this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
506 points (97.7% liked)

News

23259 readers
2771 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Elon and Trump make the worst possible argument for nuclear power I have ever heard:

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed but now they are full cities again," the multibillionaire owner of Tesla, SpaceX and X said.

"That's great, that's great," Mr Trump responded.

"It is not as scary as people think, basically," Mr Musk added.

They joked about nuclear power facing a “branding problem”.

“We will have to rebrand it,” the former president told Mr Musk. “We will name it after you or something.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

(although I think it’s becoming mores superfluous as other methods become more efficient),

Yeah, nuclear power plants are expensive and slow to construct. 20 years ago, hell, 10 years ago, I would've said "Yes, building new plants or making major expansions is still a good idea." Now? Renewables are advancing so fast that it's probably economically unwise to make major investments in nuclear power.

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Nuclear energy has insane energy density in terms of MJ/kg (something like 3.9 x 10^6 ) versus chemical fuels (4.5 x 10^1), but it's grossly inefficient because most of the output is waste heat and "hot" isotopes-- the last things we need. I don't have hard numbers on hand but I wouldn't say nuclear is more than a few tens of percent efficiency. Then there's the capital costs to build, maintain and operate plants PLUS costs to source, refine, transport, and store the fuel, and then transport and discard (contain) waste product. Not worth it at scale.

Versus Solar, Wind and Tidal which are far less energy dense per unit mass of working fluid¹, but enjoy up to 80% efficiency, and are relatively easy to scale.

Nuclear still makes sense, I think, in interior areas like the American Midwest where wind and solar are fickle, and transportation (transmission) costs for tidal would be unsustainable.


¹ Not a fair comparison because solar efficiency is quantized on intensity x area / time, while wind and tidal would quantized on flux density, or (mass / area) x velocity (over time?).

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago

I think it would make the most sense at high latitudes. Where they don't get enough sun for solar and maintenance on iced-up turbine blades would be a pain in the ass.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Nuclear still makes sense, I think, in interior areas like the American Midwest where wind and solar are fickle, and transportation (transmission) costs for tidal would be unsustainable.

There's another downside to depending on nuclear power that wasn't so much an issue in the past, but is now, and will be even more in the future: the required cooling capacity to operate a nuclear reactor.

The reason nuclear power plants are built next to large bodies of water is that the waste heat needs to be dispersed somewhere. The heat is transferred to the body of water (lake, river, sea or ocean). Except now with climate change the bodies of water are already warmer so they cannot take away as much heat. In other places drought is reducing the amount of water, meaning less waste heat can be carried away. If you can't get rid of waste heat from your reactor, you have to turn it off until you have sufficient heat dispersal available.

This isn't theoretical. Its been happening sporadically for almost a decade. Here's an article from 2018 detailing Finland having to turn off reactors because of ocean temperatures too high to operate.:

"Finland's Loviisa power plant, located about 65 miles outside Helsinki, first slightly reduced its output on Wednesday. "The situation does not endanger people, [the] environment or the power plant," its operator, the energy company Fortum, wrote in a statement. The seawater has not cooled since then, and the plant continued to reduce its output on both Thursday and Friday, confirmed the plant's chief of operations, Timo Eurasto. "The weather forecast [means] it can continue at least a week. But hopefully not that long," he said."

I don't know why more people aren't talking about this when they recommend nuclear power for a climate changing world. Its only going to get hotter from now on, which means we'll be able to effectively only use less nuclear power plant capacity.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

exactly. it isn't that they're unsafe, its that there's more effective options that aren't oil.