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.
Comment on Bill Gates Says China Is Outspending the World on Nuclear Power
turdas@suppo.fi 1 month agoYeah who the fuck cares about limitless free clean power.
Don_alForno@feddit.org 1 month ago
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
In terms of cleanness it is also incredibly clean.
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.
turdas@suppo.fi 1 month ago
That’s what I was comparing it to. The lifecycle emissions of nuclear plants are similar to solar panels and geothermal energy, and higher than hydro and wind power (though not by so much that it would really matter): docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
Nuclear waste is not and has never been a real problem. The amount of long-term waste produced is minuscule: the US powers about 70 million homes with nuclear energy, which generates about 2000 metric tons of high-level waste – 30 grams per household, about the volume of a marble (and keep in mind these are US households which consume 3 times the power of other western households). Storing it away permanently is… well, not easy, but relatively easy: just do what Finland does and put it underground. The main difficulty with it has always been scaremongering and NIMBYism.
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.