There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

tdawg ,

It’s okay OP I got the joke

MooseBoys ,

I wouldn’t be worried. Nuclear waste is fairly easy to detect and carries a unique signature from the reactor that it came from. If an operator starts dumping waste, they’re going to be caught very quickly.

Clarke311 OP ,

That’s the joke, everyone is scared of a hypothetical non-viable fear and they completely ignore the current reality.

tryptaminev ,

That requires someone to want to catch them and not be corrupted.

What is this? Just 75 years of illegal waste dumping, poisoning thousands of people. And the Government made sure to help cover up and downplay the issue.

Bribes, bribes and more bribes seem totally normal for the nuclear industry.

Noone sane would trust these kind of people to organize safe storage for hundreds of thousands of years.

EvolvedTurtle ,

I’m super pro nuclear energy But at the same time people are stupid and that kind of scares me

Clarke311 OP ,

US Navy reactors are run by 18-year-olds supervised by 25-year-olds so far pretty good track record.

SternburgExport ,

They both suck. Going renewable is the only way.

Clarke311 OP ,

You should search the term grid scale storage and get back to me with a viable solution.

SternburgExport ,

…wikipedia.org/…/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

Already a thing m8

Clarke311 OP ,

Silly me I didn’t realize we were just going to install mountains every time we needed a battery.

SternburgExport ,

Our country barely has any coast. And we’re done with nuclear anyway, so that sounds like a you problem.

Neato ,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

You'll only need a few great lakes worth of water for most major cities.

Clarke311 OP , (edited )

That’s the easy part we’ve got plenty of ocean the hard part is building the mountain

explodicle ,

Could we use landfills? 2 birds 1 stone

Clarke311 OP ,

Set them on fire first for the aesthetic

Hugohase ,

And hydrogen, and batteries, and overbuilding, and geographic distribution and a lot more but nukeheads gonna nukehead.

Clarke311 OP ,

I do not think you comprehend how much power would need to be stored. We are steadily electrifying every single industry year after year we use more and more electricity to power that demand we are burning more fossil fuels than ever before while in conjunction utilizing more renewables than ever before well maintaining the same average nuclear load for the last 20 years…

Hugohase ,

Renewables and storage is what is gonna happen, you can argue against that as much as you want. Growth of renewables is exponential, growth of nuclear is nonexistent.

Clarke311 OP ,

I swear to God you’re going to kill me with an aneurysm. It’s only non-existent because of dumbasses like you. Like facts I also do not give a single fuck about your feelings. We are at a tipping point. We cannot scale renewable production to the point we would need to scale it to In a short enough time for them to be a viable solution alone. Therefore we need to continue to implement renewables while also replacing the most egregious CO2 contributors such as coal fired plants with reactors.

Rooty ,

Give it up man, I’ve had clashes with renewabots, and they are adamant that we can run the entire grid on tinker toys and batteries.

Clarke311 OP ,

The sad part is they’re not wrong they’re just 80 to 100 years out of scope. The theory is there it’s the capacity to produce and the inability to store that kills it. Also I know I’m not convincing him. The point of comment the reds like this is for the people who are uninformed and undecided as of yet.

Hugohase ,

Its nonexistent because its expensive and impractical. Every cent spent for nuclear is a wasted cent because you would get twice the power from renewables. LCOE.

photonic_sorcerer ,
@photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

That’s not viable everywhere or at scale. Creating new reservoirs would also cause great environmental damage.

tryptaminev ,

creating nuclear plants is worse. nuclear plants have a conversion rate from thermal to electrical energy of around 35% So for every kWh you receive from your socket almost 2 kWh are used to heat or evaporate water. That is more environmental damage than a pumping reservoir.

Also the premise is wrong. We dont need the same amount of storage so we can continue using electricity like before.

Most electrical use can be sheduled to align with the availability of energy in the grid. The sun is up at noon? good time to do laundry and dishes. There is a steady wind tonight? Preheat the water in the tank and no need to heat in the morning.

The same can be done for many industrial applications. It just requires innovation and investments, which is why they rather lobby for destroying the planet.

saigot , (edited )

Well since your arguments depend on niche and experimental technology I don’t see why Nuclear proponents can’t either. The waste heat from nuclear energy is only a concern when it is contained within water, which is pretty easy to use for warming houses or providing houses with warm water. There are already cities that do this. This has huge efficiency savings. powermag.com/district-heating-supply-from-nuclear…

This all seems a bit theoretical to me. The important thing is to stop fossil fuels right now. If we use a nuclear plant to buy us 50yrs to find renewable alternatives for the specific conditions of the site in question I say go for it. Every location has unique needs here, we can’t look at any one technology as a golden bullet for every problem everywhere. We don’t have the decades needed for huge innovation and cultural changes to support smart grids like you describe.

Mangosniper ,

We proooooibably could do that if everyone agrees and we all do it together everywhere of the world. Will that happen? No. So we can not agree on that and therefore no big nuclear Masterplan will be build.

Let’s say we also try to get everyone on the full renewable boat, try really hard. Will that work so that everybody agrees? No. So as we can not agree on that no renewables will be built. Wait… Stop… That’s wrong. I still can built renewables even alone on my house. And here is the difference. For the nuclear plan we would almost all all over the world have to agree to make it work. For renewables, it will happen, because we can do it right here right now, everywhere, large scale, small scale. Doesn’t matter. It’s like with gravity and religion. For religion to “work” you need to believe. Gravity will work, if you believe it or not. That’s what gives me at least a little bit hope, renewables are so fucking good, they are unstoppable by now. Question is just if we are fast enough.

Clarke311 OP ,

I don’t want to be excretingly pedantic but I mean f*** it give me a couple hundred fire alarms and I’ll have enough Americanium to start a breeder reactor.

Mangosniper ,

How about a mixture of batteries (redox-flow, LiFePo, NaFePO, iron-air, Li-Ion), thermal storage (porous volcanic stone, heated water, liquid salt), mechanical storage (giant rotating masses, compressed air), pumped hydroelectrical storage, power-to-gas or power to liquid(hydrogen or ammonia) and creating interconnected power grids?

That should do. Would not create a single point of failure and prevent having everything in the hands of probably a single entity.

Clarke311 OP ,

While I agree that we need to pursue energy storage solutions In addition to investing in renewables and nuclear. I feel that it would be staggeringly inefficient to have to harvest and store and then redistribute power at the scale you are describing. The power loss and transmission alone from generation to battery to end user would be over 30% most likely. And at that point It’s far more efficient to directly energize the consumer with an on-demand source such as a nuclear power plant.

Cylusthevirus ,
@Cylusthevirus@kbin.social avatar

There's a strong argument to be made for nuke plants, but there's a solid, high production value video here. It's Kurzgesagt if you know them.

Omega_Haxors ,

Oh you mean that Gates-funded greenwasher? I think I recognize him from somewhere.

Neato ,
@Neato@kbin.social avatar

This guy: Doom, doom, doom-doom!

Clarke311 OP ,

I like the cut of your jib

Omega_Haxors ,

Literal cult shit. No arguments, just “everyone who disagrees with us is [pejorative]”

Cylusthevirus ,
@Cylusthevirus@kbin.social avatar

That's an hour long, about a different video than the one I linked (or at least the bits I skimmed were), and so far as I know Gates understands that climate change is a huge threat. Greenwashing is a weird accusation and I don't understand how it applies here.

But whatever, welcome to the block list.

Clarke311 OP , (edited )

EDIT. This was supposed to be a reply to /u/Omega_Haxors

Reactor bad.jpg. Bill Gates money tainted them all don’t you know they exclusively build the reactor foundations upon the corpses of microchipped babies

Eq0 ,

Fossil fuel based solutions are significantly worse for climate change than nuclear. Saying that the other renewables are better is matter of discussion, but renewables without nuclear are not going to make the cut. Using both renewables and nuclear is best to cut emissions.

tryptaminev ,

nuclear is not viable. It is not stabilizing but endangering the grid as nuclear plants are vulnerable to heat waves and dry spells. The kind of westher events to increase drastically with climate change. In Europe many nuclear reactors had to be powered down in the last summers because they couldnt get cooled anymore. Also they put further stress on limited water ressources by literally evaporating the water away.

You can life without electricity but you cant life without water.

BastingChemina ,

I should have a copy pasta ready because every time nuclear is coming in a conversation we get the same argument about nuclear being vulnerable to climate change because some french reactors have been powered down in summer and trying to imply that renewables energies are immune to weather events

Yes some reactors have been powered down in summer because of heat wave but only some of the older design that send heated water back in the river. It’s not a problem for the majority of the reactors.

It’s not an issue because most of the reactors are still online, because summer is the moment with the lowest electrical consumption anyway and because in summer solar production is at the highest point so the power grid is fine even with few reactors off.

On the other hand winter is the moment where the power grid is under stress, December, January and February the country is peaking its electrical consumption, solar production is at the lowest point so reactors need to be fully operational at this period. It’s fitting perfectly with the climate since this is also the months when the water is at the highest level and heat is not an issue.

But since we are talking about extreme weather events what is happening to solar panels during hail storms and to wind turbines during heavy storms ? They can take damage too, renewable energies are not immune to climate either.

Edit: Nuclear isn’t the perfect solution, renewables are not perfect either but we need to work with what we have and using both nuclear where possible and renewables is probably the best option we have.

AffineConnection ,

The important thing is clean energy, regardless of whether or not it is renewable.

Fried_out_Kombi ,
@Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world avatar

Friendly reminder that air pollution from fossil fuels kill ~9 million people per year

Clarke311 OP ,

The title of this post is sarcasm

Fried_out_Kombi ,
@Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world avatar

Oh yeah, I understood this is a pro nuclear meme. I agree with your meme.

Clarke311 OP ,

The number of people who told me that they were against nuclear and wanted to shut down nuclear plants yesterday but can’t comprehend that they will be replaced by coal fire… Inspired this meme. www.cnn.com/2023/04/15/europe/…/index.html

tryptaminev ,

That is bullshit. They are not replaced by coal plants. They are replaced by renewables as can be seen by the percentage of renewable energy in the German grid increasing since. ise.fraunhofer.de/…/german-net-power-generation-i…

Stop lying to peddle your agenda against renewables.

Clarke311 OP ,

Show the rest of the chart. images.app.goo.gl/Dt1xAeP87Bjy6xxV6

tryptaminev ,

how is the chart ranging until 2022 relevant for 2023?

Germany needs to do a lot more to go fully renewable, like all countries need to do. And the conservative government under Merkel has been desastrous for the expansion of renewables.

But claiming that the remaining nuclear power that was shut off now as sheduled would have been replaced by coal is a lie.

Also Merkel didnt decide to exit nuclear in 2022. The decision was made in 2002 with the plan to ramp up renewables.Then Merkel throttled renewables and exited the exit from nuclear power only to exit the exit from the exit two years later. As a result 6 Billion Euros in “compensation” was thrown at the nuclear industry and renewables were not put back on track but left at a low burn.

If we went with the original plan wed be mostly renewable and much cheapr now, but well conservatives and “liberals” always need to fuck things over in favor of fossil industries like nuclear.

JohnDClay ,

Germany energy mix

Clarke311 OP ,

Thank you John

JohnDClay ,

You’re welcome. To do the same, you can click open image in new tap, copy the address, then link the address in Lemmy with an extra exclamation point in front. The link format is [description](link here).

JohnDClay ,

Could they have replaced coal with those renewables instead of nuclear?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •