Solar now being the cheapest energy source made its rounds on Lemmy some weeks ago, if I remember correctly. I just found this graphic and felt it was worth sharing independently.
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Nuclear has been screwed by its own track record.
Why do you think its had such a wide coalition of public and private opponents?
Well that's simply false. Its been screwed by ignorance propaganda and fear mongering.
You clearly don’t understand the other side.
Sure buddy. And you clearly do.
Actually I do. I was a nuclear booster in the 1990’s because it means cheap limitless pollution free power.
Except that they don’t actually deliver on that promise. You can have safe nuclear or cheap nuclear, but if it’s safe it’s not cheap, and the public rightfully won’t accept something that can require evacuating hundreds of square miles for decades.
So wise one, where are those cheap safe nuclear power plants we keep hearing about since 1950?
In France. They standardized the designs so each one isn't a one-off and they trained more people to work in the field.
indeed. just order like 100 SMRs and all the problems go away. problem is the psychos would rather build gas plants and fund dictators
Those are not at all cheap and are subsidized by enrichment for weapons purposes.
France is trying to extend their service lifetime beyond what they were designed for because they can’t face the bill to replace them with newer reactors.
FTFY. That's a good thing and we should be doing it here in the US, too.
Uhh, I was referring to the new ones France has been building, not the old ones...
they aren't, and the whole anti nuclear power movement is just people who don't understand science not being able to tell the difference between a bomb and a power plant. I mean science education wasn't that great in midcentury america but today we can easily know better
So the user above me actually gave the the answer so kudos to them but to further answer your question, there are no actually cheap reactors because the fight to actually build one is so insanely expensive. Where I live they'd been trying to build a reactor for over a decade. Constant lawsuits and legal battles after already obtaining permits and everything. Its ballooned the cost by tenfold. Why? Because of constant NGO pressure from the likes of greenpeace. So congrats, you win. They aren't cheap cause of the hell we've made for ourselves.
high speed rail and subways have the same problem. it's not inherently expensive, rich people sue and sue until it's too expensive
NIMBY's are a cancer
You’re blaming everyone else for nuclear’s failures.
Why are even French nuclear plants badly over budget and late? Answer: Nuclear is expensive as fuck.
Are you unable to read or are you just ignoring what I'm saying on purpose. I told you why they're badly over budget and late. This clearly is a dead conversation as you lack either a) reading comprehension or b) the ability to discuss in good faith.
Frankly, bad-faith arguments (and lawsuits) are basically the entire problem with nuclear.
Ain't that the truth
that is a big problem anti-nukes have, don't they?
I think its a problem that a lot of people have when they argue. Pretty sad honestly.
of course I'm blaming the real problem: relentless attack by the fossil fuel industry
the other side is big oil
LOL. It’s “big solar” that’s eating their lunch.
yeah but I want the power to work between 4 pm and 8 am
Batteries.
Yeah, that doesn't scale well at all. Batteries are expensive, dangerous (so lots of safety measures at scale), and consumable, which is why very few places actually try to store energy at any kind of scale.
Until we have a good, cheap way to store energy, solar will be a supplemental power source to help with peak demand in the daytime. So we'll need something that's reliable and inexpensive to provide power the rest of the time. For many areas, that's coal or gas, but it could be nuclear. If people just accepted that nuclear is safe and effective, costs would come down.
the most dangerous part of nuclear power is not using enough nuclear power
Agreed. If people truly understood just how safe it is, we could make it so much cheaper.
I'm stoked about mini reactors, which should make remote factories and whatnot far more reasonable.
"I've ignored and circumvented every known safety measure, and everything went wrong" - Whoever the fuck said that, 2023
Making up straw men to defeat?
We have extensively documented history supporting exactly what you're trying to argue against
if you cite chernobyl that's exactly what you're saying. it'll never happen again because no one's that dumb
Fukushima happened in “smart” Japan because it was cheaper to put the backup generators in the basement than to build a concrete podium taller than the tsunamis that previously hit the site.
Capitalism will always choose cost over safety. Even then nuclear ends up going way over budget.
Then we shouldn't leave energy security and the climate in the hands of capital. Energy should be nationalised.
indeed. also chernobyl and fukushima aren't comparable, really. I'd support a law that all new power reactors need to have passive cooling relying on the laws of physics, not relying on external power, but that's not a high bar and many designs already have it. remember that most currently operating reactors were built all at once in the mid 20th century and even then their safety record has been great. we can do better with new construction
Has there been a scenario where the technology itself is to blame? The contamination aspect of nuclear waste is well known and preventable, if costs are being cut on radioactive waste disposal (or in the case of a certain Japanese power company, ignoring warnings from the government on how to reduce ocean contamination in the event of an earthquake) a nuclear installation's fate is sealed...
As far as I can see, the only downsides with nuclear IMO is that it takes multiple decades to decommission a single plant, the environmental impact on that plant's land in the interim, and the initial cost to build the plant.
In comparison to Solar it sounds awful, but before solar, nuclear honestly would have made a lot of sense. I think it may even still be worth it in places that have a high demand for constant power generation, since Solar only generates while the sun's about, and then you're looking at overnight energy storage with lithium-based batteries, which have their own environmental and humanitarian challenges
Uranium powered fission technology, not all nuclear. Look into Thorium
yeah you can do throium, and there are some compelling reasons to, but uranium is fine enough. anti-nuke isn't about actual technical enlargements. the anti nukes hate nuclear fusion too
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
"Today there are about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in 32 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 390 GWe. In 2022 these provided 2545 TWh, about 10% of the world's electricity."
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power – Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Chernobyl involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and Fukushima Daiichi severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
Yes- a track record of one plant failing due to Soviet incompetence and political blunders; and the second failing due to checks notes a 9.0 magnitude almost direct earthquake and ensuing 133 ft tsunami.
Worth noting that the Fukushima disaster would have been prevented if they heeded warnings in a 2008 report that said their sea walls were too short, so again incompetence.
the earthquake didn't even damage the plant, they thought of that. the tsunami knocked out the power lines and bad generator placement led to loss of power for cooling. build reactors to passively cool themselves (which should just be a mandatory safety feature on new reactors tbh, it's not a big ask and improves safety a lot) and fukushima type accidents become impossible. that plant was so old that the original operating license was going to expire a week after the quake and the only guy who died had a heart attack. fukushima-sized death tolls happen in the rooftop solar installation industry every year, totally unreported.
you mean the part where it generated a shit ton of carbon free reliable power while killing fewer people per watt-hour what any other method? with outdated 60's technology too? yeah sure sounds like a failure