this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2556 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Finally! Some countries are starting to make rational decisions!

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

Honestly I don't care if it's solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, or nuclear, as long as it displaces fossil fuels. And it's feasible on a very near time scale.

If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

We need an "all of the above" approach. This fight between nuclear and renewables is just stirred up by fossil fuel interests. Either is good. Both is good.

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

If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

Bullshit. Renewables are cheap as chips.

Think of a traditional power plant. There are 4 main cost catagories: Construction, Maintenance, Fuel, Demolition.

  • In a traditional plant, over the life of the plant Fuel will by far be the biggest cost.

  • For renewables, Construction, Maintenance and Demolition cost more (issues such as remote locations, weather, smaller generators means more generators which increases the mean time to failure) however they have ZERO fuel cost.

Renewable generation is profitable as fuck, moreso than nuclear. Your average wind farm pays itself off in less than 5 years.

This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

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

have you ever been in Sweden? it is a a rocky mountainous and mostly dark region. they only renewables that they can easily manage is geothermal and iirc they do not have the correct crust for it

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

tf wrote that title.. nuclear is defacto renewable

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it's not. That's just delusional. All the ideas of a sustainable uranium fuel cycle are based on non-existent technology. Uranium is a finite resource and we have nowhere near enough of it to power the world, even if you ignore all the other problems.

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

there is enough U238 to last until we get there. except if you think fusion is more than 500 years away (yes, that number is out of my ass)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

U238 is not fissile so that's not very useful.

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

No, it's zero emission but not renewable.

Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source. Even coal and oil are renewable on long enough time scales. But there will never be more uranium than there is right now.

We actually don't have that much of it if we consider the long term future, only a thousand years or so. So nuclear is intended to be a bridge to eventual full renewable power generation and storage, an essential component in the present day but it's still a bridge.

Another thing to consider is that nuclear is the only power source that works in deep space away from the Sun. So if we're serious about exploring the solar system or further, we'd be best not to burn up all of our fissionable material right away.

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

Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source

But if you go according the strict physical principle every energy source is non-renewable

The sun fuses a finire amount of hydrogen, earth has a finire amount of latent heat, the moon a finire amount of gravitational inertia etc.

And there's a little paradox if you think about it, how can fusion be non-renewable but solar, that use radiation from the sun fusion, be renewable?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Fission and fusion are two different things.