• schroedingershat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Because digging up ore with lower energy density than coal that spreads heavy metals everywhere is totally safe. /s

    When oil barons, Putin, far right grifters, and coal barons are all suddenly spouting the same lines about nuclear it’s definitely because they know it’s a good way to get rid of fossil fuels /s

    • JGrffn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear isn’t great long term, but of all the options that aren’t great long term, nuclear is the least not great. It can support the backbone of the energy grid for relatively cheap and in much safer conditions than other energy sources, even if we are led to believe otherwise by Chernobyl and Fukushima. Advances in nuclear reactor technologies means nuclear becomes safer and more maintainable over time, and it already has been the safest source of energy for a while. Also, Japan doesn’t shy away from nuclear; they’ve designed systems that heavily recycle nuclear waste to extract as much energy from it as possible, which also has the added effect of reducing the waste’s radioactive life.

      It’s simple, really. We rely on it to support us while fusion gets off the ground, and even if it doesn’t get off the ground, we can still rely on fission to support us while we get more and more renewable sources up and running.

      If anything it’s the fear of nuclear that’s been keeping us in such bad energy situations. For instance, France, being at the forefront of nuclear energy use, has not worked on new reactors up until recently after decades of underfunding and underdevelopment. Now the lack of maintenance and develoent of new reactors means that old reactors have begun showing signs of significant wear and tear, threatening the entire grid and part of the French economy; they’re energy exporters (green energy, at that), but are years away from having to phase out old reactors and become energy importers. That imported energy is almost guaranteed to be sourced from fossil fuels. If not even these nations are enticed to keep nuclear up and running, how are we ever to leave fossil fuels?

      As for your mining comment, we’re going to have this issue even if we were to rely mostly on renewable. Demands for energy storage are only going up, and lithium batteries is where it’s at, currently. We just need to find the paths of least environmental damage, because there won’t be any path that doesn’t harm the environment.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s also not great short-term because building reactors (to proper standards, mind you) takes ages. Much longer than expanding renewables.

        It’s also not great mid-term because, well, mid-term is too slow to have much of a climate impact, anyway, also, in that kind of time frame we’ll have fusion.

        It’s also not great long-term because Uranium deposits are quite limited, especially if everyone were to switch to nuclear.

        Then it’s also not great in general because no matter how safe you design the reactor, humans not prone to institutional failure have yet to be invented. Are you sure your country is able to be better at running plants than Japan. About the only country I actually trust with that stuff is Ukraine – because they have Chernobyl to remind them.

        Then it’s more expensive than renewables, yes also those fancy new mini reactors, and that’s with the hidden subsidy of not actually having to insure against fall-out. States cover it because if operators had to buy insurance, well, they couldn’t operate because no insurer, or reinsurer, is willing to bankrupt themselves over a single claim.

        Demands for energy storage are only going up, and lithium batteries is where it’s at, currently.

        Nope. The vast majority of storage necessary for my utility to provide energy is Scandinavian hydro dams, we pump them full of wind energy and then get it back. Not to mention that with proper wide-area transmission networks wind is baseload-capable (you can’t have no wind anywhere, physically impossible) and with proper overcapacity the need for seasonal storage shrinks.

        Speaking of seasonal storage: Germany’s gas pipeline network can store three months of total(!) energy usage, and is generally hydrogen-capable – parts of it are currently switched over. Call Siemens they’ll sell you turn-key plants off the shelf.

        The reason you see so many lithium installations is because it’s good short-term storage. Noone is going to use them for seasonal storage makes no sense at all they have quite high self-discharge rates.