Nuclear power should be expanded, a lot, it is the only realistic way to replace fossil plats for base demand.
This 90’s talking point against Greenpeace is no longer valid. The economics have changed.
Comment on World's largest sodium-ion battery goes into operation - Energy Storage
stoy@lemmy.zip 7 months agoNuclear power should be expanded, but a lot, it is the only realistic way to replace fossil plats for base demand.
And before anyone starts whining about “radiation scary”, nuclear waste is a solved problem.
You dig a hole deep into the bedrock, put the waste in dry casks, put the full drycasks in the hole, and backfill it with clay.
Done, solved!
A bigger radiation hazard is coal ash, from cosl power stations, they produce insane ammounts of ash which is radioactive.
scientificamerican.com/…/coal-ash-is-more-radioac…
Storing coal ash is also a big problem:
www.southeastcoalash.org/…/coal-ash-storage/
Here is an interesting documentary about our fear of radiation, it is called Nuclear Nightmares, and was made by Horizon on BBC:
frezik@midwest.social 7 months ago
stoy@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
I am not buying a book to prove your point.
At least here in Sweden, the high cost of nuclear power is due to artificial taxes, that are being lowered.
frezik@midwest.social 7 months ago
Oh, fuck a book, aahhhhhh
stoy@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
I’d check it out if it was free, but I am not paying to prove someone else on the internet right.
Your response just tells me that you are not interested in a good faith debate.
CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
Context is important here. The conversation here was about Australia’s nuclear capacity. A country where nuclear power is banned at both state and federal levels. Where the plan for it’s use is currently uncosted, the planned sites have been selected without environmental protection studies and several of which are supposed to be SMRs.
Would you build a bleeding edge nuclear reactor without a legal framework to govern its construction or operation? Without a workforce trained in its functions? Without consider the environmental factors of its geography? Without considering the cost?
Probably not. But that’s the current plan put forward by the reactionary right in Australia and this from a party who doesn’t believe in climate change, have no emissions targets, and whose whole plan is to continue to run and build coal power until whatever time they work out the details on nuclear.
stoy@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
This is perfectly fair, I saw several anti nuclear power articles before thls, and I approached it from a more general viewpoint.
But if the alternative is coal, I’d go nuclear.
CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
Well it’s not really an either or situation. The current Labor government’s plan is a combination of majority renewables with gas and hydrogen. They are also running coal at the moment but have no plans to force those plants to renew those plants during the transition. They’ve signed on to emissions reductions of 75% by 2035.
So you’ve got one plan which has some reduction targets (probably not steep enough) planned transition, costed and budgeted that doesn’t require more coal, and one plan which will pull funding from renewables, and requires more coal until some time as which they can get nuclear approved, built and commercialised.
Chronographs@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Imo “put it in a hole” isn’t exactly a great solution when the alternative is renewables but you’re definitely right about coal that shit is terrible.
stoy@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
So far I have not seen any real renewable energy source that can cover base demand, I am sure there will be eventually.
Nuclear is not a replacement for renewable energy, it is a shortcut to getting rid of fossil power generation and buying us time.
Cypher@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Nuclear power plants take a long time to do properly. Starting to build nuclear now would take a decade plus.
They’re also more expensive per watt of energy generated over the lifetime of the plant than renewables.
It would be cheaper and faster to build renewables, batteries, hydro electric, and other storage methods.
Nuclear is a distraction and you fell for it.
stoy@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Standardisation will bring down the cost and time of building a powerplant.
I don’t think it is fair to compare the cost of nuclear against the cost of renewable power since they will fullfill different roles.
Renewables are great at dynamic demand, nuclear is great at base demand.
Hydro power has been shown to be quite harmful to local fish dammaging the eco system, but yes, some hydro should absolutely be used.
But renewables still can’t cut it for base demand.
I see nuclear powerplants as being a drop-in replacement for coal, oil and gas powerplats, buying us time to develop renewables further while also developing better and more efficient tech.