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.

starlinguk ,
@starlinguk@kbin.social avatar

Here's me thinking I'd left the nuclear shills behind on Reddit. Nuclear is expensive, takes forever to build, and produces unacceptable waste. Renewables are much cheaper and MUCH quicker to implement.

bangover ,
@bangover@lemmy.world avatar

For those advocating an all renewable energy grid. You cannot reliably power big industrial factories and infrastructure with renewables only. The answer NEEDS to be: nuclear as a base, and a heavy push towards decentralized renewable grid on top.

JohnDClay ,

You can if you spend times on batteries/energy storage. The question is where the trade off is optimal.

EatMyDick3 ,

Renewable energy isn’t sustainable to meet energy needs, it’s not a secret. The bigest ones pushing for green energy are the oil companies because they know it’ll be a flop and everyone will come crawling back to them begging because Wind water and Solar just isn’t enough.

DietBajaBlast ,

Wrong

mindlight ,

Swede here.

Just clarifying some things.

Sweden is not dropping renewable energy. We are (at least for now) going to include nuclear energy among the other alternatives such as water, wind and solar.

But here’s one of the problems we are trying to solve with nuclear power:

Sweden is a major producer of high quality steel and we have set a target to become CO2 free in 2045 when it comes to steel production.

Currently the steel production in Sweden is responsible for 5500000 metric tons of CO2 per year and we have plans to go 0 CO2 by 2045.

To be able to do this we need, just for the CO2 free steel production, 70 TWh per year.

In 2020 there were 4333 wind turbines 26TW of electricity in Sweden. While you might think that we’d just build 9000 more it will not likely not solve the main problem with wind and solar power production: reliability.

So either we continue using fossil fuel to produce steel or we don’t. It’s as easy as that.

LoveSausage ,
@LoveSausage@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Reliability is done by redundance. Build 18000 of them. Also Sweden have plenty of hydropower as well. Worked on windpower in Sweden and seen the maps. Shitload of potential. The real reason is who filled who’s pockets.

synae ,
@synae@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

LFTR when 😭

Kes ,
@Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

When the words “experimental nuclear reactor being built near you” doesn’t attract massive groups of protesters fueled by the coal companies, allowing for the tech to actually be built and tested

LexiconBexicon ,
@LexiconBexicon@lemmynsfw.com avatar

Heckin’ basedarino

Wonder where they’re going to get all that fuel to power the reactors from lol

Oh wait, that’s right, Middle-East and Africa like always, so piss all has changed 😂

Hazdaz ,

One of the biggest problems that we have today when it comes to energy production (and a whole lot of other things) is putting all our eggs in one basket. Well how the fuck does this change anything?

I am not anti-nuclear, but dumping ALL renewable targets is moronic. Now you’ve simply replaced one egg for another egg, but it’s still just ONE egg. A stable energy portfolio is diversifying your sources.

pedro ,

The article doesn’t say if they intend to have 100% nuclear or if they dropped the target of 100% renewable to have a mix with more nuclear

Benchamoneh ,

Great observation 👍 could well be a misleading title

sproketboy ,

Good

Rooty ,

A low carbon energy source is useless if it cannot cover peak loads, which are now being covered by fossil fuels. Years of greenie obstructionism now means that the nuclear plants that would have been built are now missing, and the solutions offered by the anti-nuclear lobby seems to be “let them have energy poverty, brownouts and outright blackouts are not our problem”. This will happen once coal and oil plants shut down, renewables alone cannot cover the demands, especially at peak load.

ricdeh ,
@ricdeh@lemmy.world avatar

Such an absolutely brainless response. Of course renewables alone can cover the demands, and they’re our only option since nuclear energy is inherently dangerous, extremely expensive and damaging to the environment and climate due to the immense amounts of concrete required. Furthermore, grid-level storage is a made up problem with regard to renewables, we could easily cover peak demands by expanding hydroelectric pump storage systems and reservoirs, and potential new battery solutions would make this even less of an expense.

BloodForTheBloodGod ,

Climate harm is a matter of degrees, I think.

Why isn’t a few tons of concrete worth eliminating so many emissions?

Willer ,

i like these comments. just have to read the first sentence to know when the blud has knocked himself out of the conversation.

Exatron ,

If you’re going to claim a response is brainless you should at least try not Maki a brainless response yourself. Nuclear isn’t inherently dangerous, and is better for the environment in the long term.

rusticus ,

Peaker technology is best replaced by batteries. Powerwalls and V2G has already been shown to dramatically reduce brownouts and need for Peakers. You need to educate yourself a bit. It’s not 1995 anymore.

the_kalash ,

Charging a car isn’t exactly on the same scale as providing power to a large metropolitan area with heavy industries.

There just is no viable battery storage for that scale with current technology.

rusticus ,

electrek.co/…/neoen-announces-tesla-megapack-proj…

Come on man, it’s not 1995.

the_kalash ,

Yeah, you still don’t really seem to grasp the scales here. A 400 MWh is nice for a small Australian town, but a piss in the wind for an industrial centre.

rusticus ,

You’re just wrong. Battery systems smaller than this have already paid for themselves reducing brown outs and dramatically reducing or eliminating the need for peaker plants, which are always the worst for the environment. This is only about scale and the cost of batteries has dropped dramatically just in the last few years. Again, it’s not 1995.

the_kalash ,

Again, it’s not 1995.

Keep saying that a few more times and maybe you can wish your imaginary battery technology into existance.

rusticus ,

Facts are facts bra. The technology is there, it’s proven, and only getting better and cheaper.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Nuclear and Renewables are incompatible. One has to go in a grid.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…/201005112141.htm

DozensOfDonner ,

Interesting read. To anyone interested, the original article can be found here: www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3Also note there is a critical re-analysis posted in 2022 reporting some other results, and a reply from the original author again.

veganpizza69 ,
@veganpizza69@lemmy.world avatar

Former Nuclear Leaders: Say ‘No’ to New Reactors

The former heads of nuclear power regulation in the U.S., Germany, and France, along with the former secretary to the UK’s government radiation protection committee, have issued a joint statement that in part says, “Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change.”

powermag.com/…/former-nuclear-leaders-say-no-to-n…

veloxy , (edited )

Imo, renewable should still be the target, nuclear should be the bridge towards renewable until it’s feasible enough

schroedingershat ,

Building a stop-gap that will be ready 20 years after you get to the main destination for 10x the price isn’t a bright move.

intelati ,

I disagree… the biggest “issue” I have with “renewables” is the storage problem… That 20 years gives you time to figure out something while reducing the carbon output

oyo ,

Battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.

schroedingershat ,

…no it won’t because the new nuclear will generate nothing for 20 years. Whereas the renewables will reduce some carbon, even if we pretend that storage is both unsolvable (as opposed to already cheaper than nuclear) and necessary in a grid that’s already 40% hydro.

mranachi ,

This would be a stronger argument, if it wasn’t 20 years old already.

schroedingershat ,

The best time to ignore the nuke shills and build wind and solar was the 1940s when both wind and solar thermal were proven economically and fission hadn’t happened yet.

The second best time is now.

sproketboy ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Exatron ,

    The best time to ignore the nuclear scare mongers us whenever they open their ignorant mouths.

    schroedingershat ,

    You’re confusing tired contempt with fear.

    Exatron ,

    No, you definitely have an irrational fear of nuclear power.

    GoosLife ,

    Which is exactly what they’re doing if you read the article.

    Stinkywinks ,

    Hell yeah, tell me the best future isn’t nuclear power and electric rail like an old space Lego set.

    zik ,

    Nuclear’s probably not a great long term choice since it’s a lot more expensive than renewables.

    JohnDClay ,

    But that’s just the generated per kwh cost, not taking into account when the energy is generated. To compare a full renewables grid to a renewables nuclear mixed grid you need to take into account massive energy storage systems and their inefficiencies and possible material shortages. We can’t just compare the currently favorable cost per kwh without taking into account problems as we scale into less reliable energy sources.

    Serpent ,

    You will need long term storage in both cases. Nuclear can’t act as a peaker because you can’t quickly ramp up or down the generation. Nuclear can only perform as baseload which, in theory, could be provided by a renewable energy mix if the install base is high enough.

    I don’t disagree with your point that it isn’t a simple direct comparison but any sensible energy mix will still require storage. I find it difficult to see the economic case for nuclear if renewables can be installed in sufficient quantities, given that nuclear is roughly 4 times as expensive as solar and wind.

    Claidheamh , (edited )

    Nuclear can only perform as baseload

    That’s only true for NPPs built decades ago. Modern designs can also do load-following power. For peaks you have renewables, of course, they complement each other. Diversity makes a healthy grid.

    derGottesknecht ,

    Niclear has high investment cost and very low production cost which incentivises runnig at max output for as long as possible. This might block out renewables from the grid if their production cost is higher and make it less profitable to build them. So its really not a Symbiosis between nuclear and regenerative

    schroedingershat ,

    The plants that can allegedly do this almost never do, and most of them have had maintenance issues which cost more to fix than replacing them with renewables.

    Serpent ,

    Modern designs can also do load-following power.

    I think this is a maybe in terms of what the grid needs. Will be great if nuclear is built that genuinely supports system demands.

    Diversity makes a healthy grid.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Claidheamh ,

    It’s good that they can do it. Even better if they don’t need to.

    WagnasT ,

    With 100% renewables you would need almost 100% storage and potentially for multiple days, with a nuclear baseload you’d only need storage for the peaks, you could even use excess renewables to charge up the storage for these peaks.

    derGottesknecht ,

    What do you mean with 100% Storage? And why would you need it for multiple days if you have a grid that transports energy all around the continent and in future possible worldwide?

    WagnasT ,

    I guess we can talk about transmission then, yes if you can get enough renewable energy across a continent then in theory you can transmit it to where it is needed, however you would need a LOT of transmission capability that is not currently available. The current interconnects can handle an impressive amount of load but you’re not going to transmit enough power for all of sweeden from spain. There are some massive transmission projects underway that should help address this but they’re still not going to be enough to cover a 100% outage for most places. So a cost analysis would have to be done to determine if massive transmission projects are better than building nuclear plants. Keep in mind, these same transmission lines can transmit nuclear power as well so they should be built regardless of what energy source you use.

    derGottesknecht ,

    What do you mean with 100% Storage?

    you would need a LOT of transmission capability that is not currently available

    can be build faster and cheaper than nuclear, doesn’t need fuel and needs to be build anyway. We get the cheapest, strongest and least dangerous grid if we invest in more renewables, storage and better transmission. And that’s something we can get done fast and start harvesting the profits in a few years.

    WagnasT ,

    I mostly agree except transmission is not cheap, and further I’m not convinced transmission across a continent is even possible even with crazy high voltage DC lines which currently don’t exist. The current massive projects are going to take several years for just a few lines, it would take an insane ramp up in production to do the entire continent. While we’re working on that nuclear can be built reasonably fast without political hurdles blocking every step of the way. That’s not to downplay the need for recycling the waste which will need to be invented regardless because the waste already exists. I’m also not convinced renewables can ramp up production on a scale that would be able to replace in excess of 100% of the demand within a few years, but I guess I’ll have to look that up. Your concerns about nuclear are valid, but rebewables won’t magically solve all the problems of reliability and scale, we’re going to need a baseload and nuclear has proven for decades that it can do the job.

    derGottesknecht ,

    High voltage dc transmission lines already exist and are already in use .

    This is build faster and with fewer risks than nuclear.

    schroedingershat ,

    If you want 99.9999% uptime with no backup then the nuclear fleet will need months or years of storage due to the prevalence of correlated unplamned outages.

    Back in reality, a good enough renewable system with >95-99% uptime has less than 10% of the storage that will be found in the accompanying country’s EV fleet. Even if you are too allergic to nuance to understand the real solution for the remainder, simply planning a renewable rollout and assuming existing fossil fuel peakers for down periods over 12 hours will take 20-100 years to release as much carbon as delaying one of the years waiting for late, over budget nuclear reactors.

    WagnasT ,

    Even if you are too allergic to nuance to understand the real solution

    And thus you have shown that your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will sway your decisions. Good day.

    schroedingershat ,

    I’m plenty open to evidence, it’s just every time I look at some it shows a new lie that nukebros tell. Every single talking point isnutter bullshit to the pooint where if you look it up you find that nukes are significantly worse by whatever hair-splitting metric is being used ti try and distract from their main downsides.

    There is a fully renewable solution for the 2-5 >100 hour events a year where battery storage is unsuitable, but it requires holding more than one thought in your head at a time (thermal storage, dispatchable load and w2e is one combo).

    WagnasT ,

    l’m plenty open to evidence, it’s just every time I look at some it shows a new lie that nukebros tell.

    That’s not very open minded. I’m all for vetting your sources and skepticism, but going in with your mind made up is close minded.

    it requires holding more than one thought in your head at a time

    Look my dude, you’re clearly here to fight not discuss, and that’s fine we absolutely need to fight against the establishment, activisim is important. Fighting against your allies is a pro gamer move though.

    schroedingershat ,

    That last bit is the rub though. I’m fighting to decarbonize and reduce exploitation kf resource rich countries and you’re fighting to stop it.

    The constant tirade of insane lies is tolerable. Pretending you’re not on the side of fossil fuels is the incredibly insulting bit.

    Exatron ,

    No, the insulting bit is youd constant tirade of insane lies, buttercup.

    ricdeh ,
    @ricdeh@lemmy.world avatar

    Entirely unsubstantiated. Renewables require storage only for the peak demands, otherwise, they function as a baseload, provided that there is a sensitive balance of wind and solar power generation installations.

    Serpent ,

    Not sure about the 100% point but you will certainly need long term storage which is an unsolved problem. A point I wanted to make was that with enough renewables installed you have the baseload. You would also have an excess of production at peak times that would be useful to store long term.

    My personnal view is that a sensible energy mix should have some nuclear but I don’t think it is the key to solving our future energy requirements and should be minimal as it isn’t good value.

    QWho ,
    @QWho@aussie.zone avatar

    France, with all it’s maintainance disasters with their nuclear reactors shows us yet another problem: how to properly cool the water for the generator? With sinking fresh-water levels in rivers and fastly rising water temperatures nuclear reactors become less reliable. Wind and solar output on the other side will in an ironical way get a little more reliable, as there will be more of both.

    csolisr ,

    At least I hope they have the good sense to build the plants somewhere relatively remote, just in case of a leak.

    Carighan ,
    @Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s sweden, if you pick locations randomly, chances are on your side that it’ll be insanely remote.

    csolisr ,

    Good to know! That means plenty of places that could be cordoned off in case of a Fukushima, right?

    Sethayy ,

    Tell me you know nothing about nuclear science without telling me

    (Simpsons doesn’t count as a credible source)

    csolisr ,

    I’m surprised to see so many people eagerly dismissing the chance of a nuclear reactor leak, even by accident.

    Sethayy ,

    And what are those chances may I ask?

    Its like comparing a 1970’s shitbox car to a 2022 model and saying all cars are immediately gonna kill us.

    Really don’t think any nuclear reactor leaks are not accidents, hence why we have such amazing tech to stop it

    schroedingershat ,

    Chances of a leak are roughly 100%

    Most sites are unusable for a few decades due to tritium leaks.

    Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

    Sethayy ,

    Odds of a leak are what?? Give me some of whatever youre smoking, unless you mean some backass “technically they leak runoff water” bs, cause reactors are currently the safest way to generate power, even beating the insanely small dangers of solar (which due to production requires more overall human risk)

    schroedingershat ,

    Chances of an economy-destroying disaster on the other hand are much lower, but you didn’t ask that.

    Also now you’re lying again with that second sentence. For no benefit whatsoever, as well. This is also a 100% consistent pattern with nuke shills.

    szczuroarturo ,

    Dosent sweden already have a fairly high and fairly stable energy production through their hydroelectiric power plants . Wouldnt it be better to just build more of those.

    LibertyLizard ,

    I’m not sure the situation in Sweden, but usually the easily developed hydro sites have already been built, and any remaining sites will be quite expensive compared to power generated. Additionally, climate change can threaten the reliability of hydro as snowmelt and precipitation become more unpredictable. Also, they generally have a fairly large negative environmental impact aside from climate change.

    I’m sure there are some projects that will pencil out but probably not enough to decarbonize the whole energy grid.

    Anemia ,

    Yeah afaik there are a couple of suitable places for more hydropower but no plans for more due to, like you said, local environmental reasons.

    That said, sweden is basically already completely “decarbonized” (if anything can really be decarbonized), we only have a reserve oil powerplant that runs for maybe a couple of days each year (~9 days last year, though last year was especially bad). Sweden also generally has a pretty big net surplus (usually about 10-20% of production) of green power that is sold to the european grid.

    Iceblade02 ,

    We do, but enviromental regulations pushed through during the past two decades is essentially preventing any new or expanded hydro projects. In fact, a lot of smaller hydro plants are instead being demolished due to being incompatible with these laws.

    agarorn ,

    What? They are demolishing hydro plants? Do you have a source for that?

    Iceblade02 ,

    Below is a news article from Swedish Television (SVT) translated to english using LLM. Couldn’t find it in english. Original article

    New Stringent Environmental Requirements Threaten Small Hydropower Plants

    Published on May 10, 2022

    Over a 20-year period, around 1,800 small hydropower plants in Sweden are set to have their conditions re-evaluated by the land and environmental courts to ensure they meet the requirements of the EU’s Water Framework Directive. According to hydropower plant owners, these evaluations entail strict demands and increased costs that threaten the existence of culturally significant small hydropower plants.

    Located along the Alsterån River in Nybro Municipality, one of Magnus Edvinsson’s hydropower plants has been in operation since the 1800s. He, like many other owners of small hydropower plants, is facing upcoming re-evaluations of environmental conditions to determine if they comply with environmental legislation.

    According to Magnus Edvinsson, the measures and court costs could spell the end for many small hydropower plants.

    “We’ve seen costs of 10 million Swedish Kronor for a single small hydropower plant. That completely shatters the economy of a company like this,” he explains.

    Ensuring Fish Passage

    The aim is to establish modern environmental conditions for all watercourses in Sweden. This includes promoting biological diversity, which might involve requirements for fish passages to be built, allowing aquatic organisms to move freely in the waterways.

    The Water Authorities have determined that each water body must achieve good ecological status. According to Magnus Edvinsson, the environmental quality standard imposes excessively high demands and could result in costly reconstruction efforts.

    “In our industry organization, we’ve already received indications that 30 percent of the small hydropower plant owners in the initial review group are considering dismantling their facilities even before the court review takes place. It’s not unlikely that it could reach up to 50 percent choosing to decommission once they are in court. It’s a shocking figure, and this is happening at the same time as we are experiencing the worst energy crisis in modern history,” says Magnus Edvinsson.

    lasagna , (edited )
    @lasagna@programming.dev avatar

    Didn’t expect the current government to get something right. The funny thing about the right is that they at least support nuclear. Probably for the wrong reasons.

    People are too optimistic about renewables. The world has a limited supply and if the richer countries keep competing over it when will the poorer nations ever get the chance to ditch their coal and oil?

    How many countries have invested into production vs just out buying the poorer countries?

    The intermediate solution to our problems will be a mix of nuclear and renewables. Being so against nuclear despite our massive issues with climate is a nice gamble people take on other people’s future.

    We are both far from meeting current electricity demand even in the richest nations and switching away from oil in transport. We need multiple solutions. And as we have seen from the current energy crisis in Europe, no government or population is willing to have a discontinuous energy supply, something common in most renewables.

    ricdeh ,
    @ricdeh@lemmy.world avatar

    The world has a “limited supply” of renewables? I am sorry, but are you out of your mind? With renewables, we literally only passively use what the environment already provides. The sun radiates its light toward us for free endlessly and does not care for what we do, and the kinetic energy of the Earth’s winds that we use for power generation would otherwise destroy many livelihoods as deadly hurricanes or similar. We have a virtually unlimited supply of these sources, and renewables ARE the key to a greater autonomy of lesser developed countries, just BECAUSE they do not require the import or expensive extraction of fuel resources such as coal, oil or uranium. In fact, nuclear power plants are even more prone to a loss of geopolitical autonomy because of the need for uranium, which is costly to enrich and which you cannot get from everywhere. So, in summary, the situation is the exact opposite of what you’ve written.

    lasagna ,
    @lasagna@programming.dev avatar

    Hard to take you seriously when you start your post misinterpreting my post to such an extent. The sun doesn’t produce electricity. The electricity we get from the sun is very much a limited supply. I’ll just assume the rest of your post is pointless to read.

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