• @Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 year ago

    Nuclear is the future. Stop trying to deny it. We should all be running it by now this shit was made like 60 years ago. But no, we’ll just eat smog I guess. Damn my feeds are kind of depressing today.

      • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        171 year ago

        It blows my mind we are avoiding this? You want jobs? Clean stable energy? Its fucken here dude. Just build some plants. They only need to be properly maintained to avoid disaster. If we truly are an intelligent species that should be easy as hell.

        • Mike D.
          link
          fedilink
          English
          161 year ago

          They only need to be properly maintained

          And there is the issue.

          • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            I hate that its true, but yeah. Our city management accross the nation has long been pocketing maintenance budgets. Cause shit is run down everywhere in “the greatest nation”.

        • @bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          “disaster” is a big word for what happens with a nuclear accident.

          The fire in Hawaï or the climate change are disasters. A hurricane is a disaster. Chernobyl or fukushima were disasters in the media much more than in the reality of things.

          Cars kill more people every year than nuclear energy did since we use it. In fact, this is still true even if you account for atomic bombs…

          • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            14
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Energy should be nationalised. Energy does not need to be run for profit. It should be at a cost.

            • @OnionQuest@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              101 year ago

              Even if it’s nationalized we still want energy generation as low cost as possible so we can use the national budget for other things.

              • prole
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                Sure, but cost isn’t the sole (or main) consideration when you remove profit-motive.

                Also, you only need to break even, so it will always be more affordable than private sector.

              • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                That just goes for everything, though. Thats not specific to any one industry. Clean and abundant energy will come at a cost and that should just be acceptable.

    • @gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      No its not, anyone thats actually gone over the basic numbers knows this. Nuclear power is expensive to build, takes decades to start and takes a lot of highly skilled workers. Wind is cheaper per MW, more profitable, buildable in 6 months, can be put in even remote areas, does not require highly skilled workers for normal operation and is more carbon efficient.

      • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        We should probably use both. How much mw/hr does wind produce compared to nuclear? Once nuclear is up and running what are the continual costs and what are the benefits? Theres a lot more to ask here than just “what is more profitable”. Your points on winds’ adaptability is good as well as your points on timeframe. But I don’t think a single energy source is the actual answer. I’m thinking we supplement these energy sources with each other and that would bring us completely off fossil fuels.

        • @gmtom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          How much mw/hr does wind produce compared to nuclear?

          That depends entirely on how much of each you build, but wind is less expensive to build per MW than nuclear. Once nuclear is up and running what are the continual costs and what are the benefits? Nuclear costs more to run as the systems are far more complicated in order to make them safe and you need a relatively large workforce of highly trained mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineers which cost a lot to employ. Whereas for the most part wind farms are completely autonomous, in exchange for very few benefits. The profitibaility takes into account quite a lot really and so its better to build the more profitable one as you can then use that profit to build more, which gets us off of fossil fuels faster./

              • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                That nuclear produces more MW/HR than wind at an exponential rate.

                https://www.ans.org/news/article-1462/wind-power-and-nuclear-power/

                “Capacity factor is the feature highlight of this info-graphic poster. To make a graphic representation of how this compares to one nuclear power plant rated at 1154 megawatts (MW), this shows the full count of all 2077 2-MW wind turbines in a 24"x36” poster. This is what would be required to match the nuclear power plant output even if this array of turbines could hypothetically run continuously at only 25 percent of its rated capacity."

                I’m giving you sources. You can downvote but I don’t see your numbers reflected in any study.

                • @ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It’s produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor… They’re still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.

                  To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn’t economic. Renewables are

                  • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    But why would you not use them in tandem when nuclear produces energy 24/7 and the others dont? What do we do if there isn’t sufficient wind for days? What happens when the sun is no longer focused on our hemisphere? I’ll look up the study but I don’t see a reason to axe one over the other.