this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
266 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
68187 readers
4247 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whoa real information
All of which ignores lots of real world factors that aren't being included in the costs the commenter outlines.
Again, if nuclear were cheaper, you wouldn't all be here downvoting my comments, you'd be discussing all the great new nuclear being onlined.
Renewables have won. They're cheaper and easier to deploy, they're distributed rather than concentrated, and they have lower impacts on the environment.
FWIW: I thought thorium reactors might have had some legs in the 00s, but it became clear those didn't make fiscal sense, either.
It does not ignore any information.
The cost per kWh is the totality of all information. It is the end product. That is the total costs of everything divided by the number of kilowatt-hours of electricity produced.
I understand that you're deeply invested in this argument, but you've lost. You're repeating the same claim over and over, and when proven wrong, you just said "nuh uh" and pretended that nothing I said is true.
Nuclear energy can be cheaper than solar or wind. It is more reliable than solar and wind. It uses less land than solar or wind. All of these are known facts. That's why actual scientists support expanding nuclear energy 2 to 1.
But people will still dislike it because they're scared of building the next Three Mile Island or Fukushima. That, as I explained, is the reason why fewer nuclear plants are being built. Because the scientists, the ones who know the most about these, are not in charge. Instead, it's the people in the last column that are calling the shots. Do not repeat this drivel of "iF nUcLeaR pOweR PlanTs So Good WhY aRen'T tHerE moRe of ThEM??". I have explained why. It is widely known why. Your refusal to accept reality does not make it less real.
That is the end of the argument. I will not respond to anything else you say, because it is clear to me that no amount of evidence will cause you to change your mind. So go ahead, post your non-chalant reply with laughing emojis and three instances of "lol" or "lmao" and strut over the chessboard like you've won.
Because I don't give a pigeon's shit what you have to say any more.
Show me the line items for long term handling of the waste, please. I am curious how much they allocated.
Man, we could generate some good wind power with how fast those goalposts are moving!
You don't have to convince me, if you think it's such a great power source with such low costs you should pitch some investors.
I would think you would be the one trying to understand why nuclear plants aren't being built if their costs are lower and benefits are higher. 🤷♂️
We understand already. The reason is that people are scared by "omg nukes!'. It's the stigma, not unlike that against LGBTQ+ parlors, immigrants, anarchism, and putting dishes in the dishwasher without rinsing them first.
"The people" don't build NPPs, risk-adverse utility companies do. And while public opinion might matter in some countries, nuclear power is just 5% in China, compared to renewables at around 30%.
Yes, and that's my point: companies get significant pushback from people with internalized nucleoelectrophobia. I'm also not sure why we're comparing to China.
Because they don't give a shit what their people think. Yes, they are still building new coal and nuclear power plants, but it's being outpaced by renewables.
Being a dictatorship does not mean you don't care what the people think if it's not about taking away something substantial and potentially excusable from the people. Plus, there's sample size: there are a lot less dictatorships with the capability to build nuclear reactors than there are democracies with the same capabilities.
Even then, China generates the world's third most power from nuclear, being only a bit less than half of the US's output. The percentage is much lower because of just how much the nation depends on coal power.
So many twists and turns here!
Its alright i wasnt going to tell anyone i knew the best energy solution after reading lemmy comments. I haven't voted at all in this thread.
Nuclear definitely has a ton of commitment. It takes like 60 years to decommission one right?
The Trojan Nuclear Plant near my city was closed in 1992. They started moving stuff away in 2003. The cooling tower was demolished in 2006. The various other buildings were demolished in 2008. All that remains are some security posts and abandoned office buildings and empty tool sheds.
Yeah. Minimum is like 20. Note that stopping it from generating power is quite early in the decommissioning schedule.