't screw us over 'foreign' (EU) suppliers being a 'security risk' back in 2010 or so, ffs.
Nuclear is there as a back up for when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, you don't have enough space for renewables, or you've reached the capacity for building and repairing renewables (Either logistically, in lack of expertise, or lack of public support). If you can't find a solution for that the result you end up with is just going back to fossil fuels when the times are tough. That's not carbon neutrality.
Battery storage is also still a breakthrough away from being viable enough to store all the electricity renewables could potentially generate to be able to sustain a 100% load when they are less effective, not to mention the amount of infrastructure required for them to be able to do so. You need some kind of baseline to supplement it that works when nothing else does.
We need both renewables and nuclear, and nuclear should never be a reason not to invest in renewables. But the same goes the other way around. We're in a crisis, we can't be pedantic about this stuff when the world waited out the clock to the very end like a teenager the day before his exam. We can pick the perfect options when it is no longer the enemy of good options. Until then every option should be explored.
There's a great distinction that Norwegian philosopher and deep ecologist Anre Naess makes between long-range and short-range movements which I think helps explain the disagreement a little.
In the short term, we need to reduce CO2 for our own survival. Nuclear helps this, so from this angle it seems counterproductive for anyone who claims concern over the environment to object to its development.
In the long term, humans need to transition away from a society based on resource extraction, and long term damage. It's a lot harder to see how nuclear helps with this- mining and enriching uranium are destructive processes, and nuclear waste needs containment for thousands of years.
Our current situation is pretty critical, so I think it's pretty legitimate to think that we might need to make some compromises between the long and short term. But I think the distinction makes it a lot clearer about why people seem to be shouting passed each other sometimes.
The electrical grid, from production, distribution, and delivery, to the outlets in your home/business, is a very complex and distinctly unique system filled with challenges at all points.
I know just enough about all of it to get myself into trouble, or, more frequently, keep myself out of trouble. IMO, nuclear, whether in the form of SMR or something else, should be built to handle the base loads, aka, the power that is always needed, and not necessarily any more than that.
The volatile loads that fluctuate throughout the day, that's what I'm not sure the best method to address. Is it wind/hydro, which are fairly consistent (the latter more than the former, in terms of consistency), or solar + energy storage, which may be batteries, or some other method of storing the power?
I dunno, I'm no expert. But given the reliability of nuclear, building more or less static systems with it that will supply base loads, seems like a no brainer. We will always need at least that much power, let's get it from somewhere that can push it out 24/7/365 for years with little to no maintenance. Obviously, all nuclear production needs to be monitored, regardless of the reactor type.... For safety. But if the system is basically always doing the same thing, with the same output, constantly, it shouldn't require a lot of variance.
Do we have a solution for nuclear waste yet?
We put it back in the ground where we found it in the first place.
I don't see how people are A-OK with uranium and other naturally occurring nuclear isotopes beneath their feet, but used fuel rods from a nuclear power plant? No fucking way!
Your house is full of radon Joe, the nuclear waste in a sealed casket, buried in the side of a mountain nowhere near you isn't what is going to give you cancer.
I was gonna make a joke about using it for plutonium production, but I'm pretty sure that still requires neutrons from fresh U235 to hit U238 to make U239 which decays into Pu239
Permanent underground storage where it will naturally decay. Are a couple of different methods available from what I understand. And the amount of material that actually needs to be stored is a fraction of what is instead released into the air, water & soil from fossil based fuel. Not to mention toxins like mercury etc.
Eat it! So many calories. You will never have to eat again.
You could feed every single person on earth for life and solve hunger
We have many. Most aren't in effect yet though, but it also isn't a serious issue. They're stored safely in cement caskets, with molten glass and stuff to keep it together and safe, with effectively zero chance to cause an issue. There are permanent ways to store it safely, but we haven't invested in them yet for many reason. Mostly, dirty energy companies pushing the anti-nuclear message have purposefully hamstrung nuclear from becoming a great solution, and people who think they're being smart believe them.
That and they have ways to reuse “spent” nuclear fuel in newer reactors that can use fuel that older reactors have finished using.
Do we have a solution for atmospheric CO2 release yet?
Is nuclear waste more radioactive than the uranium we started with?
we give each yimby a few gallons to put in their closet
Have you seen spent fuel storage solutions? I'll happily hold onto a cask. It wouldn't be any more radioactive than the smoke coming from the coal plant down the street.
Just put it back in the ground where it came from. Why is this a concern? It was radioactive rocks when we took it out, and it's radioactive rocks when we put it back in.
¿Por que no los dos?
Exactamente, no entiendo por qué es una discusión.
Wait are we supposed to agree with the guy on the left? Cos the last iteration of this meme I saw, the woman on the right (Summer?) was by far the more open-minded one. I just don't know this meme well enough.
I think it's a trust issue. If you see regulations and laws fall in real time, due to deregulating governments, destroying years of work with one strike .... you don't want these people to have supervision over nuclear plants or the waste disposal. Remember the train derailment? Yeah,... that but worse, because they tried to save money.
Need CO2 line go down.
