LiarLiarPantsUntier
1105
46
23
https://www.seaborg.co/
Jul 13, 2021 9:36 AM
LiarLiarPantsUntier
1105
46
23
https://www.seaborg.co/
LeftRightThere
Nuclear is (relatively) safe, but private companies have issues with maintaining and adhering to those -job killing regulations-
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Well, same argument applies for any other source of energy I’m afraid.
LeftRightThere
GrapeHero
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Badadumbest argument ever.
Peynus
Nuclear is statistically the safest (least deaths per unit of power), cheapest and most reliable energy source. But people hate it for /1/2
cmovbe
Solar PV is cheaper. Safer. Faster to build. Returns on investment faster. No long term waste issue…
RobberBaronsBad
I'd recommend this guy's lectures. Also look up his video on nuclear waste. https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY
Cortezdelanoche
Thank you
Peynus
The same reason people fear sharks (harmless scavengers); they saw a scawy movie one time
frozenpnx
Chernobyl wasn't just a movie.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Chernobyl was a cold war poorly built and maintained disaster simply waiting to happen.
frozenpnx
And all American infrastructure is pristine and well kept?
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Nope, but it primarily is in my country, Denmark.
JayTheSaltLord
Cheapest? How, pray tell, is costing 10x the price per megawatt hour of renewables and 3x the price of coal "cheapest"?
RobberBaronsBad
Upfront cost is incredibly high but after 10-15 of operation makes several times the profit any other power plant can make. I'll find a link
RobberBaronsBad
Slightly long video but you can skip through since he draws charts. https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY
Peynus
Yeap. Expensive to set up, and slow to change power output, but cheap and stable- just ask France
Peynus
Also, what is money when faced with species extinction?
JayTheSaltLord
Yes, it makes several times the profit by being far, far more expensive than other means of generation.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
No; by playing the long game.
JayTheSaltLord
That's nonsense. It's not the stock market. It costs more to generate, so much higher prices are charged to consumers. There's your "profit"
Ims8888
Nuclear is clean, unless people fuck up, then it's a mess for over 100,000 years.
Cargobiker530
Because people never fuck up amirite?
GlobalConstitution4all
When do people not fuck up. I’d rather we fund non-world ending fuels.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
It’s not world ending. The area around Chernobyl, the worst disaster, has thriving plant and wildlife.
spitfires2000
People fucked up with fossil fuels and it's GOING to be a mess for the next 100.000 years.
LeftRightThere
Just blast the waste into space
LiarLiarPantsUntier
You mean the billionaires? Aren’t they doing that already?
LeftRightThere
And they fell right back down to earth, didn’t they?
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Unfortunately. I’d personally aim for the sun when Bezos goes up.
demoncatmara
It takes more fuel to send something to the sun than to just shoot it out of the solar system
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Maybe 30 years ago I’d agree with you. Now? Not so much. Reason? Molten salt reactors.
aPinchofMensch
Got any functional proof that molten salt reactors work?
LiarLiarPantsUntier
I provided a link. That should the journey. Direct proof? No. It’s still developing Technology; but with great promise.
Cargobiker530
That's a "no."
LiarLiarPantsUntier
I believe I did use that word; so what’s your point?
Ims8888
Well, at least we're not using lithium any more for reactions
LiarLiarPantsUntier
There’s currently being made great strides in nuclear energy; much focus on safety, sustainability, less waste and cost effeciency.
Ims8888
I agree, but you can't deny long-term effects without proper supervision.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Nor can it be denied that wind/solar costs more than people think in the long run when you account for maintenance, scrap and reliability.
Chereazi
Nuclear is expensive and too slow. By the time those reactors are built we're fucked already. It'd be smarter to invest in fast and 1/
ShiaIabeouf
This!
Chereazi
cheap sources of clean energy if we want to not entirely fuck up the planet.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
But those are so inefficient that we end in the same ditch. I advocate both. There’s no reason not to. Money? We have too many billionaires.
Chereazi
They are quite efficient by now. Way better performance than nuclear at the same cost/effort. Industry scale plants that is, regular 1/
Chereazi
solar cells for home use completely suck in comparison
LiarLiarPantsUntier
But I pose you this question; why not both? A huge problem with wind/solar is how much space it needs, maintenance, and scrap it produces.
kennerly
Look up fast reactor technology. It can be built quickly and compact .
baadf00d
That won't work, the only way is to restrict power usage.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
At this point impossible: But it would be possible through legislation to force industry to install solar panels on their buildings.
baadf00d
Solar can work a bit, but in northern countries you'd need to store ~3 months work of energy. Heat and electricity.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
I agree, as I live in Denmark. We should reinitialise Barsebäck, research molten salt, and support it with wind.
baadf00d
There is no feasible technology to achieve this.
invaderjay87
bUt NuClEaR sCaRy
aPinchofMensch
You got a plan for radioactive waste other than burying it until we forget about it?
baadf00d
Bury it for while, dig it up as fuel for molten salt reactors later, use it up until it's spent and not that radioactive.
aPinchofMensch
Molten salt reactors can't burn train cars. Can't burn any structural elements from decommissioned reactors. More than just old fuel -
aPinchofMensch
- is waste.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
I would like for you to apply the exact same scrutiny in regards of wind, solar, hydro, oil, coal, gas and bio-fuel.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
(Also, strides are being made to reuse the waste)
aPinchofMensch
Not all radioactive waste can be used for fuel. How about those trains used to transport waste? That's radioactive waste when they're tossed
LiarLiarPantsUntier
I have not stated ‘problem free’; but rather that we’re working on the problem and funding solves it faster.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Let me pose you this question: What other sources of energy allows you to safely bury its waste?
aPinchofMensch
"Safely." Look up how often radioactive waste leaks and how badly we are at maintaining radioactive dumping sites.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Look up scrap yards of wind and solar. Also how enviromentally safe we mine coal and oil while you’re at it. The statistics don’t lie.
aPinchofMensch
Do those scrapyards render the area uninhabitable for longer than human civilization has existed? No? Ok then.
baadf00d
What's your source for this information? You are not talking about spent fuel, are you?
TeamSpicyTacos
The cost is what kills it, it can't compete
RobberBaronsBad
The economics of nuclear power > https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY
LiarLiarPantsUntier
So we choose to kill ourselves because the cost is too high huh?
cmovbe
For the same money we can get more solar PV power. No new nuclear should be built.
RobberBaronsBad
The economics of nuclear power > https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY
TeamSpicyTacos
Free market, do you advocate for subsidizing the cost so it competes?
LiarLiarPantsUntier
I agree that we have too many billionaires and let’s leave it at that.
RobberBaronsBad
The only reason natural gas (the US main energy source) is anywhere comparable to PV or otherwise is billions in subsidies
YuanTiAreMisunderstood
So we should get rid of gas and coal subsidies too? Level the playing field for competition?
TeamSpicyTacos
Coal is dieing right now because the cost of natural gas. It's cheaper to harvest, it's just the way it is
YuanTiAreMisunderstood
That's not an answer to the question. Should fossil fuel subsidies be ended?
aPinchofMensch
They'll still be cheaper than nuclear. You can't just take raw uranium and slap it in a reactor like you can burn a lump of coal.
LiarLiarPantsUntier
Which is why molten salt reactors need more support; then we’ll have something that can compete.
YuanTiAreMisunderstood
Probably. I don't get why free market is brought up when the deck is stacked in fossil fuels favour. Not exactly a free market situation