Green Energy

2277 readers

264 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

poVoq

SteveKLord

Discussion question- do folkx here consider nuclear clean and/or green? (self.energy)

submitted 2 years ago by Nirile to c/energy

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As the title says, I'm interested in this community's perceptions on nuclear energy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] perestroika 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Fusion: yes, when eventually feasible.

Fission: maybe. It has high energy density. But uranium ore is very thin and needs to be refined a lot. Storage of spent fuel is problematic. Generally, it costs a whole lot. Even if I consider it green, I don't see it solving the most pressing problems - setting up nuclear energy is slow.

[–] Nirile 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If fusion were ever to be feasible, would it also need to used mined uranium, or are there other fuel sources?

[–] perestroika 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Current fusion (thermonuclear bombs) require a fission bomb trigger to start fusion in a lithium deuteride body, but reactors - absolutely not.

Fusion reactors do one of the following:

use magnetic fields and electrical current to contain + heat a ring tritium (hydrogen isotope) plasma to extreme temperatures
use a laser pulse to compress + heat a capsule of tritium to extreme temperatures
use a magnetic field and electrical current to collide two rings of helion (helium isotope) plasma at extreme velocities

Short version: fusion needs fission only in warfare.

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago

I love nuclear energy. Well maybe to strong of a word. I am extremely favorable towards it.

But we needed to go majority nuclear 10-20 years ago...

There are so many nuclear safety regulations and red tape (for good reason) that it makes new reactors being started now not financially profitable. Renewables are mugh much better until the current highly excessible lithium deposits dry up (tons of lithium in the world, but a tiny fraction of it is minable without decimating the environment)

But that brings me to my main point: energy providers are constantly for profit just like leacherous landlords. Basic necessities should be run publically in many cases. If you can get electric prices so low that it is almost free provided a large governmental investment (a mere tiny fraction of the military industrial complex budget) then you could literally turn the world around in 10 years. But that is a pipe dream that will never happen.

Oil companies control all of the energy decisions around the world and will sooner invest in renewables than nuclear.