If we invest in grid energy storage, we might be able to skip nuclear entirely. In the meanwhile though, we’re kinda stuck. The way I see it, nuclear power is an intermediary step that is hard to avoid.
Comment on Bill Gates Says China Is Outspending the World on Nuclear Power
Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Who the fuck cares about nuclear. Renewables are the future…
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
We have all the tools we need, they are easier and built faster than NPPs. So I don’t see your point.
Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Political decision making is the only real bottleneck here. It’s not a technical issue.
Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Even if this was true, good luck fixing it. Meanwhile, the renewable equivalent of around 80 reactors was built last year.
iloveDigit@piefed.social 1 month ago
I think nuclear power will inevitably continue to go wrong as long as humans use it, and it could contribute to the extinction of the planet if overused, so I hope the ways it goes wrong are ways that result in people not using it where it’s not needed, instead of ways that result in no life surviving human impact
turdas@suppo.fi 1 month ago
Yeah who the fuck cares about limitless free clean power.
Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Well, it had its chance…
Image
turdas@suppo.fi 1 month ago
Nuclear’s stagnation has more to do with short-sighted financial incentives and public backlash from people acting as either useful idiots or paid shills of the fossil fuel lobby than anything else.
Thankfully the world is gradually realizing this mistake and investment in nuclear is improving again.
Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I have heart this arguments in discussions for at least 20 years. So I remain highly doubtfull. But, to get back to the point, renewables are cheaper , built faster, and have more societal acceptance. Sure, some countries will build NPPs but thats not the future or the majority.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Nice data out of context, but renewables are fucking useless to any grid without gas or nuclear to buffer the loads.
Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I guess you know that is not true so I will not spam you with a million articles and papers that will show you. But l, you are more than welcome to read up yourselfe.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 1 month ago
It’s the most expensive form of power we know. It’s far from clean (still shouldn’t pick too many mushrooms in parts of Europe), and it’s really funny you should bring up “limitlessness” when competing against the Sun and Wind.
turdas@suppo.fi 1 month ago
Nuclear is statistically either the cheapest or the second-cheapest form of production in my home country of Finland, and yes that statistic does take into account the construction costs of our massive 1.6 GW reactor that was finished 13 years behind schedule and ran several billion euros over budget becoming the 8th largest construction project ever.
In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean. Even if you include Chernobyl and Fukushima (the latter of which leaked barely anything anyway), nuclear has emitted orders of magnitude less radiation than coal. Indeed even thinking that radiation has anything to do with nuclear’s emissions betrays your lack of understanding of the topic – the main emissions concern are the construction and fuel extraction emissions, not because they’re radiological hazards but because they’re not free in terms of carbon emissions. Accounting for those it’s still pretty much the cleanest energy we have though.
solo@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
I believe nowadays it would make more sense to compare nuclear to renewable energy, not coal. Apart from that I believe it’s important to keep in mind the nuclear waste problem.