this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
579 points (90.7% liked)

World News

38583 readers
2060 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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] prototypez9er@lemmynsfw.com 103 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Chasing profit is how we got here. This shouldn't be the basis of the decision. If it's the only thing we can use to drag conservatives along though, I guess it'll have to do.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (17 children)

It's not about chasing profit though, it's about getting to net zero as quickly as possible using finite resources. Any money that goes to nuclear could be going to renewables, which would get us there more quickly.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (12 children)

This article is about profitability, not cost to net zero. They are very different things. It also ignores the cost of scale, go all in on say solar today and that doesn't make more panels available, the increased demand would raise prices and suddenly its not so profitable.

Nothing is as simple and easy as people want it to be.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

However, the researchers show that in terms of cost and speed, renewable energy sources have already beaten nuclear and that each investment in new nuclear plants delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable energies. “In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO2 emissions,” the researchers pointed out.

They talk about profit to get the attention of money people, but the ultimate goal is decarbonization. Hell, the title of the source article is "Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago (32 children)

Yeah no shit. We already knew nuclear was not profitable, but it’s clean & makes tons of power, so it’s a good deal for everyone that isn’t a business & wants cheap & clean energy.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (35 children)

The question has always been what does one do when the renewables aren't providing enough power (ex: nights, etc). The current solution is natural gas. It would be a big improvement if we would use a carbon-free source like nuclear instead.

[–] 0xD21F@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is an old and proven method for load balancing intermittent power sources. Would like to see more of that as geography permits.

[–] complacent_jerboa@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The "as geography permits" part is a big obstacle, unfortunately.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] complacent_jerboa@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

According to the article, the researchers concluded that nuclear reactors are not a good fit for that role.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The growing idea is to just have a shit load of renewables, everywhere. The wind is always blowing somewhere, and the sun shines through the clouds. If you have a ridiculous excess total capacity then even when you're running at limited capacity you could still cover the demand. Basically, most of our renewable infrastructure would actually be curtailed or offline a lot of the time.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Here's an example of what can be done with 5 hours of storage. 5 hours is a 25% participation rate of V2G where the participants offer a third of their battery capacity.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/

If going with the (false) assumption that nuclear can hit 100% grid penetration, it would take decades to offset the carbon released by causing a single year of delay.

The lowest carbon "let's pretend storage is impossible and go with 100% nuclear" would still start with exclusively funding VRE.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] relative_iterator@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

consumers may also help reduce system costs by adapting their electricity consumption to the availability of renewable energy

From the linked paper. They mention some other options for storage like batteries (plenty of environmental issues there though) but based on the quoted text I have a hard time taking this seriously if they actually expect people to change their behavior.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Plug in car. Press the "I would like to only pay $100/yr to fuel this please" button.

Later when you leave for work press the "I would like the house to be cool when I get home and also want to pay half as much for AC" button.

Buy the 1.5m wide water heater that stores 10kWh of hot water and lasts a week between heatings rather than the 70cm one that lasts a day.

Such an unconscionable burden.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Silverseren@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Profitability is so much not the point here and also, there's no reason for different energy production sources (especially ones that are base power vs incidental power) to be in conflict. Do both of them.

[–] theragu40@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don't have to like it but unfortunately profitability is by far the number one driver for...well everything. So little is accomplished by way of altruism. People are greedy. The best way to successfully incentivize climate action is for environmentally friendly actions to become the most profitable and be advertised as such.

So I agree with you that both options should be used. But I disagree that profitability is not the point. Money is always the point and always has been.

[–] steelrat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Price of energy is key to the success of every economy.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

That's not difficult. Nuclear is extremely expensive.

With renewables you just sell it to the grid for whatever gas generated electricity is going for. Which is currently still a fucking lot. Thanks Russia.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

K, but this isn't about profits. This is about not destroying the environment, which nuclear can help with (you know if nobody bombs the plant)

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (18 children)

But it's also about cost. Nuclear is far more expensive upfront, more expensive to maintain, and more expensive to decommission. Cheap, agile renewables will be an easier option for the vast majority of the planet

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

Everything is about profits. Otherwise we wouldn't even be in this mess.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah, the power company likes the profits from nuclear way better.

The secret is that they can bill the ratepayers for all the cost overruns, while keeping the extra profits on the cost-plus construction contract for the shareholders.

(Source: I'm a Georgia Power ratepayer being absolutely reamed for Plant Vogtle 3 and 4, and the Georgia Public Service Commission isn't doing a single goddamned thing to hold Georgia Power to account or to help people like me.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZIRO@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Stop all the hate for nuclear. It's just a way for the fossil fuel industry to cause infighting among those of us who care about the climate. If we can make energy free or close to it, we should. The closer everything comes to being free the better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Nuclear is the future. Stop trying to deny it. We should all be running it by now this shit was made like 60 years ago. But no, we'll just eat smog I guess. Damn my feeds are kind of depressing today.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fission is today. Fusion is the future.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It blows my mind we are avoiding this? You want jobs? Clean stable energy? Its fucken here dude. Just build some plants. They only need to be properly maintained to avoid disaster. If we truly are an intelligent species that should be easy as hell.

[–] mdd@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They only need to be properly maintained

And there is the issue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bouh@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

"disaster" is a big word for what happens with a nuclear accident.

The fire in Hawaï or the climate change are disasters. A hurricane is a disaster. Chernobyl or fukushima were disasters in the media much more than in the reality of things.

Cars kill more people every year than nuclear energy did since we use it. In fact, this is still true even if you account for atomic bombs...

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] artisanrox@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

More profitable AND safer. Humans are too stupid, lazy and bureaucratic to use nuclear.

load more comments (2 replies)

Profit doesn't equal good. Renewables take a lot of materials and fabrication to upkeep. Im sure theres more money to be made in renewable than there is in nuclear, that doesn't imply one is better than the other.

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Until we are able to sort out the cost/tech to make a green-sourced grid (such that the role of utilities is to capture surpluses from when the sun shines and the wind blows and sell it back when transient sources aren't producing) nuclear is going to be an important part of a non-carbon-producing energy portfolio.

Already it's cheaper to bring new solar and wind online than any other sort of electrical production; the fact that those are transient supply sources is the last major obstacle to phasing carbon fuels entirely out of the grid. If nuclear can be brought safely online it could mean pushing the use of fossil energy entirely into use cases where energy density is critical (like military aviation)

[–] pizzazz@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Gotta love anti nuclear activists getting more and more desperate. You're being decarbonised. Please do not resist.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What about when the grid is almost entirely renewables? Is nuclear cheaper than just storage? What about storage one it's already been implemented to the point of resource scarcity?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Femcowboy@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If we had an energy system owned by the people and not ran for profits, nuclear would be a viable, and probably even the preferred, option. We do not. We're probably going to have to fix that to get a practical and reliable clean energy grid.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, it would just bankrupt the state. Just because something is state owned, doesn't mean the cost vanishes.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Who fucking cares about profit, our planet is dying.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Neato@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If we measured the amount of destruction to our environment that fossil fuels cost long-term I bet they'd stop being profitable really quick.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›