this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
358 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59421 readers
3562 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Because there are nights there are winters there are cloudy and rainy days, and there are no batteries capable of balancing all of these issues. Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit. So we need to invest in nuclear and renewables and batteries. So we can start getting rid of coal and gas plants.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit.

You better be bringing units if you're going to be claiming this.

Still less than half of the LCOE of nuclear when storage is added: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

Given that both solar and storage costs are trending downwards while nuclear is not, this basically kills any argument for nuclear in the future. It's not viable on its face - renewables + storage is the definitive future.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 12 hours ago

You're using factors of less than 10 to argue against a factor of 100.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

But Germany has no space for nuclear waste. They haven't been able to bury the last batch for over 30 years. And the one that they buried most recently began to leak radioactivity into ground water.

And.. why give Russia more military target opportunities?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not a rabid anti-nuclear, but there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing. One is the exorbitant price of storage of spent fuel although I seem to remember that there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it's fuel (Molten salt? Pebble? maybe an expert can chime in). There is also the human greed factor. Fukushima happened because they built the walls to the highest recorded tsunami in the area, to save on concrete. A lot of civil engineering projects have a 150% overprovision over the worst case calculations. Fukushima? just for the worst case recorded, moronic corporate greed. The human factor tends to be the biggest danger here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

Not an expert, but molten salt reactors are correct. MSRs are especially useful as breeder reactors, since they can actually reinvigorate older, spent fuel using more common isotopes. Thorium in particular is useful here. Waste has also been largely reduced with the better efficiency of modern reactors.

Currently, Canada's investing in a number of small modular reactors to improve power generation capacity without the need to establish entire new nuclear zones and helps take some of the stress off the aging CANDU reactors. These in particular take advantage of the spent fuel and thorium rather than the very expensive and hard to find Uranium more typically used. There's been interest in these elsewhere too, but considering how little waste is produced by modern reactors, and the capacity for re-use, it feels pike a very good way to supplement additional wind and solar energy sources.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If France can find space, surely Germany can.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

If Finland could find space, Germany definitely can.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Finland with it's vast swathes of frozen tundra.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

We don't have vast swaths of Frozen Tundras. This isn't Alaska.

And it's actually stored south not north.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Idk, Finland has a much lower population density vs Germany. France is something like 1/2 the population density, but they also have >50 reactors, so surely Germany can find room for a few...

[–] [email protected] -4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 12 hours ago
  • Finland: 338,145 km² and 5.6 million people
  • Germany: 357,596 km² and 82 million people

Where do you want to put your hazardous waste again?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 12 hours ago

Yup, but population density should be what matters, because that implies how much usable space there is for waste disposal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 hours ago