Neat breakdown with data + some code.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s very infuriating talking to people about this because they never really accept that nuclear power is necessary. They spend all their time complaining about how it’s dangerous (it isn’t) and how it’s very expensive, and how you don’t have a lot of control over its output capacity. And yeah, all of those are true, but so what, the only other option is to burn some dead trees which obviously we don’t want to do.

    Just because nuclear has downsides doesn’t mean you can ignore it, unless of course you want to invent fusion just to spite me, in which case I’ll be fine with that.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Well I’m not going to buy the book to find out what they are so all I’m going to go ahead and say is this. Yes there are solutions such as battery storage (although they do tend to be extremely explodey) and using the power to pump water around, or using mirrors to heat up salt in insulated containers, but they are all very specific solutions that will only work in very particular situations, which we don’t always have.

        • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          28 minutes ago

          Almost like we can have many solutions where one of them is workable in any given situation.

          Edit: also, as for “explody” batteries, that’s a factor of certain lithium chemistries. It’s not even all lithium chemistries. Sodium and flow batteries are usually better options for grid storage, anyway, and neither has particularly notable safety issues.

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The new tack is to conflate nuclear energy with fossil fuels. As in assuming that nuclear energy is “legacy” power generation, and that obviously we need to use modern gernation like solar and wind, and magical grid-level storage technologies that don’t exist. Also ignore that baseload power is still required, and is currently fulfilled with Natural Gas and Coal.

      • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        There is absolutely nothing required about baseload power. It’s there because the economics of generating power favored it in the past. You could build a baseload plant that spits out a GW or so all day, everyday for relatively cheap.

        That economic advantage is no longer there, and no longer relevant.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Well you still need baseload. You can’t forget about it just because it’s inconvenient.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          What makes power when the sun isn’t out and the wind isn’t blowing? Nuclear, gas, or coal.

          By being anti-nuclear, you force it to be gas or coal.