• flossdaily@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    410
    arrow-down
    72
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good!

    Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.

    Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

    We’ve had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      117
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      imagine how much farther ahead we would be in safety and efficiency if it was made priority 50 years ago.

      we still have whole swathes of people who think that because its not perfect now, it cant be perfected ever.

      • danielbln@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So uh, turns out the energy companies are not exactly the most moral and rule abiding entities, and they love to pay off politicians and cut corners. How does one prevent that, as in the case of fission it has rather dire consequences?

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Since you can apply that logic to everything, how can you ever build anything? Because all consequences are dire on a myopic scale, that is, if your partner dies because a single electrician cheaped out with the wiring in your building and got someone to sign off, “It’s not as bad as a nuclear disaster” isn’t exactly going to console them much.

          At some point, you need to accept that making something illegal and trying to prosecute people has to be enough. For most situations. It’s not perfect. Sure. But nothing ever is. And no solution to energy is ever going to be perfect, either.

          • sederx@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            a wind mill going down and a nuclear plant blowing up have very different ramifications

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly, just like a windmill running and a nuclear power plant running have very different effects on the power grid. Hence why comparing them directly is often such a nonsense act.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            An electrician installing faulty wiring doesn’t render your home uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

            So there’s one difference.

            • SocialEngineer56@notdigg.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety. With a nuclear power plant, you mitigate the disaster potential by having so many more people involved in the design and inspection processes.

              The risk of an electrician installing faulty wiring in your home could be mitigated by having a third party inspector review the work. Now do that 1000x over and your risk of “politicians are paid off” is negligible.

              • arglebargle@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are saying, regulations will fix this? Politicians create the regulations, the fines, and enforcement.

                Political parties are running on platforms of deregulation right now.

                • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Regulations are actually generally created by regulatory bodies, which are usually non-political. For instance, the underwriter laboratory is the major appliance, building and electrical approval body in the United States.

                  In most countries, building codes and safety codes are created by industry specialists, people who have been in the industry as professionals for many decades and have practiced and been licensed in the field that they are riding the regulations for.

                  There’s a big difference between politicians who are passing these laws, and those writing them who are the regulatory bodies. Generally, as a politicians will simply adopt the codes as recommended by the professional licensing and certification bodies.

                  I suppose it will be the end of modern civilization if politicians decide to politicize electrical or building codes. Then we’ll be fucked for sure. We’ve seen that happen before with the Indiana pi bill.

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

                  “The Indiana Pi Bill is the popular name for bill #246 of the 1897 sitting of the Indiana General Assembly, one of the most notorious attempts to establish mathematical truth by legislative fiat.”

              • abraxas@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety

                Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they “artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we’ll use solar”. I’m not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.

                If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it’s a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.

          • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because the energy industry is historically the one lobbying governments for less regulation. Also, has there ever been a nuclear project in the history of mankind that didnt result in depleted Uranium leeching into local watertables and/or radioactive fallout? Your comment is basically tacit acceptance that people are going to act unethically, which, in regards to nuclear power, is bound to have human consequences.

          • cloud@lazysoci.al
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Or they could just allow everyone to build nuclear reactors in their backyard, everyone is saying that they are safer than a banana so i don’t see any issue

        • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Much much tighter regulations. Our cars aren’t aluminum cans waiting to crush everybody inside them because of strict safety regulations.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Big news worthy accidents are a really good way to ensure strong regulation and oversight. And nuclear is very regulated now so that it has lower death rate than wind power.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean it’s not the companies operating the facilities we put our trust in, but the outside regulators whose job it is to ensure these facilities are safe and meet a certain standard. As well as the engineers and scientists that design these systems.

          Nuclear power isn’t 100% safe or risk-free, but it’s hella effective and leaps and bounds better than fossil fuels. We can embrace nuclear, renewables and fossil free methods, or just continue burning the world.

          • The_v@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The worst nuclear disaster has led to 1,000sq miles of land being unsafe for human inhabitants.

            Using fossil fuels for power is destroying of the entire planet.

            It’s really not that complicated.

            • abraxas@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.

            • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Both sound terrible.

              I don’t really want to pick the lessor of two evils when it comes to the energy.

                • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The option proposed is that making a small area of the planet inhabitable or worsening climate change. Sorry but that’s a shitty comparison.

              • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                By not picking, you are picking fossil fuels. Because we can’t fully replace everything with solar/wind yet, and fossil fuels are already being burned as we speak.

                • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

                  That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it?

                • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, give me an option that doesn’t make a part of the world uninhabitable or increases climate change.

                  That just a stupid comparison and is there any reason why we can’t also do wind solar thermal hydro also? It’s fossil fuels or nuclear and that’s it huh?

            • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Except that powering the world with nuclear would require thousands of reactors and so much more disasters. This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

              • uis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                This doesn’t even factor the space abandonned to store «normal» toxic materials.

                You mean under ground from where it was dug out?

                • pedroapero@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The plant itself, water inevitably getting in contact with wastes and leaking also.

          • umad_cause_ibad@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t push nuclear power like it’s the only option though.

            Where I live we entirely provide energy from hydro power plants and nuclear energy is banned. We use no fossil fuels. We have a 35 year plan for future growth and it doesn’t include any fossil fuels. Nuclear power is just one of the options and it has many hurdles to implement, maintain and decommission.

            • Astrealix@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Honestly, if you can, hydro is brilliant. Not many places can though — both because of geography and politics. Nuclear is better than a lot of the alternatives and shouldn’t be discounted.

                • Astrealix@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I know it’s a damn lot easier than carbon recapture, if we’re talking waste products. It’s not ideal, but there is no such thing as perfect, and we shouldn’t let that be the enemy of good. Nuclear fission power is part of a large group of methods to help us switch off fossil fuels.

          • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The problem is its potential for harm. And I don’t mean meltdown. Storage is the problem that doesn’t seem to have strong solutions right now. And the potential for them to make a mistake and store the waste improperly is pretty catastrophic.

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Nuclear waste” sounds super scary, but most of it are things like tools and clothing, that have comparatively tiny amount of radioactivity. Sure it still needs to be stored properly, very little high level waste is actually generated.

              You know what else is catastrophic? Fossil fuels and the impact they have on the climate. I’m not arguing that we should put all our eggs in one basket, but getting started and doing something to move away from the BS that is coal, gas, and oil is really something we should’ve prioritised fifty years ago. Instead they have us arguing whether we should go with hydroelectric, or put up with “ugly windmills” or “solar farms” or “dangerous nuclear plants.”

              It’s all bullshit. Our world is literally on fire and no one seems to actually give a fuck. We have fantastic tools that could’ve halted the progress had we used them in time, but fifty years later we’re still arguing about this.

              At this point I honestly hope we do burn. This is a filter mankind does not deserve to pass. We’re too evil to survive.

              • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yea both are horrible. But we can get off fossil fuels and walk away. We can’t with nuclear. It’ll always be with us and doesn’t solve that we need fossil fuel for other things.

                Jets and ships are still going to need fossil fuels.

                Which is why I think the best thing we could be doing right now is focusing on improving how energy is store. With the right advancement we could solve a lot of these problems with the right battery.

                • OriginalUsername@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Mercury will always be with us. Arsenic will always be with us. PFAS will always be with us. Natural radiation will always be with us. Fortunately, nuclear waste is easily detectable, the regulations around it are much stronger, the amount of HLW is miniscule and the storage processes are incredibly advanced

                  Moreover, most Nuclear waste won’t always be with us. A lot of fission prodcuts have half lives in the decades or centuries

          • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How do you get the uranium or thorium? Generally, it has to be mined. Are we using nuclear powered mining equipment? No. We use fossil fuel powered mining equipment. Then we use fossil fuels to power the trucks that take the depleted nuclear product to the storage depot, which is powered and requires employees who drive there using fossil fuel powered vehicles, using fossil fuel powered warehouse equipment. When does nuclear power phase out the fossil fuel power? Are we going to decommission oil and coal production facilities? Or are we just going to use nuclear to augment the grid?

        • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And we would be expecting these corrupt Cost cutting types to warehouse nuclear waste for hundreds if not thousands of years while requiring regular inspections and rotation of caskets periodically while also maintaining the facilities. All of that for a product that doesn’t produce any value, it just sits there and accumulates.

          And where does it get stored? Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution. People will say things like “its just a little bit of toxic waste” or “its cool because we could use it in process we don’t have yet but might in the future” and all I can think of is how this was the same thinking that got us into our dependence on our first environmental catastrophic energy source. I’m not confident we that scaling up to another one will end well.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “its cool because we could use it in process we don’t have yet but might in the future”

            Is it quote from 60-ies? We have. At least Russia has. US had too.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right now almost 100% of waste is stored on site above ground because they really have no good solution.

            You mean there’s so little they don’t even need a dedicated facility for it, and it’s safe enough that people are willing to work where it’s stored? Sounds great!

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        One reason it wasn’t made a priority 50 years ago is because Jimmy Carter - a nuclear submariner who understood the risks and economics - decided it wasn’t a good idea.

        This is a man who was present at a minor nuclear accident, who helped create the modern nuclear submarine fleet, acknowledging that nukes weren’t going to help during the height of the Oil Embargo.

    • BrokebackHampton@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is factually false information. There are solid arguments to be made against nuclear energy.

      https://isreview.org/issue/77/case-against-nuclear-power/index.html

      Even if you discard everything else, this section seems particularly relevant:

      The long lead times for construction that invalidate nuclear power as a way of mitigating climate change was a point recognized in 2009 by the body whose mission is to promote the use of nuclear power, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “Nuclear power is not a near-term solution to the challenge of climate change,” writes Sharon Squassoni in the IAEA bulletin. “The need to immediately and dramatically reduce carbon emissions calls for approaches that can be implemented more quickly than building nuclear reactors.”

      https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

      Wealer from Berlin’s Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

      “The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically,” he said. “In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available.”

      Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

      “Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build,” he said. “When you factor it all in, you’re looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant.”

      He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. “And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won’t be able to make a significant contribution,” added Schneider.

      • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

        the largest fission plant was literally working 5 years after construction started

        fission plants are just more expensive now because we don’t make enough of them.

        I guess safety standards changed but even wind power kills more people per watt than fission so ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

        Nuclear could’ve easily worked if people didn’t go full nimby in the past few decades

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry. How does wind power kill anyone? Okay, every once in a while you hear about a technician falling off a windmill, but are there any fatalities in regard to the effects of wind power?

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “in 2011 coal produced about 180 billion kWhrs in England with about 3,000 related deaths. Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.”

              The only two major nuclear-related death incidents were Chernobyl and Fukushima. But Fukushima only killed one person, the rest were killed by the tsunami and being relocated from the exclusion zone. But many people blame the Japanese government for fucking up the evacuations, while other people criticize the government for actually evacuating people.

              In any case, those 2,300 Japanese people were not killed by the actual nuclear incident, they were killed because they were very old and could not adapt to moving into a new apartment that’s a government provided them. Chernobyl is believed to have killed about 500 people.

              I should also mention that the Fukushima exclusion zone has largely been lifted, and many people have moved back home.

              • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lacking safety standards specific to the use case of wind turbines. For example, there was a fire during installation and someone jumped to their deaths to get away. They had quick decent harnesses but couldn’t use them because of the location of the fire.

                • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And? Those safety standards for constructing and maintaining wind turbines can be increased just as much as the safety standards for any other type of heavy labor. For example by mandating that wind turbines must have fire suppression systems installed or that wworkers must be able to rapel on the outside of the wind turbine.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s not just construction workers, it’s the management, it’s the regulators, it’s the suppliers, and the design and engineering teams. Most countries have lost all of that capability apart from places like South Korea, Finland, Russia, France and China.

          China currently has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, 70 in the planning phase, and they currently operate 55. Well that is less than the United States, they will surpass the US soon. They seem to have figured it out.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sick and tired of “pro-environment” useful idiots shilling against nuclear power

          You know that the idea we should be investing in nuclear is being pushed by the very same people who for decades were telling us we didn’t need to worry about climate change, right?

          They’re trying to get “useful idiots”, as you so eloquently put it, to also support nuclear energy, rather than going all-in on renewables.

          The “useful idiots” in this scenario are not the people opposing nuclear. They’re the ones suggesting it’s actually an economical idea, and in so doing either explicitly or (more often) implicitly suggesting that we shouldn’t invest too much in actual renewable energy.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are solid arguments to be made against both nuclear and renewables (intermittence, impact of electricity storage, amount of raw material, surface area). We can’t wait for perfect solutions, we have to work out compromises right now, and it seems nuclear + renewable is the most solid compromise we have for the 2050 target. See this high quality report by the public French electricity transportation company (independent of the energy producers) that studies various scenarios including 100% renewable and mixes of nuclear, renewables, hydrogen and biogas. https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2022-01/Energy pathways 2050_Key results.pdf

      • AbolishBorderControlsNow@mastodonapp.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        @BrokebackHampton @sv1sjp @flossdaily

        Our local new #nuclear power station, Hinkley Point in the UK, is years behind schedule. The cost has more than doubled to £40bn ($46bn) and the strike price (guaranteed price we as electricity customers will have to pay for it is £106per mwh (index linked so will be nearer £150 by 2028 (for 35 years) when it is planned to be operational.

        This when #wind is costing as low as £40 per MWh.

        Nuclear energy is a scam

        #renewables #wind

      • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your arguments didn’t actually invalidate the comment you replied to. They are just arguments against nuclear being a short-term solution.

        We need both, short and long term ones. Wind and water cannot be solely relies upon. Build both types.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is true, building a nuclear power plant doesn’t help. The problem is how many we closed down in a panic, in particular after Fukushima. We could make great strides towards cleaner energy and cutting the actually problematic power plants (coal, gas) out of the picture as we slowly transition to renewables-only if we had more nuclear power available.

        Of course, in hindsight it’s difficult to say how one could have predicted this. There’s good reasons against nuclear energy, it just so happens that in the big picture it’s just about the second-best options. And we cut that out first, instead of the worse ones.

      • NUMPTY37K@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Long lead times against nuclear have bee raised for the last 25 years, if we had just got on with it we would have the capacity by now. Just cause the lead time is in years doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.

        • abraxas@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world’s construction capacity.

          My counterpoint is that if we had “just got on with it” for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.

        • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Long lead times, cost overruns, producing power at a higher price point than renewables, long run time needed to break even, even longer dismantling times and a still unsolved waste problem. Compared to renewables that we can build right now.

        • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we’re here now.

          Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.

          The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can’t come back from.

          Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            How much concrete does it take to build a nuclear plant? Concrete production is currently 8% of global emissions, so if you have to scale up construction capacity 10x for the next decade, don’t you end up destroying the environment with concrete before they are even operational?

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        “We should just go nuclear, renewables aren’t viable” is just the next step in the ever-retreating arguments of climate change denial. First climate change wasn’t real. Then it was real but not man-made. One of the popular tactics today is to push nuclear, because they know how effective it can be at winning over progressives to help with their delaying tactics.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We should do both as fast as we possiblity can. Expand all non ghg emitting sources as fast as possible to cut out coal and gas.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s been a decade since a report came out recognising nuclear as too expensive to be viable, and that the best economic decision is to go all-in on renewables. In that time, the price of nuclear has not changed (really, it’s likely gone up, with how much construction in general has gone up, while the technical side of it has not changed), while the cost of renewable energy has continued to go down.

            I’m not ideologically opposed to nuclear. But the evidence clearly tells us that it’s just not a reasonable option. At least not unless the long-promised affordability improvements from SMRs actually end up realising themselves. Or fusion gets to the point where it can be used for energy generation.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              To expensive to be viable against the current solar wind and storage pieces. But when those go up due to saturation and shortages, it may become viable again.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So… climate change deniers want to delay action on climate change. So they push for nuclear because it has long lead times and that forestalls action?

          Come on man. That’s a pretty ridiculous theory. Climate change deniers are out there yelling “drill baby drill” not going undercover as nuclear advocates.

          • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            He’s completely right, and I don’t get why more people don’t see that. As an example, here in Denmark, the leader of the far right populist party is both the one saying climate change would be a good thing since it means warmer summer weather as well as constantly bringing up nuclear energy any single time someone starts talking about climate change. It’s honestly so transparent. I used to see the same thing all the time on Reddit, and now I guess it’s Lemmy’s turn for this shit.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            because it has long lead times and that forestalls action

            I won’t profess to know for sure what their reasoning is. I suspect it’s a bit of that, and also a bit of hope/expectation that the fossil fuel industry will be well-situated to pivot into nuclear in a way that they can’t as easily do with renewables. The more centralised nature and heavy reliance on large-scale resource extraction is very similar. But they actual explanation isn’t what’s important.

            What’s important is the simple fact that the biggest climate change deniers are now trying to promote nuclear. If you want to refute the claim, you need to explain that better than I can.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not very familiar with Australian politics or leaders so I can only go with what I see in those articles. First, I don’t see any climate change denial. I see a debate about renewables and nuclear

              Why are conservatives against renewables:

              They can’t meet our total energy needs.

              Wind and solar products are predominantly made in China and conservatives don’t want to feed the Chinese economy or increase dependence (one thing I do know about AU is that Chinese influence is quite heavy and a cause of great concern there).

              Why are conservatives pro-nuclear:

              It provides baseload capacity that supports wind/solar where they are weak.

              It has military applications.

              It creates large infrastructure spending within AU and supports mining industry.

              They believe it will rankle liberals.

              Maybe you have a point that conservatives who are dead-set against renewables will throw nuclear into the conversation as a distraction which they know will not go anywhere. But as an outside observer who doesn’t have built up associations with these characters, I honestly just see rational inclusion of nuclear in the energy mix. This all seems healthy to me.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

      The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn’t even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it’s just unsuitable for human habitation.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

        Or put another way, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a fun fact but I don’t think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying coal smoke is healthy, it’s fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.

          • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Federation of American scientists (FAS) believe that the number is actually calculable:

            “The quantity of radioactive material liberated by the burn- ing of coal is considerable, since on average it contains a few parts per million of uranium and thorium”

            “Per gigawatt- year (GWe-yr) of electrical energy produced by coal, using the current mix of technology throughout the world, the population exposure is estimated to be about 0.8 lethal cancers per plant-year distributed over the affected population.”

            “Table 7.2 summarizes these data. With 400 GWe of coal-fired power plants in the world, this amounts to some 320 deaths per year; in the world at large, some plants have better filters and cause less harm, while others have little stack-gas cleanup and cause far more.”

            https://rlg.fas.org/mwmt-p233.pdf

            That’s about the number of people who died from Chernobyl, every year. From the radiation from coal power plants.

              • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure sure, but we are still pumping out isotopes of uranium and plutonium into the atmosphere. We are lucky the effects of radioactive isotopes are generally overblown then, huh?

                • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  🙏 I need you to listen to me extremely closely. I am not saying nuclear shit in the atmosphere is good. I never said this. I never implied this. All I’m saying is that the nuclear aspects of coal usage are a drop in the bucket in the massive pile of problems it has. I’m not saying coal is good either.

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I’m saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn’t a concern with regards to health.

    • apollo440@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I totally agree that current nuclear power generation should be left running until we have enough green energy to pick up the slack, because it does provide clean and safe energy. However, I totally disagree on the scalability, for two main reasons:

      1. Current nuclear power generation is non-renewable. It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen. And it goes without saying that waiting to scale up some novel unproven or inexistent sustainable way of nuclear power production is out of the question, for time and safety reasons. Which brings me to point 2.

      2. We need clean, sustainable energy right now if we want to have any chance of fighting climate change. From start of planning of a new nuclear power plant to first power generation can take 15 or 20 years easily. Currently, about 10% of all electricity worldwide is produced by about 400 nuclear reactors, while around 15 new ones are under construction. So, to make any sort of reasonable impact, we would have to build to the tune of 2000 new reactors, pronto. To do that within 30 years, we’d have to increase our construction capacity 5 to 10 fold. Even if that were possible, which I strongly doubt, I would wager the safety and cost impacts would be totally unjustifiable. And we don’t even have 30 years anymore. That is to say nothing of regulatory checks and maintenance that would also have to be increased 5 fold.

      So imho nuclear power as a solution to climate change is a non-starter, simply due to logistical and scaling reasons. And that is before we even talk about the very real dangers of nuclear power generation, which are of course not operational, but due to things like proliferation, terrorist attacks, war, and other unforseen disruptions through e.g. climate change, societal or governmental shifts, etc.

      • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen.

        Nuclear fission using Uranium is not sustainable. If we expand current nuclear technologies to tackle climate change then we’d likely run out of Uranium by 2100. Nuclear fusion using Thorium might be sustainable, but it’s not yet a proven, scalable technology. And all of this is ignoring the long lead times, high costs, regulatory hurdles and nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that nuclear typically presents. It’d be great if nuclear was the magic bullet for climate change, but it just ain’t.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, there is Plutonium option, but superpowers want to be superpowers. Probably only USA, Russia, France and Britan can do it.

        • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’d run of our uranium that’s economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.

          • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.

            You got a source for that? Because the one I linked says that we run out of known Uranium deposits by 2100 at current usage rates. Our known Uranium deposits run out mid-century if we use nuclear to follow the IEA Blue Map plan to reduce carbon emissions by 50%, and we run out of even speculated deposits by 2100 under that scenario. Where are you getting “several thousand years” from? Is Thorium part of the mineral reserves to which you’re referring?

            • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The source you linked talks about uranium reserves. Mineral reserves, known and unknown deposits, refer explicitly to the known amount of economically minable supplies of that mineral.

              Discussion around them can be misleading, especially for a growing industry, because as a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more economically viable to mine difficult deposits, this growing the reserve. On top of that, the effort and technology tend to yield new methods of both mining and refining that increase yields.

              • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you have a point. Look at how the Oil & Gas industry pivoted to fracking and tar sands after conventional oil started drying up around 2005.

                There are deposits out there, probably, and the only time mining companies will consider changing ehat and how they currently mine is if they have a reason to do so,: aka an economic (or governmental) reason.

                Still, discovery, technology r&d, and supply chain establishment might take more time than what we have. It’s good that we should keep nuclear and all of this on the table, but it shouldn’t be a priority.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing is truly renewable, we still don’t know how to cheat thermodynamics. Sun itself is not renewable.

        Though sun will be problem million years later.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Small nitpick, but Google says that there are 57 nuclear reactors currently under construction worldwide in 2023. 22 of them are in China alone.

    • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ve had the cure for climate change all along

      Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this simply isn’t true with established nuclear technologies. Expanding our currently nuclear energy production requires us to fully tap all known and speculated Uranium sources, nets us only a 6% CO2 reduction, and we run out of Uranium by 2100. We might be able to use Thorium in fuel cycles to expand our net nuclear capacity, but that technology has to yet to be proven at scale. And all of this ignores the high startup cost, regulatory difficulties, disposal challenges and weapons proliferation risks that nuclear typically presents.

    • NoiseColor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s an oversimplification to the point that it is wrong. Nuclear power is not the only form of clean energy like that at all. It can not be scaled in this situation to save us, because it takes too long to build them.

      • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It takes 6 years on a fast paced build. If we had started when we knew of the problem, we could have avoided some of the problem. It is the only energy source we can scale up in that way, however.

        • NoiseColor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          If we had started, but we didn’t.

          It is not the only source like that at all. It is way easier, cheaper, faster and sustainable to build windmills where the is constant wind, solar cells where there is a lot of sun, hydro where there is… Energy sources should be built depending on the locality so they complement each other.

          This kind of talking in absolutes like some of you are doing is just plain wrong and it does disservice to advocacy for nuclear power.

          • bric@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the second best time is today. We can’t let what we should have done stop us from doing what should be done.

            And for other sources, wind and solar are great sources of energy that should be a supplement, but sometimes the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, and we don’t currently have the battery technology to store energy on the scale to handle those fluctuations. We need a stable backup, and nuclear is by far the best clean and stable energy source.

            • NoiseColor@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Another person with the incredible wisdom to tell me the is no sun during the night. Thank you sir!

              I’ll make it quick: Reducing carbon emissions is urgent. Building nuclear plants takes time, is expensive. There is no capacity to build enough to offset any carbon, not to mention building them produces carbon emissions. Plus many are even scheduled to be closed.

              Building something that will make a difference 20 years from now is smart, but if it comes at the expense of what is urgent today, it is very very dumb.

              • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Exactly. This person is talking about planting trees and waiting 20 years?

                If you’re hot today you don’t plant a tree, you put up a temporary shade (like a tent). Just nailing plywood roof to four posts is better than waiting 20 years for a frigging tree to grow.

                People complaining about “the current technology” of solar, windmills, and batteries? Prices per MW are dropping so fast, it won’t even matter soon. Battery tech is only old because we didn’t have a lot of power to store. I bet we have better batteries before the decade it will take to build a single nuclear plant.

                • bric@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  we have better batteries before the decade it will take to build a single nuclear plant.

                  That is quite the gamble though. You’re so sure that we’ll be able to develop a new technology and deploy it on a global scale within the next 20 years, that we shouldn’t even bother with the one clean solution that we know works? Not only that, you’re assuming a technology we don’t have yet will be better for the environment, despite all of our current battery tech being awful for the environment.

                  That’s not like putting up a tent, that’s like saying we shouldn’t plant a tree because someone is probably going to invent an instant tree service, so we should just wait. Like, maybe someone does invent instant trees, but if it doesn’t happen in 20 years we’re gonna feel really dumb

              • bric@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Solar not working during the night is going to keep being a relevant point until we have the capability to manage it, your sarcasm doesn’t do anything to refute that point. There are plenty of cool ways that scientists and engineers are working on solving those problems with better energy storage, but it’s all still in the experimental stages, and until I see build out timelines for energy storage on national scales, all of the variable output power solutions will be nonstarters for fossil fuel replacement. You say that we can’t wait 20 years for nuclear reactors, but we also can’t wait 20 years to figure out how to build a big battery. We don’t even know what the carbon emissions or time costs of whatever we decide on will be, but we do know that working nuclear reactors are a thing today.

                I’m not against solar or wind, I have solar panels on my house right now, but it has only reduced my reliance on the grid, it’s nowhere close to replacing it

                Plus many are even scheduled to be closed.

                Then don’t! I kind of see your point about not building new reactors, even if I disagree, but what purpose could closing existing plants possibly have? How is that going to save carbon and reduce fossil fuels??

          • DauntingFlamingo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I think you are vastly overestimating the productivity of renewables right now. They are a smart investment to augment what we have, but to take non-renewables offline and to build enough renewables to reach the levels of modern nuclear, we will need an additional decade… Assuming the tech in renewables continues to make massive gains. There just aren’t enough skilled workers, and you can’t run these people non-stop to produce enough windmills to meet demand.

            Renewables are only 20% of the US total, nuclear is 18% (and the US is the highest producer of nuclear worldwide at 30% of the world’s total), and the remaining ~60% is fossil fuels.

            https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

    • Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.

      Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.

      Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.

      Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it’s already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I’ve heard.

      It’s no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.

      A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.

      Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren’t included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.

      • Ertebolle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y’know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.

        • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I’m not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

            We do both. This isn’t a binary choice.

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.

              I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.

              • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Well demand isn’t going to go down, and we’re going to have to replace all of the old power plant plants anyways, even if they are solder or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear… Nothing lasts forever.

        • oyo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is there some reason for that? What makes nuclear power fundamentally different from all other human undertakings?

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.

      • Plantee@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.

        I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
        Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don’t dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I’d rather have some more solid solutions.

        Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
        2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
        new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
        International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
        15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
        800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
        utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).

    • diyrebel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax: pure ignorance, and fear of that which they don’t understand.

      (emphasis mine)

      First of all anti- #GMO stances are often derived from anti-Bayer-Monsanto stances (as there is no transparency about whether Monsanto is in the supply chain). It would either require pure ignorance or distaste for humanity to support that company with its pernicious history and future intent to take control over the world’s food supply.

      Then within the anti-GMO camp, you have people that are anti-all-GMO, and those who are anti-risky-GMO. Apart from boycotting a bad player, it’s pure technological ignorance to regard all GMO equally safe or equally unsafe. GMO is an umbrella of many techniques. Some of those techniques are as low risk as cross-breeding in ways that can happens in nature. Other invasive techniques are extremely risky & experimental. You’re wiser if you separate the different GMO techniques and accept the low risk ones while condemning the foolishly risky approaches.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change

      Except the plants take so long to build they won’t be ready until we’re at 2°C

      • Instrument_Data@livellosegreto.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It has been fifty years that “oh no they take so long to build, better never start” that by today we would have completely decarbonized energy generation if we started actually building them.

      • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Knowing nothing about the process, can i ask, is the time it takes to build one based on current standards? Like if we were to focus more resources into the construction of new plants wouldnt they be built faster?

        • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The latest nuclear power plant built in the US is seven years behind schedule and almost $20 billion over budget. It bankrupted Westinghouse Energy, and is slated to cost consumers more than double what comparable electricity costs because of these overruns.

          And this was a plant that was using newer construction techniques like offsite assembly to reduce costs.

          • GitProphet@lemmy.sdfeu.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Were there mistakes during the build process like lowballing spending figures or building time so they are permitted to build or did they just royally fuck up some other way?

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It just seems to be a general issue in the industry and not specific to this plant or the US.

              Flamanville-3 in France is 5 years overrun already and is projected to be operational 12 years from now. It’s budget ballooned from 3.3B to 20B euros.

              Olkiluoto-3 was only delayed a year, but the budget went from 3 to 11B Euro.

              Hinkley Point C project is behind and esyimates have gone from £16B to almost £30B.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ahh… no. New solar and wind generation can be spun up much faster than nuclear.

    • iterable@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t know natural disasters and war causing it to screw up also tends to worry people. Last time I checked wind and solar don’t create massive damage to the environment when destroyed.

      • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except wind and solar don’t have anywhere near the density we need. Nuclear plants are about 1kW/m^2. Wind is 2-3W/m^2, solar is 100W/m^2. Siting wind and solar projects can be just as damaging.

        • rbhfd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a lot easier and cheaper to build a solar plant of ten times the seize compared to one nuclear plant though.

          How did you get those numbers though? A standard on-shore wind turbine has a maximum power output of 2MW. Let’s say on average, it’s half, so 1 million Watt. You’re counting 500k m² per turbine?

          What kind of area did you use for the nuclear plant?

          Also, solar has the added benefit that it can be installed on basically wasted space (e.g., people’s roof) unlike the others.

        • iterable@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I didn’t even mention tidal or geothermal. But how are any of those just as damaging? Nuclear waste is still a issue and again if it were attacked or destroyed would cause a massive ecological issue. Again last I checked destroying a wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal generator would not release radiation. Also the time to build one of those compared to a nuclear plant is a lot less last I checked.

          • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Producing wafers for solar panels is indeed one of the most ecologically damaging activities we can engage in. Have you ever been to a semiconductor fab?

            • iterable@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Solar does not mean just solar panels. There are methods of using solar without them. Also what about wind, geothermal, or tidal?

              • amigan@lemmy.dynatron.me
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                What else does it mean, CSP? I’d love to see more CSP projects, but it’s not where most of the investment is. Wind, as I’ve pointed out, is even less space-efficient than solar. And geothermal also isn’t seeing the same investment dollars. It should. Tidal power is interesting, but good luck with the fishing lobby. My state has the first commerical offshore wind farm in the US, and it continues to receive significant backlash from the fishing industry. This isn’t nearly as invasive as tidal might be.

                And this is to ignore the elephant in the room, that without nuclear, we will not get away from fossil fuels soon enough. We don’t have the technology to solve the base load problem with renewables yet. Making plans based on some assumed cadence of progress is a recipe for disaster. Storage is a hard problem, and batteries are such a dirty, shitty technology.

    • 0x10097110@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since I don’t see it mentioned anywhere: Ignoring the economical and environmental issues that nuclear power still has compared to actual renewables, it has a geostrategic problem: Uranium is a geologically limited resources, which just creates political and economical dependencies. And since Russia has a lot of it, keeping working sanctions against them alive is pretty problematic, if you need to buy your energy resources from them. See gas supply.

      • Iceblade@lemdit.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        New archetypes of NP can run on depleted fuel. There’s enough of that around for more than 50yrs of power.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

      Long term nuclear is great…

      But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.

      So we can’t just spam build nuke plants right now to fix everything.

      30 years ago that would have worked.

      • Ertebolle@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        But building new plants uses a shit ton of concrete. So we’re paying the carbon cost up front, and it can take years or even decades to break even.

        That’s not remotely on the same scale, carbon-wise. Global output is like 4 billion tons of concrete per year, a nuclear plant uses like 12 tons per megawatt; an all-in nuclear buildout would use a tiny, tiny fraction of global concrete production and the carbon costs aren’t even remotely equivalent.

        (also, wind power uses way, way more concrete)

      • MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        (What’s with the downvotes?)

        Small scale reactors that require almost no maintenance and produce enough power for a single city are the hot topic right now due to what you just mentioned. As a side product, they provide hot water for the city.

        • gibmiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Imagine living in a snowy city where hot water is pumped through the sidewalks to people’s homes. No frozen pipes, no shoveling snow. No people freezing to death…

      • Wooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        8 years to build, not 30. Instead we are building many many more coal and gas plants. What a terrific alternative. Fallacy of renewables without storage is done. It’s never going to happen.

    • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

      Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.

      I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.

      But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.

      We’ve had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

      I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they’ll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.

      Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention the conventional plants don’t seem to be faring all that well…

        The study also questions the reliability of the nuclear fleet, particularly given the dramatically low availability of French power plants this year – nearly half of the 56 nuclear reactors were closed even though the EU was in a complicated period of electricity supply with frequent peaks in the price of electricity above €3/kWh.

        That sounds pretty awful when everyone expects nucleur to handle baseload.

        • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, the argument of nuclear crumbles when you start to peak behind the curtain of operation. Still, renewables have the same problem.

          Wind turbines break shafts, studs, bolts, lifts, generator step-up (GSU) units, etc. Then you still need oil for all the mechanical systems in a turbine too, which can degrade. Operations can keep up with this though, and in my experience wind can be up and running a lot more frequently with reference to failures that cause downtime compared with maintenance of nuclear with reference to downtime for it.

          Same with solar, or even better with solar because the only moving parts with solar are the axis trackers that move panels such that they always point at the sun. Lots more uptime that doesn’t involve radiation exposure, although that concern for operations has probably been designed out as reactor technology has grown up.

          Or at least I’d hope…

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am a huge fan of nuclear power, but I wouldn’t say fearing it is ignorance.

      You need to make sure it is regulated, secure, well-engineered, and above all, we need a place to store the waste.

      Yet, congress and others, at least in America, have done nothing. We should mainly be powered by nuclear and it is rare for a plant to be built. If done correctly you get safe, clean, power.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you’d have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.

    • mrhh69@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not that nuclear energy is the ONLY solution, just that it should be used alongside other methods of clean energy, as well as better energy efficiency on the consumer side.

    • gowan@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you want a real surprise check out what George HW Bush’s 1988 environmental platform was. If we actually followed through on it we would be better off.

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honest question: why shouldn’t we be afraid?

      but fear that we’d do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

      Chernobyl turned an entire city into a radioactive wasteland for the next 10k years. Same goes for 3-mile island and Fukushima. The last of which was just over 10 years ago.

      Are we so arrogant to think that that could never happen again? What’s changed?

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Chernobyl is a city inhabited today. In fact, the reactors right next to the ones that burnt were still producing energy a few years ago.

        Hopefully your ignorance won’t last 10k years and you’ll learn that nuclear is far less dangerous than your car for example.

    • cloud@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Anti-nuclear is like anti-GMO and anti-vax:

      This sort of generalization is ignorance.

      Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

      Wrong, nuclear power plants takes a lot of time to start and nothing can scale up to infinite spending. The solution and cure to climate change is to stop endless consumerism, if you don’t do that society will keep demand yet another power plant to power up some useless shit

    • duxbellorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      And people’s age and background has so weirdly much to do with how they internalize nuclear safety risk. My best german friend is very opposed to fossil fuels and believes in much stronger renewable focus, but is absolutely opposed to nuclear and basically laughs about how stupid he thinks that risk is. It’s wild.

      Especially when you realize how little impact Chernobyl and Fukushima really had. Even including those two accidents, coal plants have emitted vastly more radioisotopes (which occur naturally at low levels in coal, but since we burn such vast quantities of coal…) and vastly more carcinogens.

      • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The majority of solid nuclear waste, the kind that lasts milenia, can be reprocessed in to fuel and used again. France is particularly good at this.

        The water released from Fukushima contains no solid nuclear waste. Rather, its irradiated water where some of the hydrogen has become tritium. Tritium has a half life of about 12 years, and is naturally occuring from solar radiation. The safest way to deal with it is to filter it, then dilute it so that the percentage of tritium is not much higher than the natural level. This is what Japan is is doing, and will continue doing for several years.

        Simply put, safely dealing with nuclear waste is a well understood process, and the main reason it doesn’t get done is because of objections from anti nuclear-power activists

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You should look into the modern tech here, it isn’t just burying millions of tons of toxic waste under New Jersey. There are “breeder reactors” that use the recycled fuel to generate more power. They actually generate more fissile material than they consume, so instead of waste, they mostly produce more fuel.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

        • Kool_Newt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They actually generate more fissile material than they consume,

          So we’ll need to store or dispose of large amounts of fissile material until it can be used – which only makes more? This seems unsustainable.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s crazy you got over a hundred down votes, most which are just anti nuclear reactions brainwashed into them by corporations who knew they could make more money off coal, and made nuclear out to be the enemy.

    • MigratingApe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It also doesn’t help that people got brainwashed that solar energy and heat pumps will solve all our problems. I don’t have enough space to install so many solar panels to provide power to heat pump during the Eastern European winter and even if I did, ROI will be longer than their expected lifetime. And we still use lead during production, and no one wants to recycle them. These geniuses here import broken solar panels and dump them into the ground and cover them, call that recycling. FFS, nuclear waste disposal is less scary than this uncontrolled shit.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You do understand that solving the world’s carbon energy crisis is not an individual person’s job, right? We’re not talking about me and you getting a solar lease in lieu of nuclear. We’re talking about spending about 10% of the cost of 100% nuclear to build 100% solar and wind. For startup costs, going 100% renewable is literally orders of magnitude cheaper than going nuclear. And most countries have the space of potential for it. Yes, as I mentioned elsewhere, building power in and around cities is more complicated, but that is where roof units can come in. It is estimated that any major city could be self-sufficient if every building in it had solar panels on the roof and storage batteries. Even at the higher cost of smaller scale builds, the price difference between solar and nuclear is so large that a municipal solar grid is downright cheap, even if it has to be built that way. And it’s pretty cool how effectively it would mitigate large-scale power outages as a free bonus.

        Please understand, most people who oppose nuclear do so for more reasons than the nuclear waste. They hate that people keep focusing on this expensive technology that will take too long to solve the problem, when we have renewable energy that is just so much cheaper to build.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t you love it when you get heavily downvoted but no-one is brave enough to challenge your point of view?

        I mostly agree with you. Solar is good if you own a house, with a roof and have thousands in disposable cash to invest, but that’s not most people.

        Heat pumps can’t be run on your solar power alone and if your house isn’t well insulated, they can be extremely inefficient, ending up costing you substantially more than sticking with gas or oil. And that’s not getting in to the other short comings of heat pumps which I believe is a separate debate.

        As many people in this thread have said, the best time to invest in nuclear was thirty years ago, but the next best time is now. Give us tonnes of cheap, carbon free electricity to throw in to a heat pump and then they make sense.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand the technology, physics and socioeconomic ramifications and i’m against it.

  • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    198
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Normally I’m not a “lesser of two evils” type, but nuclear is such an immensely lesser evil compared to coal and oil that it’s insane people are still against it.

  • qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    181
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    For the love of everything, at least let’s stop decommissioning serviceable nuclear plants.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My understanding is that they eventually become unserviceable as they age, because of mechanical/structular reasons, or because the costs of servicing them is so prohibitive that they are unserviceable econimically.

      • havokdj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is what taxes are for. God forbid government officials have to cut into their overinflated bonuses to keep a major source of energy in service.

      • uis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disproven by Russia. Maybe sometimes core is replaced because it uses unsafe design by current standards like in St. Petesburg.

  • elouboub@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    153
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anti-nuclear people in here arguing about disasters that killed a few k people in 50 years. Also deeply worried about nuclear waste that won’t have an impact on humans for thousands of years, but ignoring climate change is having an impact and might end our way of life as we know it before 2100.

    They’re bike-shedding and blocking a major stepping stone to a coal, petrol and gas free future for the sake of idealism.

    The biggest enemy of the left is the left

  • archonet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    do not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good enough”

    edit: quick addendum, I really cannot stress this enough, everyone who says nuclear is an imperfect solution and just kicks the can down the road – yes, it does, it kicks it a couple thousand years away as opposed to within the next hundred years. We can use all that time to perfect solar and wind, but unless we get really lucky and get everyone on board with solar and wind right now, the next best thing we can hope for is more time.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t get scared off by the N Word

    Nuclear isn’t the monster it’s made out to be by oil and coal propagands.

  • Sentau@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am not sure when the narrative around nuclear power became nuclear energy vs renewables when it should be nuclear and renewables vs fossil fuels.

    We need both nuclear and renewable energy where we try to use and develop renewables as much as possible while using nuclear energy to plug the gaps in the renewable energy supply

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I live less than 2 miles from the last remaining coal power station in England.

    I would much rather have nuclear instead of a chimney chucking god knows what into the air (and subsequently into me) for my entire life.

  • chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Greenpeace was founded to be an anti-nuclear organization. See, most of the founding members were members of the Sierra Club (another environmentalist organization) but the Sierra Club was actually pro-nuclear power. The Sierra Club was actually fighting against the installation of new dams due to the effect of wiping out large swaths of river habitat and preventing salmon runs and such.

    Anyway, in 1971 there was an underground nuclear bomb test by the US government in an area that was geologically unstable. (there were a bunch of tests to see just how geologically unstable). Protesters thought that the test would cause an earthquake and a tsunami.

    Anyway, the people who were unhappy with the Sierra club not actively protesting nuclear power, wanted to protest this nuclear bomb test too, so they formed an organization called the “Don’t make a wave committee”. They sued, the suit was decided in the US’s favor, the test went off, and no earthquake happened (which is how the earlier tests said it would go).

    At some point, the “Don’t make a wave committee” turned into Greenpeace.

    Also about this timeframe, Greenpeace started receiving yearly donations from the Rockefeller Foundation.

    The Rockefeller Foundation is the charitable foundation created by the Rockefeller heirs that “uses oil money to make the world a better place” but they kind of don’t. They’ve been anti-nuclear since the beginning, and even directly funded some radiation research in the 1950s that lied about safe exposure limits to radiation, claiming that there was no safe limit. That research went on to shape international policy, and by the time new research came out, the policy was already written and thus hard to change.

    As a side note, another alumnus of the Sierra Club was approached by the then CEO of Atlantic Oil and directly paid a sum of something like $100k (in 1970 money) to found another anti-nuclear environmentalist organization called Friends of the Earth.

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    100% right.

    It doesn’t make any sense without reprocessing though, have to do both. Fortunately France and Finland have active programs.

    The US needs to both learn how to do reprocessing again and build more plants.

  • Relo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why go nuclear when renewable is so much cheaper, safer, future proof and less centralised?

    Don’t get me wrong. Nuclear is better than coal and gas but it will not safe our way of life.

    Just like the electric car is here to preserve the car industry not the planet, nuclear energy is still here to preserve the big energy players, not our environment.

  • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wind and solar > nuclear > fossil fuels

    Nothing really against nuclear except how it is being weilded as a distraction from better, cleaner, energy. We need to be going all in on converting everything to wind and solar, with batteries and other power storage like water pumping facilities filling the gaps.

    Nuclear needs a few more issues figured out, like how to actually cheaply build and get power from all those touted newer cleaner reactor styles.

  • credit crazy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    One thing I don’t see a lot of people talking about is how nuclear is probably better for the environment due to how you don’t have to cut down a Forrest to generate a viable amount of electricity meanwhile nuclear only requires two factory sised buildings to generate more than enough electricity to be viable and that’s assuming you have a sister breeder reactor to generate power from the waste

  • andrei_chiffa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I find it fascinating how few people remember the time when Greenpeace was literally selling Russian gas.