nuclear gang
we have big brains and we are putting our dicks into the hadron collider
also love the fact that czechia is stealing german engineers for expanding our nuclear program
Including planning, design, and construction, the typical nuclear plant takes 11 years to build, even capacity weighted that's significantly slower than any other renewable power source but Hydro.
That's also with Nuclear being the most expensive renewable.
11 years is getting to be incorrect. Chinese AI assisted cement pouring vehicles are reducing the time to build megaprojects such as dams down from 12 years to 2 years and at higher quality. Ive read papers from China on using the same tech for nuclear concrete pouring.
Its probably more important for China, India, and Africa to do this than anyone else, but of course, the westerner is always concerned about themselves :lenin-sure:
from what I remember from undergrad Energy Policy, the problem with nuclear is scale. Because they take decades to turn a profit and require enormous amounts of capital, they're unappealing to energy companies. Cost of capital overpowers everything else. Pretty much the only organizations capable of doing that are governments. But nuclear takes multiple election cycles to build, longer to pay off, and also has really bad PR. So governments are not champing at the bit to start new programs. In fact they seem to be extending the lifetime of the old, shitty plants originally scheduled to be decommissioned, and when they actually do build new plants it's more of the old designs.
If you actually have a reactor program it's great. If you've already spent the huge sum to get one RBMK designed/built/operationally tested you can crank out twenty more.
But nobody's been starting programs like that in decades so it's probably too late.e: actually I can't support this and don't have more time to research. talking out of my ass. not sure how meaningful existing programs areyeah, with how much the technology has advanced its a crime that there arent solar panels on every rooftop. if were gonna insist on having 4x the parking space compared to commercial space, we could at least put up a roof of solar panels, it even has the added advantage of protecting cars from the elements
Yeah, the correct choice was building nuclear 40 years ago, but here we are still watching countries decide between nuclear and coal
Yeah it's technoutopianism but by leftists.
I still think it was a mistake (or rather, an intentional plot by the CDU to not eat shit in 2011 state elections and corruption in favor of RWE), closing down nuclear power plants ahead of other fossil fuel ones.
But instead of going "clean and almost unlimited energy, we should build 100 nuclear power plants in every country before switching to fusion", going 100% renewable should be the goal of every leftist development plan.
German Greens are anything but. They have some bizarre hate boner for nuclear power. Jesus Christ idk we're all going to die in the end I guess
I mean that's a position to have but it's very much not the one the german greens have. Theirs is bizarre.
It basically boils down to having witnessed Chernobyl and then deciding the best course of action is to have that kind of contamination happen 24/7 all over the country as a matter of business by firing up more coal plants instead of a single event that makes it into the news when a big fuckup happens.
A few hundred thousands death is a statistic, 31 is a tragedy I guess.
:geordi-no: :germany-cool: Putting your nuclear infrastructure to a quick, organized death because the coal industry doesn't like the look of it or whatever
:geordi-yes: :kkkanada: Putting your nuclear infrastructure to a slow, chaotic death by privatizing it
The plant near me is:
- Owned by a corporation which is in turn wholly owned by the provincial government
- Operated by a second corporation which is entirely privatized (and isn't even publicly traded)
So, the plant appears as an asset on the province's balance sheet, but it's managed by people who are not exactly duty-bound to act in the public's best interest, and it is packaged in such a way that it could probably be fully privatized at any time. Meanwhile all of its recurring expenses are run through a second company which is not at all duty-bound to act in the public's best interest.
Yeah because Germany's rivers are going to be able to keep a nuclear powerplant cool when they dry up every summer for the rest of eternity.
Coal also uses a ton of water and a lot of the power plants are in water scarce areas
Coal doesn't have a nuclear meltdown when it doesn't get enough water during the summer though.
I know everyone here saw what happened to european rivers last year, and I know everyone here knows it only gets worse from here on out. Using rivers to cool a nuclear powerplant in the declining climate we have is a nuclear disaster waiting to happen.
?? you think scientists arent planning around climate change? they are acutely aware of it. most facilities have pumps
shit ive even read about a guy getting sucked into one while diving near germany, he ignored the signs and waltzed right up to the pipe. terrifying experience for sure but he came out of it fine. was thrown out into some water treatment plant with a bunch of confused workers around him
It's not scientists I'm worried about, if they had listened to scientists Fukushima wouldn't have happened. There is no guarantee that the scientists are actually listened to on matters of safety vs cost.
Yeah capitalism takes something that would be one of the best options and turns it into a potentially horrific gamble
So use post-primary-treated water? It doesn't need to be potable or even clean enough for plants to carry energy from a reactor to turbines
Comparing the operation of coal to the devastation a single nuclear plant failure could cause to the entirety of Europe is silly.
solar can be cooled with fans that make use of atmospheric water
Private companies learning about wojaks was a disaster for humanity
Okay people are probably not reading this thread any more but I am an energy dumb-dumb and need something explained.
I was under the impression that nuclear power, while in many ways a step up from coal and oil, produces nuclear waste that needs to be kept under tons of water or something? Nuclear sounds much better but I am scared of these drums of super-concentrated ultra-pollution building up and being inevitably dumped into the ocean
Nuclear power produces less nuclear waste than coal (per MWh), which just dumps its nuclear waste into the air.
Not that putting nuclear waste somewhere isn't a problem, just not an insurmountable one.
The problem with these stats is they're always murky. Is this including low-level waste, which accounts for 90+% of nuclear waste?
I mean, this is half remembered pro-nuclear stuff from highschool. Not that I'm doing anything useful, so maybe I could try to find data.
This is a point I hadn't considered. Jesus Christ we are so fucking behind on what we need (SOLAR FOR FUCKS SAKE)
From what I understand it's pretty expensive to shoot rockets into space already, and doing it regularly would be pretty costly and increases the risk of a cheap ass MuskTek rocket failing and blowing nuclear waste all over the continent
I'm just worried about that containment. Shit builds up, and without a government that won't hand off disposal duty to some private firm that'll cut corners and dump it into indigenous communities or something, I am not so optimistic.
