Memes

You know renewables aren't even the same thing as nuclear right? renewables aren't consistent and it's currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere.

We already have over-capacity of renewables.

Spending money on more doesn't help when there's no where to put that energy.

The best strategies are rarely single trick. Energy should be diversely sourced.

Renewables are cheaper per kwh, but it's yet to be seen if they're cheaper when you get to higher grid renewable percentages and need to involve massive grid storage.

@yogthos @spicytuna62 I don't mind nuclear but often those touting the virtues of nuclear energy implicitly want to prop up the crazy levels of inefficiency and overproduction of the current global economy with a cleaner energy source. If could stem the bleeding a little bit but the problems I mentioned will have to be addressed at some point.

Blah blah blah nobody wants to hear actual evidence and suggestions that solar and wind might be better. We're on a mission for Nuclear power damn the Fukushima refugees and who cares if we store the waste encased in concrete at the bottom of the ocean which we know will eventually leak into the food stream

Noo kyaa larr is the fyuuu charrr

We're reaching the point where discussing cost in regard to the energy crisis makes us look like fucking idiots.

Imagine what kids reading the history books are going to think of these discussions.

And 10 years isn't that long really. If someone said we could use no fossil fuels in energy generation in 10 years time that doesn't sound long at all.

The mining is also usually a really polluting affair for the region, much more than the what power generation might suggest. And overall, in many countries there is a lot of subsidies going on for hidden costs, especially relating to the waste and initial construction. So it is not as cheap as a first look might suggest.

I'm not against it per se, it is better than fossil fuels, which simply is the more urgent matter, but it's never been the wonder technology it has been touted as ever since it first appeared.

you often need to buy it from other countries. For instance, Russia. Not great.

Yeeeeah, I wouldn't worry about that. Sure we (Australia) are conservative with our fears of mining and exporting uranium, especially with the Cold War and reactor whoopsies around the world. But historically it doesn't take much for us to go down on an ally.

Just let us finish unloading all our coal off to the worst polluting nations first, then we'll crack the top-shelf stuff.

There are some reactor designs that run on waste of standard reactors. It would solve two of your points for at least some decades.

It'd be nice to prioritise it at least rather than tucking it away under the oil and gas rug. There is no real competition in energy output to a nuclear power plant. And despite its egregious up front cost, operating it is relatively low cost.

In regards to fuel, uranium is used often but there is options such as thorium that have been used with some success. I do agree it is unfortunate to have to purchase from other countries but I think it beats buying natural gas from wherever it may be sold.

A big problem IMO is the generational responsibility of the waste as well. There needs to be decades of planning, monitoring and maintaince to ensure waste sites are safe and secure, this can be done but modern political climates can make it difficult.

Uranium is not that rare. Doesn’t Canada have quite a bit of it? Portugal used to mine it too, as well as several countries in Africa