Technology

60052 readers

3783 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

863

Lithium-free sodium batteries exit the lab and enter US production (newatlas.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

178 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Sure, I get that. My priorities are clean energy that is as cheap as possible and nuclear just can’t compete on cost.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

How about we regulate all the other power sources as heavily as we regulate nuclear?

This is an extremely unfair comparison, because nuclear has to do things (Even leaving aside the Nuclear part of it) that no other energy source does.

You know any coal supply chains that have to track each atom that they ever dig up?

And even leaving aside cost, what about other benefits?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

How about we regulate all the other power sources as heavily as we regulate nuclear?

I can't believe I even have to mention this but you realize that nuclear power has safety issues that wind and solar do not? Hence the regulation.

And even leaving aside cost, what about other benefits?

Such as?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@IchNichtenLichten
It might have a higher initial upfront cost, but the return on investment over a plant's whole lifetime makes it one of the cheapest. And even then, they don't take long to break even.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This isn’t true but I’m happy to be proved wrong.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@IchNichtenLichten
I've found this reference that seems good:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/energy-return-on-investment

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power

There's certainly more, but I'm not nuclear powered and don't have the mental energy for online debate 😁

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You're linking to a pro-nuclear trade group.

Capital costs:

Nuclear: $6,695–7,547

Wind power: $1,718

Solar PV with storage: $1,748

Global levelized cost of generation (US$ per MWh):

Nuclear: 140–221

Wind: 24–75

PV: 24–96

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

It looked suspiciously biased. I'm going to research more.