this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2173 points (94.2% liked)

World News

39023 readers
779 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Average time to build a nuclear plant is 88 months. The high end for solar is 24 months - it's generally a fraction of that. The cost per kwh for solar is also a quarter of the cost of nuclear at worst - and that's factoring the cost of batteries.

Hydro is about the most situational power source their is - making the blanket statement that it's the better option a suspicious one.

Chernobyl would have turned a good portion of Europe into a radioactive wasteland if people hadn't resigned themselves to one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable. 37 years later, it's still uninhabitable, with no change to that in sight.

Fukushima, which is still being actively cleaned up over a decade later, had the potential to do functionally destroy to Tokyo, displacing over 30 million people while doing untold economic damage.

Quicker to build, cheaper power, less dangerous, less environmental damage, no nuclear waste to manage, no supply chain issues with nuclear material. Last I checked, the US isn't running out of space, so remind me - why would we want nuclear?

[–] Hyperi0n@lemmy.film 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Chernobyl disaster was a one off caused by old tech and user error and more people have died from wind turbine accidents than they have due to nuclear reactor accidents.

The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You failed to address Fukushima - and wind turbines don't have the potential to render a continent uninhabitable.

The cost per kWh for solar is 7 times higher than that of modern nuclear power plants.

Bullshit - solar costs a fraction of nuclear. this isn't a remotely controversial statement.

[–] choroalp@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Roof of chernobyl was literally made out of wood

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fukushima's too? Can you guarantee that things will be better managed in say... The US?

Lost us nuclear weapons - the crumbling silo infrastructure is also well documented. I'm sure that the Department of Energy will be able to afford better controls with it's ~$30bn budget compared with the ~$700bn budget of the Department of Defence. It's not as though the hundreds of nuclear weapons that have been lost nuclear are more dangerous than nuclear generators or anything.

Slower to build, more expensive, needs fuel dug out of the ground, potentially continent-destroying... Why?

[–] choroalp@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fukushima did not a fundemantel design flaw. Its was literally next to sea. Also renewables can never replace oil if they cant even store excess energy yet lmao

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The plant wasn't poorly designed, it just wasn't designed to be where it was and nearly wiped out Tokyo as a consequence? This is an argument in favour of nuclear?

A lot of renewables don't need storage - including geothermal, wind, tidal, salt solar, hydro... But photovoltaics with batteries is still a fraction of the cost of nuclear, takes a fraction of the time to build, is far safer, and is orders of magnitude more relisient against demand spikes.

...so why nuclear?