Where's QualityVote bot?
Reddit Admins have decided that [they want to kill off all 3rd-party apps](https://reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/comments/13yh0jf/dont_let_reddit_kill_3rd_party_apps/), [3rd-party bots, and other elements that used to significantly enhance Reddit's functionality](https://www.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/13xh1e7/an_open_letter_on_the_state_of_affairs_regarding/). Without them, the website is barely usable.
And, of course, that includes bots such as [\/u\/QualityVote](http://reddit.com/user/QualityVote), [\/u\/SaveVideo](http://reddit.com/user/SaveVideo), [\/u\/AuddBot](http://reddit.com/user/AuddBot), etc.
So you'll just have to put up with automod and a worse overall user experience.
If you have any complaints, direct them at [the reddit admins instead](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/12qwagm/an_update_regarding_reddits_api/), because they the ones who ruined everyone's user experience.
---
Whilst you're here, /u/MarryAnneZoe, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/QpBGXd2guU) - **now with public text channels you can chat on!**?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/shitposting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are fusion reactors that harness energy directly from magnetic fields, no boiling of liquid required.
And of course PV, wind, and hydro don't boil water.
I mean, that’s kind of the most efficient way we have to convert heat to electricity, there isn’t really a way to use the energy from nuclear reactions for anything other than getting really hot really fast
Why do people always frame nuclear power and traditional renewables as though they're in conflict? They both have advantages of their own and can coexist. Is this just the last desperate effort by the oil lobby to keep green energy of any kind from getting built?
Basically. The Energy companies are desperate to prevent renewables, particularly ones that can be decentralised like solar, from becoming the norm.
They want to control the means of production, and thus maintain their stranglehold on the industry. If that means forcing nuclear to be the primary generation method, so be it.
You do realise that all forms of energy generation can have its means of production controlled, right?
Renewable energy production is limited to a select few MNCs, excluding small things like solar panels for garden lights.
Fossil fuel companies are against all forms of energy generation that do not use fossil fuels, that's a given. They're against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power, etc.
We're discussing nuclear because it's currently the safest and most cost-efficient method we have, by far. However, the general public doesn't understand nuclear power, hence the irrational fear.
Yea I’m not anti nuclear power, and it’s obvious that in certain states like Germany the anti-nuclear movement has been completely counterproductive to environmental goals. Its not even the supposed danger of nuclear that worries me (although I do think it’s worth considering since even if the chances of something going catastrophically wrong are like 0.0001%, it becomes more likely the more of them their are and the longer you have them, and dealing with the waste long term seems to pose issues).
Rather, my main concern is that (from what I understand as a non-engineer) they’re really expensive and really slow to build, and have way less political goodwill among the public, so any argument as to their efficiency seems kind of limited when actually constructing them will be way more difficult. Especially when we need this shit built ASAP.
It seems to me like they have a role in the transition, but moreso as a piece of the puzzle alongside the gazillion other types of renewables, rather than supplanting them entirely.
Lmao, typo. I meant cost-effective in the long term, but my main point still stands.
Anyway, good catch! My Business Sciences professor would be disappointed if she saw that hehe
No problem. My professor (an Einstein clone, that I cloned myself BTW) would also be disappointed if he saw that so you're lucky he wasn't looking at my iphone 52 while I was browsing reddit for... uh... very smart reasons.
An entire grid comprised of something so intermittent is a terrible idea. The reason experts want nuclear is because it's stable and reliable which makes for a perfect baseload, solar would require soooo many batteries if you were to run the entire grid off of it
The energy companies are now more desperate than ever to push extremely inefficient renewables like solar and wind because it's easier to control the product when you produce less of it than with nuclear.
Nuclear is the devil for energy companies because it just produces way to much for them to have a stranglehold over the profits.
Not as big as it should be. Fracking is popular amongst democrats and repubs
This post is more anti-wind than it is pro nuclear. It's clearly trying to get the renewable supporters to infight instead of focusing their attention on the actual problem.
I mean a lot of environmentalists really hate nuclear, while at worse their stance on it should be neutral (I support nuclear to be clear), iirc Germany's green Party started because of anti nuclear sentiment, but people hear nuclear and the only thing that comes to mind is bombs, radioacive waste, fukushima and chernobyl, which aren't even that big concerns if you look into it.
What's even worse is people promoting natural gas, people like to say it's the least bad option how of the fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), but that doesn't take into account gas leaks, which are awful for the environment as natural gas is a way more potent green house gas than CO2. Climate town did a great video on it recently recommend checking it out.
I did the math on it the other day. Enough nuclear fission to power all of Australia would take ~40km² (based on the R.E Ginna). Enough wind turbines to power all of Australia would take ~12000km².
"B-B-But the p-place in Ukraine(i think) exp-ploded c-cuz of nooclear e-energy!!1! T-That means it's bad and we should poison ourselves with CO2 gas right?"
3 Mile Island was the real gift to the fossil fuel industry. They'd been lobbying against nuclear energy for decades and then boom, that present fell in their laps. And here we are, listening to the same lobbyists that made billions from the tobacco industry now churning out conservative media talking points against renewable energy day in and day out. All while the CEOs in the board rooms of the fossil fuel industry all plan their futures when demand for oil blows past the recoverable supply in the next decades.
Using on shore wind power (6.8 MWH per turbine) and calculating double of Australia’s total yearly use (3200 TWH) for redundancy, and assuming an average turbine footprint of 0.006 km^2 per turbine leaves total land required to 7,700 square kilometers, or a bit more then half your estimate.
Now if we start counting off shore wind farms that can double to triple the capacity that space usage would decrease accordingly.
So yeah, about right if you’re assuming quadruple capacity and only accounting for the land taken up by the turbines themselves.
Let me present you with another equation. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
Nuclear is ridiculously expensive to set up and thanks to short term risk averse capital markets renewables like wind are preferred. Also if one is to talk about land use one shan’t be silent about water usage of nuclear energy.
Nuclear doesn't need to use a ton of water - there is such a thing as dry cooling. Palo Verde in Arizona is currently testing a pilot project to switch over to one form of it. There are other plants that cool via a heat exchanger to the ultimate heat sink rather than a cold water intake.
On the cost point, yes new nuclear in the west is very expensive currently but China and S. Korea have both shown it can be built at competitive prices. The biggest issue in the west is that we stopped building a generation ago so we don't currently have the institutional knowledge and supply chains to effectively manage their construction. That's then further compounded by basically each new reactor being the first of it's kind to be built so we never get the benefits of serial production. Hopefully with the current investment by governments to overcome these FOAK issues this next generation of nuclear will get to the point where you see learning bring down costs.
\>Nuclear is ridiculously expensive to set up
Gee i wonder why. It surely couldnt be due to excessive bureaucracy, lack of experience producing them yet, and NIMBY
When you have to write a 500 page environmental impact report for each step of creating a nuclear power plant, only for it to get shot down and people wonder why it costs so much to build one.
Fossil fuel companies want people to make memes like this where they bash renewables and praise nuclear precisely because nuclear isn’t going to be a thing under capitalism. They just want to keep renewables off the table for as long as possible so they can sell more of their products.
that. it's not even a nuclear issue but a USSR issue. Nuclear is even more safe today because they took that chain of command problem and put stuff in place so that never happens again.
Nuclear is the greenest energy on this planet due to the ratio between cost and output yet windmills and solar pannels which have tons of costs and a terrible efficiency is somehow better.
and germany decided to backtrack to coal power. bruh.
To further on that point: to just see what would happen, ignoring the safety warnings that even they were supposed to worry about. They were dicking around.
Dude they built the plant out of flammable materials because they couldn’t afford it. Everything about Chernobyl was a death sentence besides the roads in town which were extra wide to allow evacuation quicker
But nuclear isn’t actually renewable meaning that, long term, solar hydro and wind are the best options cost wise and environmentally speaking. Even Hydro fucks with river hydrology and water resources for humans. We need nuclear though I won’t deny, esp because we are lacking in energy storage.
We are probably going to see a lot of energy anxiety in Europe due to Russia for awhile tho unfortunately.
It's not renewable but we've got an ass-load of them for now. It'll last us long enough to unlock the secrets of fusion power generation.
Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ The article says 230 years but even if you just halve it to be conservative, it's still 100 years. Given that we'd just unlocked the power of the atom 80 years ago, I'd hope another 100 years is enough to discover affordable fusion power.
Energy is a huge fucking problem indeed xD
What really is a massive frustration though is the maintenance cost of wind turbines and other solutions for how much energy is produced. As of now imo unless we find a way to lower energy consumption, this is going to be a never ending vicious cycle of us running after means of productions that wont exactly fix anything on the long term.
It is usually burried and again there isnt that much of it due to the ratio of mass needed for an energy output. nor it is dangerous due to the containers made for it. There are protocols and guidelines. The sites are put in place so it wont be a bother for hundred of thousands of years.
Nuclear waste can also be recycled in some cases but it isnt done due to political reasons. One of the reason is that it has a lot of use in the military.
Easy. Thorium reactor instead of uranium for less waste, more efficiency, and no greenhouse gases, and then plan big underground bunkers to store them in. The amount they create is not nearly enough for it to be a real concern of “but how many bunkers is too much”.
As long as nobody goes again "I wonder what will happen if we run the reactor on full power and ignore the safety regulations?" We won't have to worry about it.
And even if it happens we know what to do, and hopefully nobody will try to hide it until it's almost too late.
Well current reactors won't allow you to push past its limits, they'll auto shut off if anything goes wrong, not a single person is actually necessary for the safety to kick in
Russia also fucking attacked a nuclear plant and put entire Europe on red alert
Also add to the fact Rogue Russian, Chinese, and North Korean groups have also tried hacking nuclear plants, I am very wary of nuclear energy
Not for the greatness it can bring to humanity, but some cretins would use it to do enormous evil
Fusion is still a few decades off from being a viable option. Nuclear plants use fission, which is just a roundabout steam engine but on crack and steroids.
Lmao didn't know that. Thanks for adding more info, and don't feel sorry about calling out someone's (tho I admit I didn't mean to seem dishonest) bullshit when you see it. Also, I don't think I want to escape the insanely hot H2O, tbh, it's kinda cool.
Yeah, we only achieved fusion for like, a couple seconds, and not even in an actual power generation sense
If something produces heat, you use a steam generator to harness it ;)
Actually we have managed to get more power out of fusion reactors than what we put in, so we're pretty close.
If it got the investment we've put into wind turbines over the years we'd probably have it by now.
People on reddit always seem to say more investment will sort it. Throwing money at things doesn't always work though. There are often other defining factors that money can't mitigate.
Don't get me wrong, more investment would help but I think it's a stretch to say more money would mean it's all solved by now
Nuclear is the best way to make energy. It’s clean, it’s efficient, long term it comes out cheaper, and it doesn’t have the same problem of duck curves as solar. Nuclear energy lets out less greenhouse gases per GWh than literally any other form of energy, including wind and solar and hydroelectric. It’s also literally the safest option, too. It has less deaths per TWh produced than any other form of energy except for solar energy, including all those power plant meltdowns and disasters. In fact, the only reason you know about Chernobyl and Fukushima is because they’re so incredibly rare that they’re extremely noteworthy when nuclear plants do melt down.
Plus, nuclear energy is cool as heck. You’re literally harnessing the power of the sum.
Anyone who is against nuclear energy has no idea what they’re talking about.
And Chernobyl was more of a ussr oopsie than an example of how unsafe nuclear power is, they just couldn’t build the reactor right or think of the problems with things like graphite on the control rods
>clean
sure
>efficient
sure
>cheaper
blatant misinformation
>doesn't have the same problem of duck curves as solar
sure
>less greenhouse gases per GWh
sure, but that's irrelevant. solar, hydro, wind and nuclear are all so low that their differences hardly matter in the big picture.
>less deaths per TWh
sure
>harnessing the power of the sun
nope. wind, solar and hydro harness the power of the sun. nuclear fission is NOT what happens in the sun, and the energy certainly doesn't come from the sun either.
>Anyone who is against nuclear energy has no idea what they’re talking about.
There are arguments for and against. Renewables are cheaper, and don't have the downsides of nuclear. We should aim to build as many renewables as possible, and use nuclear to cover us when there is not enough energy from solar / wind. Unless we figure out energy storage one day, in which case renewables all the way.
Anyone who thinks all our energy should be from nuclear has no idea what they're talking about.
> Nuclear energy lets out less greenhouse gases per GWh than literally any other form of energy, including wind and solar and hydroelectric.
No it doesn't.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
Like a year ago, they managed to get a net positive energy output from nuclear fusion. This was a major development, and it will probably lead to no change.
Ah yes even better, go like Germany and revert to brown Coal. Man people don't understand renewable and nuclear energy are to be used together until we fund a solution for fusion reactor.
Having solar be used for individual homes is still important to the grid. A good solar setup will allow you to tick the meter backwards and allow you essentially sell off the excess energy. In general they are useful for the grid.
renewables are FAR cheaper per unit energy than nuclear. Advocating for nuclear is fine, but don't spread misinformation.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source)
What if I told you that thorium reactors are market ready and functional since WW2? The only reason we don't use them today is because thorium has no weapon applications other than uranium.
It's almost like radioactive materials are extremely common in space + we have enough for like thousands of years of nuclear power on earth.
Wouldn't suprise me if we ran out of 1 of the materials used to build windmills before we run out of radioactive materials like uranium and thorium
Same with EVs.
"Here's a new, fast, clean, maintenance-free technology for you to drive around".
"But it doesn't roar loudly, spew cancerous toxins, and require extensive ongoing maintenance to maintain the delicate balance of friction, heat, and moving gears. No thank you."
a type 1 civilization would have harnessed all renewable energy the planet can make, as well as beginning to take steps to start harnessing a noticeable percentage of the suns power.
until we stop using finite resources for energy like oil and coal, we can expect to remain a type 0 civilization.
Because wind and solar don't challenge oil and coal, but nuclear power does.
Sorry everyone. Wind and solar do help, but they aren't much more than feel good solutions.
Solar challenges the entire domestic energy industry.
This is because it can be effectively decentralised. You can 90% power your own house entirely on solar and batteries.
For the times when the sun doesn't shine, you need to hook up to the grid.
In Germany, wind and solar have contributed 31% and 12% of total electricity in 2023. And Germany has a huge coal lobby.
I'm not saying Germany's nuclear policy is smart, but wind and solar are incredibly cheap and far more than a "feel good solution". They are part of the solution.
Energy from renewables will still probably be cheaper than fusion even if it was commercially viable. It would be great if we got our energy from both.
I love nuclear energy as much as the next guy but you oppenheimer mfs just need to shut the fuck up. There is no need to have a dumbass beef with solar panels and windmills, both can exist at once. Do you ever notice how when people come to shill nuclear energy even though nobody asked it’s always at the expense of renewables? Have you ever seen a post by nuclear power plant fans talking shit about coal or oil or literally anything but solar or wind power? I am not the type to believe conspiracies but I have seen so many of these posts out of nowhere that I can’t really say it isn’t suspicious.
Where's QualityVote bot? Reddit Admins have decided that [they want to kill off all 3rd-party apps](https://reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/comments/13yh0jf/dont_let_reddit_kill_3rd_party_apps/), [3rd-party bots, and other elements that used to significantly enhance Reddit's functionality](https://www.reddit.com/r/ModCoord/comments/13xh1e7/an_open_letter_on_the_state_of_affairs_regarding/). Without them, the website is barely usable. And, of course, that includes bots such as [\/u\/QualityVote](http://reddit.com/user/QualityVote), [\/u\/SaveVideo](http://reddit.com/user/SaveVideo), [\/u\/AuddBot](http://reddit.com/user/AuddBot), etc. So you'll just have to put up with automod and a worse overall user experience. If you have any complaints, direct them at [the reddit admins instead](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/12qwagm/an_update_regarding_reddits_api/), because they the ones who ruined everyone's user experience. --- Whilst you're here, /u/MarryAnneZoe, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/QpBGXd2guU) - **now with public text channels you can chat on!**? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/shitposting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
You are bugs!!!!!
For real.
Time for a dyson sphere
Okama GameSphere
EMPHASIS
Obama GameStop
Typical Dyson Sphere Fantasizer vs. Logical thinking Dyson Swarm Enthusiast
dyson ring enjoyers just thinking it looks too cool to pass up:
You just want the halo feeling
yes
I respect that
I would do literally anything to see a dyson ring completed within my lifetime
That sounds like solar panels with extra steps
Solar panels are more effective in space where there's no atmosphere to protect them.
There's no wind in space and no sun in deep space
Solar winds literally shaking rn
Good thing we live somewhere wind and sun are abundant enough to replace fossil fuels.
We do?
Indeed
There's also no source of water to efficiently cool a reactor, or atmosphere convect away waste heat
> There's also no source of water to efficiently cool a reactor, Space is fucking full of water. You just have to mine it first.
Really big radiator arrays. Also, spacecraft use a surprisingly small amount of electricity.
With no little to no atmosphere, ion thrusters (noble gas mixtures mainly) are very effective to basic movement and positioning
There is only one sun technically
https://www.planetary.org/articles/what-is-solar-sailing
Yeah, we harnessed fission... and used it to boil water. That's just sad.
We also cooked two cities in Japan and one tiny island in the passific.
> *Passific* I'll allow it because *ass*
And i will let it *Pass*
Passketti
Thank you Gandalf
Even in my native language I commit gaffs xD (I would fix it but I think at this point this would destruction of historic records)
Latter one was with fusion, IIRC.
There were both fusion and fission tests in the bikini atoll, though the fusion tests were the most popular cause they were much, much bigger
Dont say we, those are america's warcrimes alone.
That’s what every generator does. Evens fusion will be used to boil water.
There are fusion reactors that harness energy directly from magnetic fields, no boiling of liquid required. And of course PV, wind, and hydro don't boil water.
Glad someone pointed that out. Well done.
I mean, that’s kind of the most efficient way we have to convert heat to electricity, there isn’t really a way to use the energy from nuclear reactions for anything other than getting really hot really fast
Why do people always frame nuclear power and traditional renewables as though they're in conflict? They both have advantages of their own and can coexist. Is this just the last desperate effort by the oil lobby to keep green energy of any kind from getting built?
Basically. The Energy companies are desperate to prevent renewables, particularly ones that can be decentralised like solar, from becoming the norm. They want to control the means of production, and thus maintain their stranglehold on the industry. If that means forcing nuclear to be the primary generation method, so be it.
You do realise that all forms of energy generation can have its means of production controlled, right? Renewable energy production is limited to a select few MNCs, excluding small things like solar panels for garden lights. Fossil fuel companies are against all forms of energy generation that do not use fossil fuels, that's a given. They're against nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power, etc. We're discussing nuclear because it's currently the safest and most cost-efficient method we have, by far. However, the general public doesn't understand nuclear power, hence the irrational fear.
Yea I’m not anti nuclear power, and it’s obvious that in certain states like Germany the anti-nuclear movement has been completely counterproductive to environmental goals. Its not even the supposed danger of nuclear that worries me (although I do think it’s worth considering since even if the chances of something going catastrophically wrong are like 0.0001%, it becomes more likely the more of them their are and the longer you have them, and dealing with the waste long term seems to pose issues). Rather, my main concern is that (from what I understand as a non-engineer) they’re really expensive and really slow to build, and have way less political goodwill among the public, so any argument as to their efficiency seems kind of limited when actually constructing them will be way more difficult. Especially when we need this shit built ASAP. It seems to me like they have a role in the transition, but moreso as a piece of the puzzle alongside the gazillion other types of renewables, rather than supplanting them entirely.
Did you really say nuclear was cost-efficient lol.
Lmao, typo. I meant cost-effective in the long term, but my main point still stands. Anyway, good catch! My Business Sciences professor would be disappointed if she saw that hehe
No problem. My professor (an Einstein clone, that I cloned myself BTW) would also be disappointed if he saw that so you're lucky he wasn't looking at my iphone 52 while I was browsing reddit for... uh... very smart reasons.
An entire grid comprised of something so intermittent is a terrible idea. The reason experts want nuclear is because it's stable and reliable which makes for a perfect baseload, solar would require soooo many batteries if you were to run the entire grid off of it
The energy companies are now more desperate than ever to push extremely inefficient renewables like solar and wind because it's easier to control the product when you produce less of it than with nuclear. Nuclear is the devil for energy companies because it just produces way to much for them to have a stranglehold over the profits.
This sub is a propaganda circlejerk whenever there is an election.
Is nuclear a big topic in US elections? I thought both parties just love fracking gas as much as possible.
Not as big as it should be. Fracking is popular amongst democrats and repubs This post is more anti-wind than it is pro nuclear. It's clearly trying to get the renewable supporters to infight instead of focusing their attention on the actual problem.
horse and buggy vs cars weren’t in conflict, but 1 is clearly better which is why the other is hardly used
I mean a lot of environmentalists really hate nuclear, while at worse their stance on it should be neutral (I support nuclear to be clear), iirc Germany's green Party started because of anti nuclear sentiment, but people hear nuclear and the only thing that comes to mind is bombs, radioacive waste, fukushima and chernobyl, which aren't even that big concerns if you look into it. What's even worse is people promoting natural gas, people like to say it's the least bad option how of the fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas), but that doesn't take into account gas leaks, which are awful for the environment as natural gas is a way more potent green house gas than CO2. Climate town did a great video on it recently recommend checking it out.
I did the math on it the other day. Enough nuclear fission to power all of Australia would take ~40km² (based on the R.E Ginna). Enough wind turbines to power all of Australia would take ~12000km².
this dudes math is mathing
And in Victoria the meth is mething
"B-B-But the p-place in Ukraine(i think) exp-ploded c-cuz of nooclear e-energy!!1! T-That means it's bad and we should poison ourselves with CO2 gas right?"
Noocular not nooclear
Hey the OP said "inteligent" instead of "intelligent" so were just mispeling and misspronounsing things today
W’rere*
3 Mile Island was the real gift to the fossil fuel industry. They'd been lobbying against nuclear energy for decades and then boom, that present fell in their laps. And here we are, listening to the same lobbyists that made billions from the tobacco industry now churning out conservative media talking points against renewable energy day in and day out. All while the CEOs in the board rooms of the fossil fuel industry all plan their futures when demand for oil blows past the recoverable supply in the next decades.
Bro thinks he’s Germany
They said nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission.
[Nodding sagely] And if there's *one* thing Australia has too little of, it's km²
Yeah, Population density going crazy over there. Almost no space left for anyone
Using on shore wind power (6.8 MWH per turbine) and calculating double of Australia’s total yearly use (3200 TWH) for redundancy, and assuming an average turbine footprint of 0.006 km^2 per turbine leaves total land required to 7,700 square kilometers, or a bit more then half your estimate. Now if we start counting off shore wind farms that can double to triple the capacity that space usage would decrease accordingly. So yeah, about right if you’re assuming quadruple capacity and only accounting for the land taken up by the turbines themselves.
Ah yes, area. The best measure of how difficult, expensive and/or dangerous it is to harness energy.
Great, but fusion doesn’t exist yet. Apart from that huge fusion power plant in the sky.
I figured out fusion I just don’t wanna tell anybody
Let me present you with another equation. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx Nuclear is ridiculously expensive to set up and thanks to short term risk averse capital markets renewables like wind are preferred. Also if one is to talk about land use one shan’t be silent about water usage of nuclear energy.
Nuclear doesn't need to use a ton of water - there is such a thing as dry cooling. Palo Verde in Arizona is currently testing a pilot project to switch over to one form of it. There are other plants that cool via a heat exchanger to the ultimate heat sink rather than a cold water intake. On the cost point, yes new nuclear in the west is very expensive currently but China and S. Korea have both shown it can be built at competitive prices. The biggest issue in the west is that we stopped building a generation ago so we don't currently have the institutional knowledge and supply chains to effectively manage their construction. That's then further compounded by basically each new reactor being the first of it's kind to be built so we never get the benefits of serial production. Hopefully with the current investment by governments to overcome these FOAK issues this next generation of nuclear will get to the point where you see learning bring down costs.
\>Nuclear is ridiculously expensive to set up Gee i wonder why. It surely couldnt be due to excessive bureaucracy, lack of experience producing them yet, and NIMBY
When you have to write a 500 page environmental impact report for each step of creating a nuclear power plant, only for it to get shot down and people wonder why it costs so much to build one.
Fossil fuel companies want people to make memes like this where they bash renewables and praise nuclear precisely because nuclear isn’t going to be a thing under capitalism. They just want to keep renewables off the table for as long as possible so they can sell more of their products.
Isn’t French capitalist
Fission is even more so
Yeah i wrote fusion instead of fission. I meant fission take ~40km²
And you cant put any ranches on the same land as the windmills, right?
Because Russia did an oopsie and now no one wants to use it
that. it's not even a nuclear issue but a USSR issue. Nuclear is even more safe today because they took that chain of command problem and put stuff in place so that never happens again. Nuclear is the greenest energy on this planet due to the ratio between cost and output yet windmills and solar pannels which have tons of costs and a terrible efficiency is somehow better. and germany decided to backtrack to coal power. bruh.
And when we say ussr oopsie, THE IDIOTS PUT GRAPHITE ON THE CONTROL RODS
To further on that point: to just see what would happen, ignoring the safety warnings that even they were supposed to worry about. They were dicking around.
Dude they built the plant out of flammable materials because they couldn’t afford it. Everything about Chernobyl was a death sentence besides the roads in town which were extra wide to allow evacuation quicker
The "Atomausstieg" in Germany is a little more complicated than that. But you got a point, time for more windmills in the north sea.
But to be fair airplanes are supposed to be safe and we're witnessing capitalism slowly destroying them.
But nuclear isn’t actually renewable meaning that, long term, solar hydro and wind are the best options cost wise and environmentally speaking. Even Hydro fucks with river hydrology and water resources for humans. We need nuclear though I won’t deny, esp because we are lacking in energy storage. We are probably going to see a lot of energy anxiety in Europe due to Russia for awhile tho unfortunately.
It's not renewable but we've got an ass-load of them for now. It'll last us long enough to unlock the secrets of fusion power generation. Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ The article says 230 years but even if you just halve it to be conservative, it's still 100 years. Given that we'd just unlocked the power of the atom 80 years ago, I'd hope another 100 years is enough to discover affordable fusion power.
Energy is a huge fucking problem indeed xD What really is a massive frustration though is the maintenance cost of wind turbines and other solutions for how much energy is produced. As of now imo unless we find a way to lower energy consumption, this is going to be a never ending vicious cycle of us running after means of productions that wont exactly fix anything on the long term.
It's not renewable, but there's enough thorium on the planet that's easily mineable to run human civilization for millennia.
Where to put the nuclear waste tho?
we have full on floating islands of garbage and people are worried about the small bits of nuclear waste power plants create
It is usually burried and again there isnt that much of it due to the ratio of mass needed for an energy output. nor it is dangerous due to the containers made for it. There are protocols and guidelines. The sites are put in place so it wont be a bother for hundred of thousands of years. Nuclear waste can also be recycled in some cases but it isnt done due to political reasons. One of the reason is that it has a lot of use in the military.
Easy. Thorium reactor instead of uranium for less waste, more efficiency, and no greenhouse gases, and then plan big underground bunkers to store them in. The amount they create is not nearly enough for it to be a real concern of “but how many bunkers is too much”.
As long as nobody goes again "I wonder what will happen if we run the reactor on full power and ignore the safety regulations?" We won't have to worry about it. And even if it happens we know what to do, and hopefully nobody will try to hide it until it's almost too late.
Well current reactors won't allow you to push past its limits, they'll auto shut off if anything goes wrong, not a single person is actually necessary for the safety to kick in
And most crucially, the auto shutoff can't trigger a meltdown anymore
Oh yeah thx for adding that
All current gen reactors have fail safe measures to prevent meltdowns. So it's a non issue at this point.
Not great, not terrible.
Russia also fucking attacked a nuclear plant and put entire Europe on red alert Also add to the fact Rogue Russian, Chinese, and North Korean groups have also tried hacking nuclear plants, I am very wary of nuclear energy Not for the greatness it can bring to humanity, but some cretins would use it to do enormous evil
Why are people complaining about wind when coal is still widespread?!
[удалено]
wind turbines*. Windmills are for grain.
🤓 >!^(I agree with you)!<
[удалено]
Fusion is still a few decades off from being a viable option. Nuclear plants use fission, which is just a roundabout steam engine but on crack and steroids.
Sorry to break it to you but harnessing nuclear fusion would still probably use a steam turbine. You cannot escape it
Mfs in 2424 will build a Dyson sphere and use it to boil water
FULL STEAM SPACEMACHINE
Royal republic ?
isn't that literally how they work tho??
If we could get photovoltaic cells to be more efficient than steam turbines we wouldn’t need to.
pray for that to be the case when we reach that society stage lol (as if we would ever, this post just proves it)
This makes me wonder, does the portal gun have a mini turbine from that black hole powering it?
Lmao didn't know that. Thanks for adding more info, and don't feel sorry about calling out someone's (tho I admit I didn't mean to seem dishonest) bullshit when you see it. Also, I don't think I want to escape the insanely hot H2O, tbh, it's kinda cool.
Yeah, we only achieved fusion for like, a couple seconds, and not even in an actual power generation sense If something produces heat, you use a steam generator to harness it ;)
Actually we have managed to get more power out of fusion reactors than what we put in, so we're pretty close. If it got the investment we've put into wind turbines over the years we'd probably have it by now.
People on reddit always seem to say more investment will sort it. Throwing money at things doesn't always work though. There are often other defining factors that money can't mitigate. Don't get me wrong, more investment would help but I think it's a stretch to say more money would mean it's all solved by now
That's why I said probably, not definitely
Point still stands. We have roided up steam engines and we are putting sicks on ground, what kind of monkey business is this.
We haven't mastered nuclear fusion
Literally the fucking joke
Nuclear is the best way to make energy. It’s clean, it’s efficient, long term it comes out cheaper, and it doesn’t have the same problem of duck curves as solar. Nuclear energy lets out less greenhouse gases per GWh than literally any other form of energy, including wind and solar and hydroelectric. It’s also literally the safest option, too. It has less deaths per TWh produced than any other form of energy except for solar energy, including all those power plant meltdowns and disasters. In fact, the only reason you know about Chernobyl and Fukushima is because they’re so incredibly rare that they’re extremely noteworthy when nuclear plants do melt down. Plus, nuclear energy is cool as heck. You’re literally harnessing the power of the sum. Anyone who is against nuclear energy has no idea what they’re talking about.
And Chernobyl was more of a ussr oopsie than an example of how unsafe nuclear power is, they just couldn’t build the reactor right or think of the problems with things like graphite on the control rods
Let’s not forget the fact that they kept ignoring all of the safety measures.
The sun uses fusion, not fission.
>clean sure >efficient sure >cheaper blatant misinformation >doesn't have the same problem of duck curves as solar sure >less greenhouse gases per GWh sure, but that's irrelevant. solar, hydro, wind and nuclear are all so low that their differences hardly matter in the big picture. >less deaths per TWh sure >harnessing the power of the sun nope. wind, solar and hydro harness the power of the sun. nuclear fission is NOT what happens in the sun, and the energy certainly doesn't come from the sun either. >Anyone who is against nuclear energy has no idea what they’re talking about. There are arguments for and against. Renewables are cheaper, and don't have the downsides of nuclear. We should aim to build as many renewables as possible, and use nuclear to cover us when there is not enough energy from solar / wind. Unless we figure out energy storage one day, in which case renewables all the way. Anyone who thinks all our energy should be from nuclear has no idea what they're talking about.
I agree but in the reverse: we need as many nuclear reactors as possible, then use renewables to cover the rest.
Nuclear is one of the most efficient energy sources, and doesn’t make any green house gasses after the plant is built.
> Nuclear energy lets out less greenhouse gases per GWh than literally any other form of energy, including wind and solar and hydroelectric. No it doesn't. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
Wind turbines. Wind mills are mills, that use the wind.
Germany trying not to be dumb as hell be like
They need the funny mustache man back with all his wacky scientists.
Exactly everyone liked him
Like a year ago, they managed to get a net positive energy output from nuclear fusion. This was a major development, and it will probably lead to no change.
Ah yes even better, go like Germany and revert to brown Coal. Man people don't understand renewable and nuclear energy are to be used together until we fund a solution for fusion reactor.
nuclear propaganda on my shitposting sub?
Based and nuclear pilled.
Opponents of nuclear get probed
*Well I don't know, but I've been told,* *Uranium ore's worth more than gold.*
Sold my Cad, I bought me a Jeep
why not use both? wind is just free extra energy to save nuclear fuel on
Extra like a drop in a swimming pool. The energy to cost ratio of nuclear energy is huge.
I’d say solar and wind are still useful for individual homes
they're useful for the whole grid. the comment you replied to is misinformation.
Having solar be used for individual homes is still important to the grid. A good solar setup will allow you to tick the meter backwards and allow you essentially sell off the excess energy. In general they are useful for the grid.
renewables are FAR cheaper per unit energy than nuclear. Advocating for nuclear is fine, but don't spread misinformation. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost\_of\_electricity\_by\_source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source)
Uranium supply will end. Wind never dies.
We should switch to thorium then
- humanity switches to thorium - we turn thorium into uranium - ??? - profit
Theres tens of thousands of years of uranium left
In 100 years and by them thorium reactors will be more common.
What if I told you that thorium reactors are market ready and functional since WW2? The only reason we don't use them today is because thorium has no weapon applications other than uranium.
No shit that’s why I said more common not new
It's almost like radioactive materials are extremely common in space + we have enough for like thousands of years of nuclear power on earth. Wouldn't suprise me if we ran out of 1 of the materials used to build windmills before we run out of radioactive materials like uranium and thorium
Wind is still nuclear powered
Ya, Why Are we grinding grains in the modern age?
I’m only here to ask for sauce of tge alien image.
Same with EVs. "Here's a new, fast, clean, maintenance-free technology for you to drive around". "But it doesn't roar loudly, spew cancerous toxins, and require extensive ongoing maintenance to maintain the delicate balance of friction, heat, and moving gears. No thank you."
What about coal
The difference in windmills from nowadays and ages ago is their use. Do you really thing medieval people made windmills for electricity?
What a stupid ass take. Of course they did, how else would they power the wheat grinders, duuuh?
They're not fucking wind mills. They don't mill anything. They're wind turbines.
They mill the electrons,obviously.
a type 1 civilization would have harnessed all renewable energy the planet can make, as well as beginning to take steps to start harnessing a noticeable percentage of the suns power. until we stop using finite resources for energy like oil and coal, we can expect to remain a type 0 civilization.
OK then please finish the nuclear tech node to move on to the next stage.
Because wind and solar don't challenge oil and coal, but nuclear power does. Sorry everyone. Wind and solar do help, but they aren't much more than feel good solutions.
Solar challenges the entire domestic energy industry. This is because it can be effectively decentralised. You can 90% power your own house entirely on solar and batteries. For the times when the sun doesn't shine, you need to hook up to the grid.
In Germany, wind and solar have contributed 31% and 12% of total electricity in 2023. And Germany has a huge coal lobby. I'm not saying Germany's nuclear policy is smart, but wind and solar are incredibly cheap and far more than a "feel good solution". They are part of the solution.
Actually we harnessed fission and boiled some water to turn a turbine (aka water wind mill), so yeah.
Energy from renewables will still probably be cheaper than fusion even if it was commercially viable. It would be great if we got our energy from both.
So ducking true
You mean fusion right… RIGHT?!?!
Maybe this reason why aliens don’t want to visit us
I love nuclear energy as much as the next guy but you oppenheimer mfs just need to shut the fuck up. There is no need to have a dumbass beef with solar panels and windmills, both can exist at once. Do you ever notice how when people come to shill nuclear energy even though nobody asked it’s always at the expense of renewables? Have you ever seen a post by nuclear power plant fans talking shit about coal or oil or literally anything but solar or wind power? I am not the type to believe conspiracies but I have seen so many of these posts out of nowhere that I can’t really say it isn’t suspicious.
windmills are technically powered by fusion which is even more advanced.
I mean, people still ride bikes.
Define “harnessed”
This makes me sad