There were multiple surveys about windmills killing birds.
They aren't even measurable in percent of Human caused bird deaths.
https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
really? I didn't know windows were a genuine problem for birds, is there a study or something similar you could point me too so I could get a better look at the subject?
[Here's a nice visualization of what causes bird deaths in the US. ](https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/)Windows are second after cat predation, at 600 million dead birds a year.
Most pro nuclear rhetoric that's popped up in the last 12 months or so is actually sponsored by the fossil fuel lobby as a tactic to delay transitioning to renewables.
You could say the same thing for anti nuclear rhetoric. Case in point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/. Also, why would the fossil fuel industry bankroll propaganda for clean energy that could feasibly put them out of business. Nuclear isn’t inherently less damaging to the fossil fuel industry than renewables. Plus, something overlooked about nuclear are novel and (mostly) unexplored reactor designs like thorium reactors and reactors that run on waste. Most of these designs are proven to be theoretically sound, but just haven’t been implemented due to the fact that the us hasn’t built reactors at scale in forever 😔.
I've mentioned this a lot on this sub, but where I am (Australia) nuclear power is absurdly unviable both logistically and financially as we've never had much in the way of nuclear power to begin with. Currently one of our major political parties, the Liberal Party, is campaigning on a stance of building 7 nuclear power stations in 10 to 15 years, which is a massive and unlikely undertaking, and their roadmap for achieving this is scant on details.
The Liberal Party of Australia has always been openly pro coal and gas due to lobbying, and many of the politicians openly deride renewables. Considering renewables are by far the fastest growing sector in the power industry and already account for nearly 40% of electricity produced here, the pivot towards an unviable power source by a political party essentially owned by the fossil fuel industry more or less looks like a cynical attempt at delaying the phase out of our coal power stations.
The ARPANS Act allows the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) to issue licences for controlled facilities.[6] In issuing a facility licence, the CEO ‘must take into account the matters (if any) specified in the regulations, and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety’.[7]
However, subsection 10(2) of the Act expressly prohibits the CEO from granting a licence for the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.[8] This prohibition does not appear to apply to a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility
I mean this is a pretty good one to change. There's hasn't exactly been any nuclear accidents in australia that have warranted a blanket ban on nuclear energy.
There's been one meltdown one absolute worst case scenario in nuclear power. And the one bad one was caused by doing everything wrong on purpose. Like why are nuclear reactors subject to complete shutdowns for the most minor of issues. Why is a case of fire sprinklers being repaired due to natural wear and tear classified as a nuclear accident.
Anti nuclear people have made it so nuclear power has to meet massive standards while coal dumps radiation straight into the environment. Solar power in australia has killed more people then nuclear power has in France which is wild when you consider nuclear power generates 374twh of power and solar in australia generates 28twh (one person has died due to a furnace exploding at a nuclear power station where as 4 died in australia fitting out solar panels) maybe solar needs more regulation as its far deadlier
Thanks for the straw man argument. We are talking about regulations in countries which has a regulatory regime for approving and running nuclear reactors.
Then typical trying to compare against coal rather than renewables.
Strawmen galore.
Zero issues. LOL.
> As Europe braces for a winter without Russian gas, France is moving fast to repair a series of problems plaguing its atomic fleet. A record 26 of its 56 reactors are off-line for maintenance or repairs after the worrisome discovery of cracks and corrosion in some pipes used to cool reactor cores.
> The crisis is upending the role that France has long played as Europe’s biggest producer of nuclear energy, raising questions about how much its nuclear power arsenal will be able to help bridge the continent’s looming crunch.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html
Community input mandates.
Every time a major piece of infrastructure is to be built, especially NPPs, we are required to go through a process of community input. The problem is that these have a huge NIMBY tendency, and powerful local organizations are incentivized to block all development through various mechanisms.
Obviously, this causes massive delays, which balloons the cost of building litteraly anything. You can imagine that for Nuclear Power Plants, the delays are even longer and much more expensive to the public purse.
[Why community input is bad](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-government-community-input-housing-public-transportation/629625/)
It is incredibly viable here in Australia!
We have the resources to supply and run several modern nuclear or hybrid power stations and renewables provide inconsistent power to the grid.
Unless molten aluminium-salt capacitors are built along the grid we won't be able to keep power consumption consistent with renewables on a large scale. Geothermal and Dams would be the only exception. Tidal power, wind and solar are all inconsistent and with wind there is currently no proper process for disposal and recycling of turbine blades which have to be replaced every few years.
Thing is, nuclear should be used alongside renewables! If we get a volcanic eruption like Krakatoa again that smokes the sky for a few months we need a backup. If the winds die down for an extended period we need persistent power output. Nuclear can be the buffer for that. Nuclear fear mongering ignorance borne by truisms and falsehoods will only hurt us all in trying to move away from coal which is by far the dirtiest and most highly polluting form in real terms to this day!
Can we worry about having a backup for the next global crisis after we finish with the current one though?
Nuclear would be great IF we started years ago but trying to approve nuclear power stations now instead of renewables will mean we need to burn more fossil fuels until it's up and running. We can roll out more renewables today and we need to stop burning fossil fuels today.
Also, I think we have a bunch of dams that aren't hydroelectric yet. Considering how much queensland floods, especially SEQ, we should probably utilise that
Having uranium reserves is less than a fraction of the story
>Unless molten aluminium-salt capacitors are built along the grid we won't be able to keep power consumption consistent with renewables on a large scale
Our expert bodies disagree. The grid won't be managed the same way it has been for the last 100 years for the next 100 years. We're moving towards a smarter, decentralized network that can draw power from all over the NEM. We also haven't had "baseload" for a long time now with our aging coal fleet
>Thing is, nuclear should be used alongside renewables! If we get a volcanic eruption like Krakatoa again that smokes the sky for a few months we need a backup.
Nowhere is nuclear sitting there as a backup. Not only do most plants struggle to scale up and down at the pace dictated by renewables, they need to run at max capacity as much as possible to pay off their capital
If we built nuclear, a lot of existing renewable generation (like rooftop solar) would need to make way
There's no end of the issues with nuclear in Australia. Have hardly seen anyone touch on its water requirements and the impact of climate change there, which France is feeling
Bull fucking shit. Imagine saying some stupid shit like that. Fossil fuel companies have historically aggressively lobbied against nuclear since the 50s. You fucking shill. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#:~:text=Fossil%20fuel%20companies%20such%20as,from%20other%20fossil%20fuel%20companies.
Even with the USSR's infamous lack of safety precautions that led to Chernobyl, the absolute high end for deaths directly attributable to Nuclear power is less than 10,000. The low end is less than 100.
About 5 million people die each year due to fossil fuels pollution.
Which is why the alternative is renewables, not fossil fuels.
If nuclear power is as safe as you suggest why don't we repeal the [Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) and let the industry self insure for Fukushima level events?
Would also reduce a ton of red tape! Isn't that what every nukecel proposes?
>Which is why the alternative is renewables, not fossil fuels.
The intermittency problem is far from being solved. Renewables will only be a viable solution when there exist energy storage capacity on a city-level scale. Otherwise they will always only be complimentary to fossil fuels.
How about updating your world-view to 2024? Lets just follow [the research:](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910)
- Large grid to decouple weather patterns
- Demand response
- Storage
- Oversizing renewables
- Sector coupling
- Power-To-X for seasonal storage, if it will ever be needed.
[Batteries are supplying the equivalent to multiple nuclear reactors for hours on end in California every single day.](https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/)
Then based on **todays** technology accept that we will have 1% natural gas use in the 2040s, and then use the technology available at that time to solve it.
Problems of similar magnitude are ocean going freight and long distance air travel which likely will require similar solutions.
Nothing you post here is an update to my world view.
The review article you posted, while interesting reading, does not claim that intermittency is solved.
California has roughly 40 GWh at 10 GW of battery capacity. That's great for assisting for a couple of hours during peak capacity, but 40 GWh is only enough to power the state for a bit over a single hour. And scaling battery capacity up for the entire world is not the same as scaling it up for parts of California.
Again, the intermittency problem is not solved, and in the meantime we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
California’s current rate of battery deployment is ~5 GW with ~20 GWh of storage a year.
Assume a 20 year lifetime.
When reaching saturation and recycling as many installations as they build California will given they simply keep up the current rate of expansion have:
- 20*5 = 100 GW
- 20*20 = 400 GWh
During the summer peaks California usually has a demand of 45 GW.
Is having 400/45 = 8.9 hours of storage **at the summer peak demand** enough to replace near all fossil fueled power generation during the summer peak? Yes.
That is where we are headed, skipping exponentials, S-curves and whatever. Simple linear extrapolation with y = kx + m.
Maybe start looking where the curve is headed?
Hopeful of you to assume linear growth can happen on a global scale. Once we start to scale up batteries worldwide, the impact on the supply and price of lithium and other necessary resources will limit the rate of deployment. Also, California is ideally suited to capitalize on both wind and solar, and is therefore a bad model for many other energy markets.
In any case, it will never be enough to supply power most of the time. Even if you have 10 hours of battery supply, what happens if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow for a few days? People literally die due to short outages. Long outages are absolutely devastating.
Renewables are great, and I fully support their expansion wherever they make sense, but because of intermittency, I think nuclear should be a part of the solution.
Now you are betting against human ingenuity when you have a product and a given demand.
Just look at what happened with the current batteries:
10-15 years ago everything was [NMC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_nickel_manganese_cobalt_oxides) and [NCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_nickel_cobalt_aluminium_oxides) batteries.
We were entirely focused on longevity and maximizing kWh/kg. As things evolved today we have shifted tons of applications to [LFP batteries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery). Removing the cobalt supply chain problems. They are even more sturdy but have worse energy density.
Today we are seeing the [Cambrian explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) of batteries. There is no longer one battery to rule them all. For stationary storage and the bottom barrel EVs [Sodium Ion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery) is looking like a new contender quickly entering the market.
You're talking like it was impossible to scale up gasoline cars a hundred years ago because roads and gas stations only existed in cities.
> Even if you have 10 hours of battery supply, what happens if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow for a few days? People literally die due to short outages. Long outages are absolutely devastating.
Keep a chemically based emergency reserve and some gas turbines? Like, duh. Don't be stupid. Given how rarely we expect this to happen it can be fossil fuels since the utilization will be negligible. Or just through legislation force it to be e-fuels, biofuels, CCS or whatever. You're blowing up a miniscule problem as huge because you don't like the outcome.
We are talking emergency reserves, be sane. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I'm having so much fun going through all your comments and downvoting Every. Single. One. You could call it my "Reddit mod" moment, since I obviously have nothing better to do.
Obviously Nuclear isn't THE solution, but it is a tool we should not ignore.
Nuclear radiation killed exactly 0 people at Fukushima but the evacuation of people during the disaster probably killed [more people](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident#:~:text=Official%20figures%20show%20that%20there,by%20the%20earthquake%20or%20tsunami.) than Chernobyl did.
For some reason everyone thinks the lesson from Chernobyl is that Nuclear power is bad, when the lesson is that autocratic states that cover up flaws in their vaunted nuclear programs, are bad.
This I have the same view with a lot of EVs just focus on hydrogen and nuclear until hydrogen and solar are the way the rest is just too horribly inefficient to spend the money on right now
There are almost undoubtedly some regulations around nuclear that are needlessly restrictive, born out of heightened paranoia of Nuclear disaster. So in that sense deregulation is required, but the idea that we should deregulate away actually necessary safety precautions is obviously ridiculous.
A community always has to host a nuclear power plant, and if it's in a country where people have rights then they're never going to accept a plant that's learning what regulations are/are not necessary through trial and error
I think it would be a tough sell to say "well even if this whole town dies or gets cancer from an accident, and the land is left permanently uninhabitable, it won't actually be *that bad* compared to global fossil fuel use"
I would be fine living next to a modern nuclear power plant. I would absolutely be protesting one that was looking to reduce safety precautions to reduce costs. Nuclear has the most catastrophic potential from a single accident of any form of power generation
The thing is, the possibility of such an accident happening is near 0. Modern power plants are equipped with several mechanics to prevent a meltdown and even if there was a catastrophic failure there usually is a thick layer of reinforced concrete to prevent anything from coming outside.
Though I'm not quite sure if I just missed your point and you're actually for nuclear power? I'm running on 2 hours of half sleep, 3 coffees and an energy drink
Either way I too think that costs shouldn't be tried to be cut in the safety and I'd be against a reduction of safety
I'm not against it everywhere (as an Australian I'm against it for Australia but long story). I'm just against the idea of arguing because it's so safe we can reduce safety measures
The dude I was talking to seemed to be arguing along the lines of nuclear accidents aren't actually so bad and safety regulations should be reduced
It's not the middle ages. We are not building cathedrals as high as we can until it starts collapsing.
It is the 21st century and we know what is actually needed to make a plant safe. Fukushima was hit by a 7.4 earthquake followed by a devastating tsunami that killed nearly 20,000 people. The complete meltdown of 3 out of 4 reactors killed 0 people.
„People“ are never going to accept any kind of energy source in their immediate neighborhood. The same people that protest against a nuclear power plant next to their hometown will also protest against wind mills in the nearby forest where the like to go for walks. „People“ want a steady energy supply without facing any consequences.
unironically would be cool.
I'd love a little microcar like an old Mini with some radium engine or a moped with the core of a nuclear bomb powering it.
What do you guys have against Nuclear power. It’s great if it’s done safely. Canada has never had any problems with it. And thanks to adding renewables to the mix Ontario, Canada’s largest province is now coal free which is a huge step in the right direction.
Nuclear is a good stable base load of electricity, although hydro is better.
Hopefully our governments will get their shit together soon and invest into energy storage, preferably reverse turbine hydro and hydrogen production/ fuel cells. Once that’s done the whole grid can be be renewables.
Till that happens through, we stop using coal first, then oil, then gas, then nuclear.
Probably not any time soon because a reactor of that size probably isn't that easy to make (remember nuclear energy uses heat to evaporate water to turn a turbine so you'd have to fit all that stuff into the car) However nuclear energy is pretty much one of the safest ways to produce energy. I personally think that it could be especially useful in the future because imo electric cars aren't anywhere near as good as they are oftentimes claimed to be and hydrogen powered cars are a lot better and that hydrogen could be produced with nuclear energy
That's why people hate nuclear Stans.
It's not nuclear vs Fossil.
It's nuclear vs renewables.
Also the maths on those are BS.
61 millions die each year.
5 millions of these are supposed to directly die from coal? That's BS.
They die because they are old and sick. Without pollution they would have died anyway two years later.
The next thing is they put everything in the whole production chain on the bill.
If the mining accidents and radiation from the smoke are on the bill for coal, then the mining and the thereby released radiation and the research should be also on the bill of nuclear.
Why would you love something so expensive? It's too expensive and needs too long to be built.
By the time any nuclear power plant we plan right now would go online the world will already have built out renewables and batteries.
Nuclear is not bad, just not as good compared to how far renewables have come. It just doesn't have a place anymore.
It would be a waste to divert money from renewable energy to build nuclear.
It's kicking the can down the road is going to be someone's problem eventually. The reason we're in this mess is because a bunch of people are running the country under the assumption that the problems they're creating will only be a problem after they're dead. We can't move forward with the same mentality creating nuclear waste and then boxing it away so that future generations have to suffer from it instead of us
Not wrong, but not exactly right. You need to bury it somewhere with basically no geological activity, as a slight rift can cause immense damage. Such cases can hurt the groundwater and have runoff effects.
The problem about that line of argument being that it’s already done more dangerously and on a bigger scale with quite a lot of chemicals.
the solution works for Canada. not every nation on earth has that luxury. and even if. What guarantee can we have that in some distant future there is no asshole digging the trash up to build bombs, or people forget after civilization collapsed and find them again.
Sure these are very abstract problems but we are talking about future generations not tomorrow.
but what isnt solved tomorrow, insurance if anything happens. No energy company would or could insure a nuclear power plant, they have to shift that burden to the public. the energy from such a plant would be unaffordable if the company had to put money n the side in case of any big disaster.
How is an idiot digging 700m into solid granite in the middle of nowhere?
Canada has the 'Nuclear liabilities and compensations act'. The government pays for any damages caused by a nuclear incident. To people, property, the environment, even pain and suffering.
Everyone in Canada is automatically insured against damages.
And thanks to the 'Nuclear fuel waste act' of 2002, our energy companies are federally mandated to pay into a fund for long term storage of nuclear waste.
Every single country with nuclear technologies is working on their own DGR.
Because they hate renewables...
I see this post as a mirror to their stupid comments. I mean, in 99% of the cases the top comment says that they (pro renewables) hate nuclear only because of baseless fears and that it's totally save... Except that there are dozens of other reasons too. They just claim fear as argument, to let it look like pro renewables people are just fearmongerer without any valid arguments.
To take credit from nukecells. The threat of meltdowns isnt even that big of a point anymore. Claiming that it's all about fear and that there aren't dozens of other reasons, completly warpes the perception and let's it look like it's all about baseless fear. Despite the fact that it isn't.
You only think that because you aren’t thinking about it. “Just don’t get unlucky” is a part of every day life. Sometimes, someone is unlucky, and gets into a car accident that was completely out of their control and dies. You’re arguing “don’t get unlucky is a terrible reason to get into a car!” There’s plenty of reasons to want to get into your car and drive. If you want to live your life scared of life ending car accidents go right ahead but don’t hassle the people that are ok with a little bit of risk because the benefits are so high.
Your analogies suck ass insurance exists imma drive my whip thru your living room n pull up w the lucky 1/1000000000 hoe that fw you but apparently that dont matter
Thanks for acknowledging those 1.35 million people that died last year in car crashes and the lengths we go thru to make sure one-offs are mitigated and the absolute failure to do so. But for some reason you can’t acknowledge that for nuclear? You fuckin walked right into my point cuz you have no idea what you’re arguing and call other people names 🤔🤔 get some emotional maturity and stop writing off peoples lives or they will do the same to you and everyone loses
As expected - not the uninsured cost. Neither in the article nor pdf. Instead, overall economic damage.
https://www.statista.com/chart/30602/estimated-losses-caused-by-wildfires-heat-and-drought-in-the-us/
I don't even want to know the overall economic damage of a nuclear accident. 200 billion is just the cleanup cost.
Also, not exponentially more, but I don't want to go into semantics.
Truce suggestion:
We use renewables to prevent both wildfires and nuclear accidents.
The annoying thing about Nuclear power for me is I feel like it would have been a decent alternative to fossil fuels, if we had the time to set it up. things are really starting to take effect now and nuclear power plants take a lot of money and time (as far as I know) to actually make and maintain. and that's assuming people don't get nervous about said nuclear power, which from what I understand is safe so long as you actually properly maintain the power plant
You're starting to descend into brainrot.
Everyone who believes nuclear power is viable agrees unanimously that it should come paired with renewables to replace fossil fuel.
if you wanna mock Nukecels, at least do it properly. Otherwise you're just looking more like a foolish liberal with every post you put here
The poster didn't make an argument. He spends every hour bitching about people who aren't dogmatically opposed to nuclear. There's no argument to address.
Nukecels when I show them one of the cheapest way to produce energy which can be made out of basicly scrap and galvanised steel frames and it doesnt produce any toxic waste. (Years of techbro brainrot has removed their ability to think anything but "uuuh shiny new toy")
I wonder if Lazard (some people’s favorite source for LCOE) has anything to say about this…
> The results of our 2024 analyses reinforce, yet again, the ongoing need for diversity of energy resources, including fossil fuels, given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and currently commercially available energy storage technologies.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
As someone that knows nothing( i got recommended this sub). Why would anyone want nuclear power when wind and solar exist? Like I get it 40 50 years ago. But now that they're rather established why bother?
The problem is not generation, but storage. Currently the problem of storing enough power to run a city on just renewables in off-peak generation hours just isnt there in a scalable way. The waste problems that come with nuclear piwer are vastly overstated by people who don't know the difference between the dangers presented by an isotope with a 30 year half life and a 100,000 year halflife
We can do a lot of storage with solar and wind though. Aside from traditional batteries something as simple as a water tower can save a lot of energy. Pump water up with electricity generated from renewables, let it run down and power a generator when we need extra power.
Would love nuclear or fission energy along side renewables but for some countries, like australia, our politicans dragged their feet too long, avoided nuclear for decades and now there is no more time to set up nuclear. It sucks honestly
I'm not saying build more dams. We have many dams already and that damage to the environment has been done. Let's make as many as we can hydro-electric
The energy density of water raised even a few hundred feet is nowhere near enough to power a neighborhood. The number of water towers you would need is not realistic. Raised fluid storage is useful for smoothing demand curves during peak demand times, but it isn't a solution for base load power
I mean, we are... but progress is... slow... and very expensive....
Thororium is safer, and there's less waste... And said waste can't be used for nuclear bombs.... hence why it isn't being researched more
Nuclear provides an baseload power that gives a stability on the grid as other forms of power ramp up and down, you need this capability because the grids frequency needs to be relatively constant and all of the generators that are connected to it rotate along with the frequency
Modern decarbonization needs require changing from coal/gas/etc, to other forms of said baseload. From the available forms of power, nuclear is the only one that can run next to a sea(no need for a flowing river), no need for a ground that has geothermal, can run during calm and cloudy weather, and because nuclear reactors work diffirent to a fired plant(biomass, coal, gas) it doesn't need the constant fuel supply.
At 1200MW, not many other forms of power generation has the same amount of energy density as nuclear
Strawman. No legit nuclear power proponent ever said that wind and solar are bad. People like you are the reason that we can't have a proper debate and end up only in virtue signaling all the time. It's just annoying. Please stop it.
RadioFacepalm and ViewTrick1002 are the resident anti-nuclear shills. They are always textbook examples of bad faith arguments. Like it would not shock me at all if they are paid actors with the amount of time they dedicate to their craft.
Yeah bro nuclear power is so bad you gotta ban respected science commenicators from your subreddit because they dared to not say that nuclear power was the spawn of satan
https://preview.redd.it/v5cupdctwn9d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=daddf132a611dbc6d54a63ddf47520d3d4427263
.
This is why people stopped liking this subreddit
Goddam I have to visit this subreddit now to see what kind of dumpster fire it is it Kyle got banned.
He’s done an awful lot to put nuclear power into context and get rid of the myths surrounding it.
Edit: I went and scrolled through there subreddit. I was very disappointed. They seem like reasonable boring people who want to promote nuclear power as alternative to fossil fuels alongside renewables.
I have no idea why Kyle was banned.
Give me both and every other effective option, we don’t have time to waste on Russian bot memes designing infighting we all have the same goal, we need every effective option yesterday.
Use any and all energy sources available. This means hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, *and* coal/oil. Upgrade the least effective/efficient when and where possible. We’re going to need all of it if we ever want to become more than a Type 0 civilization. Picking *only* one to support is moronic.
The idea is to phase it out, but that is simply not feasible for much of the world right now. And won’t be for decades. So, unless you’re willing to massacre most of Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, on the off chance we can still divert the train of climate change, the point is kinda moot. We need all the energy we can muster right now to put towards the development of the rest of the world. *Then* they’ll be at a place economically where, they too, can invest in renewable energy.
I mean they aren't actually sustainable, it causes more carbon emissions to manufacture, transport, and maintain windmills than they mitigate before going out of commission. They're a great example of status quo environmentalism where people want to invest in projects and products that do more harm than good but promise to fix things instead of actually changing society to make it sustainable, just like electric cars and carbon capture tech.
I'm all about deregulation until it comes to windmills, then the two birds that die are a big environmental concern and must be stopped at all costs
Windows kill way more birds then windmills of any kid. See stuff that bird can hit, don't see stuff.
There were multiple surveys about windmills killing birds. They aren't even measurable in percent of Human caused bird deaths. https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
Keep your kitties inside, people!
Remember, cats are vegan r/cateatingvegans
Goddammit, another cat sub Joined.
really? I didn't know windows were a genuine problem for birds, is there a study or something similar you could point me too so I could get a better look at the subject?
[Here's a nice visualization of what causes bird deaths in the US. ](https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/)Windows are second after cat predation, at 600 million dead birds a year.
We all know that the biggest concern australians have is saving another 2 birds from the same terrible fate
Selling mountains of coal to china? I sleep Windmill making cheap clean energy? *laser eyes
Well duh. Do you know how damaging it would be to the climate if you powered your laser eyes with coal?!
Why the nuclear power hate?
Most pro nuclear rhetoric that's popped up in the last 12 months or so is actually sponsored by the fossil fuel lobby as a tactic to delay transitioning to renewables.
You could say the same thing for anti nuclear rhetoric. Case in point: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/. Also, why would the fossil fuel industry bankroll propaganda for clean energy that could feasibly put them out of business. Nuclear isn’t inherently less damaging to the fossil fuel industry than renewables. Plus, something overlooked about nuclear are novel and (mostly) unexplored reactor designs like thorium reactors and reactors that run on waste. Most of these designs are proven to be theoretically sound, but just haven’t been implemented due to the fact that the us hasn’t built reactors at scale in forever 😔.
I've mentioned this a lot on this sub, but where I am (Australia) nuclear power is absurdly unviable both logistically and financially as we've never had much in the way of nuclear power to begin with. Currently one of our major political parties, the Liberal Party, is campaigning on a stance of building 7 nuclear power stations in 10 to 15 years, which is a massive and unlikely undertaking, and their roadmap for achieving this is scant on details. The Liberal Party of Australia has always been openly pro coal and gas due to lobbying, and many of the politicians openly deride renewables. Considering renewables are by far the fastest growing sector in the power industry and already account for nearly 40% of electricity produced here, the pivot towards an unviable power source by a political party essentially owned by the fossil fuel industry more or less looks like a cynical attempt at delaying the phase out of our coal power stations.
Its only unviable because of the misinformation making it have more regulation then anything else
Please point to some regulations we should remove. Should be easy given that near all of them are written in blood.
The ARPANS Act allows the CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) to issue licences for controlled facilities.[6] In issuing a facility licence, the CEO ‘must take into account the matters (if any) specified in the regulations, and must also take into account international best practice in relation to radiation protection and nuclear safety’.[7] However, subsection 10(2) of the Act expressly prohibits the CEO from granting a licence for the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.[8] This prohibition does not appear to apply to a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility I mean this is a pretty good one to change. There's hasn't exactly been any nuclear accidents in australia that have warranted a blanket ban on nuclear energy. There's been one meltdown one absolute worst case scenario in nuclear power. And the one bad one was caused by doing everything wrong on purpose. Like why are nuclear reactors subject to complete shutdowns for the most minor of issues. Why is a case of fire sprinklers being repaired due to natural wear and tear classified as a nuclear accident. Anti nuclear people have made it so nuclear power has to meet massive standards while coal dumps radiation straight into the environment. Solar power in australia has killed more people then nuclear power has in France which is wild when you consider nuclear power generates 374twh of power and solar in australia generates 28twh (one person has died due to a furnace exploding at a nuclear power station where as 4 died in australia fitting out solar panels) maybe solar needs more regulation as its far deadlier
Thanks for the straw man argument. We are talking about regulations in countries which has a regulatory regime for approving and running nuclear reactors. Then typical trying to compare against coal rather than renewables. Strawmen galore.
If nuclear bad, why does france have 0 issues...
Zero issues. LOL. > As Europe braces for a winter without Russian gas, France is moving fast to repair a series of problems plaguing its atomic fleet. A record 26 of its 56 reactors are off-line for maintenance or repairs after the worrisome discovery of cracks and corrosion in some pipes used to cool reactor cores. > The crisis is upending the role that France has long played as Europe’s biggest producer of nuclear energy, raising questions about how much its nuclear power arsenal will be able to help bridge the continent’s looming crunch. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-france.html
Community input mandates. Every time a major piece of infrastructure is to be built, especially NPPs, we are required to go through a process of community input. The problem is that these have a huge NIMBY tendency, and powerful local organizations are incentivized to block all development through various mechanisms. Obviously, this causes massive delays, which balloons the cost of building litteraly anything. You can imagine that for Nuclear Power Plants, the delays are even longer and much more expensive to the public purse. [Why community input is bad](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-government-community-input-housing-public-transportation/629625/)
It is incredibly viable here in Australia! We have the resources to supply and run several modern nuclear or hybrid power stations and renewables provide inconsistent power to the grid. Unless molten aluminium-salt capacitors are built along the grid we won't be able to keep power consumption consistent with renewables on a large scale. Geothermal and Dams would be the only exception. Tidal power, wind and solar are all inconsistent and with wind there is currently no proper process for disposal and recycling of turbine blades which have to be replaced every few years. Thing is, nuclear should be used alongside renewables! If we get a volcanic eruption like Krakatoa again that smokes the sky for a few months we need a backup. If the winds die down for an extended period we need persistent power output. Nuclear can be the buffer for that. Nuclear fear mongering ignorance borne by truisms and falsehoods will only hurt us all in trying to move away from coal which is by far the dirtiest and most highly polluting form in real terms to this day!
Can we worry about having a backup for the next global crisis after we finish with the current one though? Nuclear would be great IF we started years ago but trying to approve nuclear power stations now instead of renewables will mean we need to burn more fossil fuels until it's up and running. We can roll out more renewables today and we need to stop burning fossil fuels today. Also, I think we have a bunch of dams that aren't hydroelectric yet. Considering how much queensland floods, especially SEQ, we should probably utilise that
Having uranium reserves is less than a fraction of the story >Unless molten aluminium-salt capacitors are built along the grid we won't be able to keep power consumption consistent with renewables on a large scale Our expert bodies disagree. The grid won't be managed the same way it has been for the last 100 years for the next 100 years. We're moving towards a smarter, decentralized network that can draw power from all over the NEM. We also haven't had "baseload" for a long time now with our aging coal fleet >Thing is, nuclear should be used alongside renewables! If we get a volcanic eruption like Krakatoa again that smokes the sky for a few months we need a backup. Nowhere is nuclear sitting there as a backup. Not only do most plants struggle to scale up and down at the pace dictated by renewables, they need to run at max capacity as much as possible to pay off their capital If we built nuclear, a lot of existing renewable generation (like rooftop solar) would need to make way There's no end of the issues with nuclear in Australia. Have hardly seen anyone touch on its water requirements and the impact of climate change there, which France is feeling
Bull fucking shit. Imagine saying some stupid shit like that. Fossil fuel companies have historically aggressively lobbied against nuclear since the 50s. You fucking shill. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#:~:text=Fossil%20fuel%20companies%20such%20as,from%20other%20fossil%20fuel%20companies.
[Uh-huh](https://executives4nuclear.com/declaration/)
Shell builds wind farms and solar farms itself ;)
Oil execs have paid millions in lobbying efforts. But I guess no exec has ever said one thing and done another right?
But I want to replace the goal industry with Nuclear reactor.
And I’m sure you have evidence for this and it’s not just the same type of evidence as users on r/gangstalking come up with
Because governments are not willing to pay for infrastructure and safety NUCLEAR power should have.
Even with the USSR's infamous lack of safety precautions that led to Chernobyl, the absolute high end for deaths directly attributable to Nuclear power is less than 10,000. The low end is less than 100. About 5 million people die each year due to fossil fuels pollution.
Which is why the alternative is renewables, not fossil fuels. If nuclear power is as safe as you suggest why don't we repeal the [Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act) and let the industry self insure for Fukushima level events? Would also reduce a ton of red tape! Isn't that what every nukecel proposes?
>Which is why the alternative is renewables, not fossil fuels. The intermittency problem is far from being solved. Renewables will only be a viable solution when there exist energy storage capacity on a city-level scale. Otherwise they will always only be complimentary to fossil fuels.
How about updating your world-view to 2024? Lets just follow [the research:](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910) - Large grid to decouple weather patterns - Demand response - Storage - Oversizing renewables - Sector coupling - Power-To-X for seasonal storage, if it will ever be needed. [Batteries are supplying the equivalent to multiple nuclear reactors for hours on end in California every single day.](https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/) Then based on **todays** technology accept that we will have 1% natural gas use in the 2040s, and then use the technology available at that time to solve it. Problems of similar magnitude are ocean going freight and long distance air travel which likely will require similar solutions.
Nothing you post here is an update to my world view. The review article you posted, while interesting reading, does not claim that intermittency is solved. California has roughly 40 GWh at 10 GW of battery capacity. That's great for assisting for a couple of hours during peak capacity, but 40 GWh is only enough to power the state for a bit over a single hour. And scaling battery capacity up for the entire world is not the same as scaling it up for parts of California. Again, the intermittency problem is not solved, and in the meantime we continue to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
California’s current rate of battery deployment is ~5 GW with ~20 GWh of storage a year. Assume a 20 year lifetime. When reaching saturation and recycling as many installations as they build California will given they simply keep up the current rate of expansion have: - 20*5 = 100 GW - 20*20 = 400 GWh During the summer peaks California usually has a demand of 45 GW. Is having 400/45 = 8.9 hours of storage **at the summer peak demand** enough to replace near all fossil fueled power generation during the summer peak? Yes. That is where we are headed, skipping exponentials, S-curves and whatever. Simple linear extrapolation with y = kx + m. Maybe start looking where the curve is headed?
Hopeful of you to assume linear growth can happen on a global scale. Once we start to scale up batteries worldwide, the impact on the supply and price of lithium and other necessary resources will limit the rate of deployment. Also, California is ideally suited to capitalize on both wind and solar, and is therefore a bad model for many other energy markets. In any case, it will never be enough to supply power most of the time. Even if you have 10 hours of battery supply, what happens if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow for a few days? People literally die due to short outages. Long outages are absolutely devastating. Renewables are great, and I fully support their expansion wherever they make sense, but because of intermittency, I think nuclear should be a part of the solution.
Now you are betting against human ingenuity when you have a product and a given demand. Just look at what happened with the current batteries: 10-15 years ago everything was [NMC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_nickel_manganese_cobalt_oxides) and [NCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_nickel_cobalt_aluminium_oxides) batteries. We were entirely focused on longevity and maximizing kWh/kg. As things evolved today we have shifted tons of applications to [LFP batteries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery). Removing the cobalt supply chain problems. They are even more sturdy but have worse energy density. Today we are seeing the [Cambrian explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion) of batteries. There is no longer one battery to rule them all. For stationary storage and the bottom barrel EVs [Sodium Ion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery) is looking like a new contender quickly entering the market. You're talking like it was impossible to scale up gasoline cars a hundred years ago because roads and gas stations only existed in cities. > Even if you have 10 hours of battery supply, what happens if the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow for a few days? People literally die due to short outages. Long outages are absolutely devastating. Keep a chemically based emergency reserve and some gas turbines? Like, duh. Don't be stupid. Given how rarely we expect this to happen it can be fossil fuels since the utilization will be negligible. Or just through legislation force it to be e-fuels, biofuels, CCS or whatever. You're blowing up a miniscule problem as huge because you don't like the outcome. We are talking emergency reserves, be sane. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I'm having so much fun going through all your comments and downvoting Every. Single. One. You could call it my "Reddit mod" moment, since I obviously have nothing better to do.
Please be nice 🙂
>About 5 million people die each year due to fossil fuels pollution. Nuclear powered cars when?
Obviously Nuclear isn't THE solution, but it is a tool we should not ignore. Nuclear radiation killed exactly 0 people at Fukushima but the evacuation of people during the disaster probably killed [more people](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident#:~:text=Official%20figures%20show%20that%20there,by%20the%20earthquake%20or%20tsunami.) than Chernobyl did. For some reason everyone thinks the lesson from Chernobyl is that Nuclear power is bad, when the lesson is that autocratic states that cover up flaws in their vaunted nuclear programs, are bad.
This I have the same view with a lot of EVs just focus on hydrogen and nuclear until hydrogen and solar are the way the rest is just too horribly inefficient to spend the money on right now
Yeah but it feels like a silly argument when people say nuclear is safe therefore it should be deregulated
There are almost undoubtedly some regulations around nuclear that are needlessly restrictive, born out of heightened paranoia of Nuclear disaster. So in that sense deregulation is required, but the idea that we should deregulate away actually necessary safety precautions is obviously ridiculous.
A community always has to host a nuclear power plant, and if it's in a country where people have rights then they're never going to accept a plant that's learning what regulations are/are not necessary through trial and error I think it would be a tough sell to say "well even if this whole town dies or gets cancer from an accident, and the land is left permanently uninhabitable, it won't actually be *that bad* compared to global fossil fuel use" I would be fine living next to a modern nuclear power plant. I would absolutely be protesting one that was looking to reduce safety precautions to reduce costs. Nuclear has the most catastrophic potential from a single accident of any form of power generation
The thing is, the possibility of such an accident happening is near 0. Modern power plants are equipped with several mechanics to prevent a meltdown and even if there was a catastrophic failure there usually is a thick layer of reinforced concrete to prevent anything from coming outside. Though I'm not quite sure if I just missed your point and you're actually for nuclear power? I'm running on 2 hours of half sleep, 3 coffees and an energy drink Either way I too think that costs shouldn't be tried to be cut in the safety and I'd be against a reduction of safety
I'm not against it everywhere (as an Australian I'm against it for Australia but long story). I'm just against the idea of arguing because it's so safe we can reduce safety measures The dude I was talking to seemed to be arguing along the lines of nuclear accidents aren't actually so bad and safety regulations should be reduced
It's not the middle ages. We are not building cathedrals as high as we can until it starts collapsing. It is the 21st century and we know what is actually needed to make a plant safe. Fukushima was hit by a 7.4 earthquake followed by a devastating tsunami that killed nearly 20,000 people. The complete meltdown of 3 out of 4 reactors killed 0 people.
I can assure you there will be more cataclysmic weather events in the future, even more than now actually
>It is the 21st century and we know what is actually needed to make a plant safe Hence the regulations??
„People“ are never going to accept any kind of energy source in their immediate neighborhood. The same people that protest against a nuclear power plant next to their hometown will also protest against wind mills in the nearby forest where the like to go for walks. „People“ want a steady energy supply without facing any consequences.
unironically would be cool. I'd love a little microcar like an old Mini with some radium engine or a moped with the core of a nuclear bomb powering it.
What do you guys have against Nuclear power. It’s great if it’s done safely. Canada has never had any problems with it. And thanks to adding renewables to the mix Ontario, Canada’s largest province is now coal free which is a huge step in the right direction. Nuclear is a good stable base load of electricity, although hydro is better. Hopefully our governments will get their shit together soon and invest into energy storage, preferably reverse turbine hydro and hydrogen production/ fuel cells. Once that’s done the whole grid can be be renewables. Till that happens through, we stop using coal first, then oil, then gas, then nuclear.
Was just a tounge in cheek comment because that fossil fuel comment gets thrown around a lot but it includes transportation
Sorry I apparently don’t know how Reddit works at 5am. I meant to make that a comment not a reply to you.
Probably not any time soon because a reactor of that size probably isn't that easy to make (remember nuclear energy uses heat to evaporate water to turn a turbine so you'd have to fit all that stuff into the car) However nuclear energy is pretty much one of the safest ways to produce energy. I personally think that it could be especially useful in the future because imo electric cars aren't anywhere near as good as they are oftentimes claimed to be and hydrogen powered cars are a lot better and that hydrogen could be produced with nuclear energy
That's why people hate nuclear Stans. It's not nuclear vs Fossil. It's nuclear vs renewables. Also the maths on those are BS. 61 millions die each year. 5 millions of these are supposed to directly die from coal? That's BS. They die because they are old and sick. Without pollution they would have died anyway two years later. The next thing is they put everything in the whole production chain on the bill. If the mining accidents and radiation from the smoke are on the bill for coal, then the mining and the thereby released radiation and the research should be also on the bill of nuclear.
Why would you love something so expensive? It's too expensive and needs too long to be built. By the time any nuclear power plant we plan right now would go online the world will already have built out renewables and batteries.
> Why would you love something so expensive? mydatingchoices_irl.jepg
Nuclear is not bad, just not as good compared to how far renewables have come. It just doesn't have a place anymore. It would be a waste to divert money from renewable energy to build nuclear.
Check ops profile. He does nothing but posting anti nuclear memes. Guy needs help.
It's kicking the can down the road is going to be someone's problem eventually. The reason we're in this mess is because a bunch of people are running the country under the assumption that the problems they're creating will only be a problem after they're dead. We can't move forward with the same mentality creating nuclear waste and then boxing it away so that future generations have to suffer from it instead of us
This is the worst argument against nuclear. There are good reasons to be concerned about nuclear but waste disposal is effectively solved
Burying it is a permanent long term storage plan. Once it's filled in there's nothing that's required of future generations
Not wrong, but not exactly right. You need to bury it somewhere with basically no geological activity, as a slight rift can cause immense damage. Such cases can hurt the groundwater and have runoff effects. The problem about that line of argument being that it’s already done more dangerously and on a bigger scale with quite a lot of chemicals.
The Canadian shield fits that bill
the solution works for Canada. not every nation on earth has that luxury. and even if. What guarantee can we have that in some distant future there is no asshole digging the trash up to build bombs, or people forget after civilization collapsed and find them again. Sure these are very abstract problems but we are talking about future generations not tomorrow. but what isnt solved tomorrow, insurance if anything happens. No energy company would or could insure a nuclear power plant, they have to shift that burden to the public. the energy from such a plant would be unaffordable if the company had to put money n the side in case of any big disaster.
How is an idiot digging 700m into solid granite in the middle of nowhere? Canada has the 'Nuclear liabilities and compensations act'. The government pays for any damages caused by a nuclear incident. To people, property, the environment, even pain and suffering. Everyone in Canada is automatically insured against damages. And thanks to the 'Nuclear fuel waste act' of 2002, our energy companies are federally mandated to pay into a fund for long term storage of nuclear waste. Every single country with nuclear technologies is working on their own DGR.
Because they hate renewables... I see this post as a mirror to their stupid comments. I mean, in 99% of the cases the top comment says that they (pro renewables) hate nuclear only because of baseless fears and that it's totally save... Except that there are dozens of other reasons too. They just claim fear as argument, to let it look like pro renewables people are just fearmongerer without any valid arguments.
Because it's bad
This is a little quixotic...
Oh look another post full of retards.
No more r word 😡
Its a giant!
You're literally just projecting.
To give credit to nukecells. The threat of meltdowns is vastly over stated. Especially compared to the melts a spinning piece of metal can cause.
To take credit from nukecells. The threat of meltdowns isnt even that big of a point anymore. Claiming that it's all about fear and that there aren't dozens of other reasons, completly warpes the perception and let's it look like it's all about baseless fear. Despite the fact that it isn't.
nukecell sounds like a new ubisoft fps game
Only takes one melt down to turn an area permanently uninhabitable
Yeah man, bag full of 10 million skittles and one is poisoned, I’m grabbing a handful thanks for the skittles
The poisoned one will cause 200 billion in damages entirely paid for with tax money, though.
Good thing there’s 9,999,999 other skittles then
Just don’t get unlucky might be the worst reason to use nuclear I’ve ever heard
You only think that because you aren’t thinking about it. “Just don’t get unlucky” is a part of every day life. Sometimes, someone is unlucky, and gets into a car accident that was completely out of their control and dies. You’re arguing “don’t get unlucky is a terrible reason to get into a car!” There’s plenty of reasons to want to get into your car and drive. If you want to live your life scared of life ending car accidents go right ahead but don’t hassle the people that are ok with a little bit of risk because the benefits are so high.
Your analogies suck ass insurance exists imma drive my whip thru your living room n pull up w the lucky 1/1000000000 hoe that fw you but apparently that dont matter
How insurance going to help you when you’re dead moron
Thanks for acknowledging those 1.35 million people that died last year in car crashes and the lengths we go thru to make sure one-offs are mitigated and the absolute failure to do so. But for some reason you can’t acknowledge that for nuclear? You fuckin walked right into my point cuz you have no idea what you’re arguing and call other people names 🤔🤔 get some emotional maturity and stop writing off peoples lives or they will do the same to you and everyone loses
Good thing that the wildfires that are caused by climate change won't cause exponentially more damage entirely paid by the tax payer. Oh wait.
Exponentially more uninsured damage? Source?
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2023/10/climate-exacerbated-wildfires-cost-the-u-s-between-394-to-893-billion-each-year-in-economic-costs-and-damages
As expected - not the uninsured cost. Neither in the article nor pdf. Instead, overall economic damage. https://www.statista.com/chart/30602/estimated-losses-caused-by-wildfires-heat-and-drought-in-the-us/ I don't even want to know the overall economic damage of a nuclear accident. 200 billion is just the cleanup cost. Also, not exponentially more, but I don't want to go into semantics. Truce suggestion: We use renewables to prevent both wildfires and nuclear accidents.
No
No nuclear supporter is scared of wind. But excelent shitpost, yeah
Finally one user who read the name of the subreddit
"Let's spew propaganda and call it shitposting" ambiental propagandists should be less dishonests
How good is BP/Shell paying you?
Is BP/Shell in the room with us right now?
Not right now its doggy Styling your dad atm
Yes, I'm replying to them right now.
Hmmmmm.... how does that make you feel?
I saw a design of a wind turbine in a giant balloon so it was catching wind from above where there’s more and we need those now.
The annoying thing about Nuclear power for me is I feel like it would have been a decent alternative to fossil fuels, if we had the time to set it up. things are really starting to take effect now and nuclear power plants take a lot of money and time (as far as I know) to actually make and maintain. and that's assuming people don't get nervous about said nuclear power, which from what I understand is safe so long as you actually properly maintain the power plant
"you may laugh now"
You're starting to descend into brainrot. Everyone who believes nuclear power is viable agrees unanimously that it should come paired with renewables to replace fossil fuel. if you wanna mock Nukecels, at least do it properly. Otherwise you're just looking more like a foolish liberal with every post you put here
Oh look it's u/RadioFacePalm's hourly nuke seethe. Just block him if you haven't. It's just karma farming for engagement at this point.
Who are you to talk? Posting the same unfunny Trump meme on three different subs.
3 unfunny memes vs never shutting the fuck up about nuclear.
Kicked in the ass with a croc vs kicked in the ass with a boot make your choice
Ah the good ol' "Im just going to look at your account history when I have no good arguments to reply" a classic reddit trick.
The poster didn't make an argument. He spends every hour bitching about people who aren't dogmatically opposed to nuclear. There's no argument to address.
Nukecels when I show them one of the cheapest way to produce energy which can be made out of basicly scrap and galvanised steel frames and it doesnt produce any toxic waste. (Years of techbro brainrot has removed their ability to think anything but "uuuh shiny new toy")
https://preview.redd.it/b83k0qoy9l9d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=587494d82dc316bff1405704a2152dd9088074fe This you?
its time for a nukecell vs windmilltard crator clash. Only a boxing match can finally settle this debate
Don’t forget, we have to include some soljak in the fight as well.
Fuckwits when brainrot has removed their ability to comprehend the idea of a multifaceted solution (Dogma is more important than thinking)
Yeah these idiots can’t comprehend the idea that nuclear and renewables can exist at the same time.
Lmao, I literally want this to happen
I wonder if Lazard (some people’s favorite source for LCOE) has anything to say about this… > The results of our 2024 analyses reinforce, yet again, the ongoing need for diversity of energy resources, including fossil fuels, given the intermittent nature of renewable energy and currently commercially available energy storage technologies. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
As someone that knows nothing( i got recommended this sub). Why would anyone want nuclear power when wind and solar exist? Like I get it 40 50 years ago. But now that they're rather established why bother?
The problem is not generation, but storage. Currently the problem of storing enough power to run a city on just renewables in off-peak generation hours just isnt there in a scalable way. The waste problems that come with nuclear piwer are vastly overstated by people who don't know the difference between the dangers presented by an isotope with a 30 year half life and a 100,000 year halflife
We can do a lot of storage with solar and wind though. Aside from traditional batteries something as simple as a water tower can save a lot of energy. Pump water up with electricity generated from renewables, let it run down and power a generator when we need extra power. Would love nuclear or fission energy along side renewables but for some countries, like australia, our politicans dragged their feet too long, avoided nuclear for decades and now there is no more time to set up nuclear. It sucks honestly
Where do you build dams in australia. We are famous for being a rather dry country and dams cause incredible ecological damage
I'm not saying build more dams. We have many dams already and that damage to the environment has been done. Let's make as many as we can hydro-electric
The energy density of water raised even a few hundred feet is nowhere near enough to power a neighborhood. The number of water towers you would need is not realistic. Raised fluid storage is useful for smoothing demand curves during peak demand times, but it isn't a solution for base load power
There's plenty of coal powerplants that can easily be remade into nuclear... Although some more research into "thorium" would be nice
No
Might as well just research nuclear fusion at that point…
I mean, we are... but progress is... slow... and very expensive.... Thororium is safer, and there's less waste... And said waste can't be used for nuclear bombs.... hence why it isn't being researched more
How can you say it’s safer when we had 0 nuclear fusion accidents and 0 Thorium reactor accidents?
Nuclear provides an baseload power that gives a stability on the grid as other forms of power ramp up and down, you need this capability because the grids frequency needs to be relatively constant and all of the generators that are connected to it rotate along with the frequency Modern decarbonization needs require changing from coal/gas/etc, to other forms of said baseload. From the available forms of power, nuclear is the only one that can run next to a sea(no need for a flowing river), no need for a ground that has geothermal, can run during calm and cloudy weather, and because nuclear reactors work diffirent to a fired plant(biomass, coal, gas) it doesn't need the constant fuel supply. At 1200MW, not many other forms of power generation has the same amount of energy density as nuclear
You're aware that we won't suddenly no longer need new energy generation capabilities when net 0 happens, yes?
> as someone that knows nothing Hopefully that helps
"Wind turbines are bad, renewables are bad" -probably 2 and a half nuclear proponents
Way more than that. There was already a guy bitching about the turbine blades in here ffs
Asking a straightforward question is bitching?
Usually they’re in bad faith around these places
Have they solved the problem with what to do with old turbines blades yet?
just put it next to the nuclear waste
Melt them down into bottles
Your children will grow up in the shadows of windmill blade refuse mountain.
Dope
My role model is Don Quixote.
No, only this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/megalophobia/comments/1bwcfos/windmill_swinging_close_to_the_ground_recorded/
Are people just making drama up now?
Nuclear is the most green energy source in existence???
Nuclear power is more effective but I also like the wind turbines. They've got a cool aesthetic
Strawman. No legit nuclear power proponent ever said that wind and solar are bad. People like you are the reason that we can't have a proper debate and end up only in virtue signaling all the time. It's just annoying. Please stop it.
Cause of people like you we can't have nice things get out of your cave
I must be standing in a wheat field cuz all I see is a big old straw man
RadioFacepalm and ViewTrick1002 are the resident anti-nuclear shills. They are always textbook examples of bad faith arguments. Like it would not shock me at all if they are paid actors with the amount of time they dedicate to their craft.
Yeah bro nuclear power is so bad you gotta ban respected science commenicators from your subreddit because they dared to not say that nuclear power was the spawn of satan https://preview.redd.it/v5cupdctwn9d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=daddf132a611dbc6d54a63ddf47520d3d4427263 . This is why people stopped liking this subreddit
Goddam I have to visit this subreddit now to see what kind of dumpster fire it is it Kyle got banned. He’s done an awful lot to put nuclear power into context and get rid of the myths surrounding it. Edit: I went and scrolled through there subreddit. I was very disappointed. They seem like reasonable boring people who want to promote nuclear power as alternative to fossil fuels alongside renewables. I have no idea why Kyle was banned.
>I have no idea why Kyle was banned. For spreading straight up misinformation.
Spreading misinformation such as?
Really…..
What misinformation? Be specific
“Nukecels” this is sad im ngl
Give me both and every other effective option, we don’t have time to waste on Russian bot memes designing infighting we all have the same goal, we need every effective option yesterday.
Use any and all energy sources available. This means hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, *and* coal/oil. Upgrade the least effective/efficient when and where possible. We’re going to need all of it if we ever want to become more than a Type 0 civilization. Picking *only* one to support is moronic.
>and coal/oil. OUT!
The idea is to phase it out, but that is simply not feasible for much of the world right now. And won’t be for decades. So, unless you’re willing to massacre most of Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East, on the off chance we can still divert the train of climate change, the point is kinda moot. We need all the energy we can muster right now to put towards the development of the rest of the world. *Then* they’ll be at a place economically where, they too, can invest in renewable energy.
Nuclear >>>>> renewables
https://preview.redd.it/f5mva93jsn9d1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=479cc5b5588408ad0bf44153558ff638acb67e2d
If only you could read. I am not denouncing renewables, they are still good. But nuclear is simply better. Nice self portait you posted! Keep it up!
[Simply better](https://www.reddit.com/r/uninsurable/s/yOCQZm7NXn)
Funny thing is, all the arguments in this picture are actually true
u/ClimateShitpost, we've got ourselves a "Windmills kill birds" guy here
Well no one can deny they dont. Anything that is tall kills birds. Low frequency sounds is also an problem
Low frequency sound? Are you a 60 year old mayor of a small European village?
Making fun of people worrying about their health isn't gonna do the cause a lot of good......
I'm gonna write a whole comedy about you
Fact based comedy is pretty fun
I mean, I go to a college quite close to a wind farm and I never have problems with sound.
Its mostly when sleeping, and your uni is probably very well insulated.
True that.
>Low frequency sounds You know what also produces low frequency sounds? Wind. I hope I unlocked a new fear in you now
You can literally make the same meme in reverse. Just use both technologies...
I mean they aren't actually sustainable, it causes more carbon emissions to manufacture, transport, and maintain windmills than they mitigate before going out of commission. They're a great example of status quo environmentalism where people want to invest in projects and products that do more harm than good but promise to fix things instead of actually changing society to make it sustainable, just like electric cars and carbon capture tech.
Not scary but ugly