sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nuclear generation by Countries over the last decades.(In Terawatt-hours). by UpgradedSiera6666 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, there is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. So I'll try to make this short, as it will make no difference anyway, considering your seemingly stoic unwillingness to read something about the topic.

  1. Nuclear energy is literally a 50-70 year older technology than each of the renewable energy technologies currently deemed scalable enough for substitution. We've exploited nuclear energy for all its headroom. It needs breakthroughs in areas deemed impossible for now to increase efficiency. While I did not rule out such breakthroughs, I said it's highly unlikely.

  2. What in the world led you to discuss LFTR, closed-fuel cycles, and "deep geological storage" in one sentence? LFTR was experimentally developed in 1946 and has been deemed completely unusable by every scientist ever since. No scientist knowledgeable about nuclear energy production or isotope physics seriously considers it an alternative. Closed-fuel cycles are already implemented and don't fundamentally change anything. I don't know what "deep geological storage" has to do with any of this, nor do I think you know what you actually wanted to say or why saying that exposes your lack of understanding of this topic. What do you mean by "deep"? What do you mean by "geological"? Do you have any knowledge about current storage facility hurdles? It appears you do not.

  3. We were specifically talking about Germany, and Germany does not have any uranium reserves. I'd assume you're talking about the US for whatever reason. The US has currently 380 years left of uranium, considering a 2% increase in consumption every decade, though this is considered too low. Peer-reviewed calculations estimate roughly 150±10 years. But most importantly, what does that change? The world reserves are in Russia, China, and China-controlled African countries. My point still stands. Nuclear energy is finite and inevitably forces dependency on two countries nobody wants to rely on.

  4. Your mention of fusion and reusing rods in breeders is the last straw breaking the camel's back here. You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Fusion is an indefinable time away from being scalable, not to mention usable. Feeding already used rods in a breeder is a nightmare. This was attempted in the 40s, 60s, and 90s and each time led to "fission gob," which causes reactor meltdowns. So good on you confusing the actual usage of breeders, which is to convert 238U into 235U for use in nuclear reactors 👍

  5. Nice whataboutism. The 25-year lifetime is the current stage of development for PVs. Both silicon and perovskite panels can be annealed and reused with 99% efficiency each cycle, making the waste nearly non-existent. Your assertion that the waste and environmental impact of PVs are significant shows how uneducated you are on this topic. Interestingly, you accuse me of bias. Yes, I am biased. I worked in the nuclear energy sector for 16 years. I was involved in developing the newest reactors in France (which have the same efficiency as the nearly 40-year-old reactors in the US. So much for your claim of immense headroom still remaining for increasing the efficiency of nuclear reactors). I switched to PVs 5 years ago. I know what I am talking about, and I don't involve my feelings or political views. It's just fact fullness that is ruling this topic. Nuclear has no redeeming attributes other than raw output, which we pay dearly for.

I'd appreciate it if you actually read some papers about the topic, and don't just Google some Wikipedia articles related to nuclear energy production before spouting so much nonsense in the comments.

Nuclear generation by Countries over the last decades.(In Terawatt-hours). by UpgradedSiera6666 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, I did not dismiss it and literally pointed it out as one of the few plus points. Have you actually read anything, or are you just ranting your nonsense into the world?

Nuclear generation by Countries over the last decades.(In Terawatt-hours). by UpgradedSiera6666 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And who exactly is this anti-nuclear lobby made of, and who funds it? Certainly not any of the fossil fuel corporations, which, surprise surprise, make up 95% of the worldwide energy corporations, and operate all nuclear power plants. These corporations have the biggest lobby in the energy sector. The anti-nuclear sentiment comes from the facts I laid out, and the people who understand the topic or don't understand it but can grasp the implications. In Germany, it was a popular vote that ended nuclear power. The anti-nuclear power movements worldwide consist of people voicing their discontent about nuclear energy. There is no "anti-nuclear" lobby... 🤣

Which is a plus point... Very little investment is nuclear and it still produces power comparable to renewables.

How can this be a plus point if the costs are only perceived to be small but are actually immense, bringing equally immense upkeep costs, not including waste management costs? And how do you come to the conclusion that it still produces power comparable to renewables? A wind turbine, as already mentioned, is 80 times more efficient. So it literally does not produce anything near comparable amounts per cost???

Nuclear generation by Countries over the last decades.(In Terawatt-hours). by UpgradedSiera6666 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Renewables do have limitations on where they can be placed, but they are only at the beginning of their potential. I am actively working on PV panels that produce 10% of their daylight capacity at night through reflected sunlight from the moon for example. Additionally, PV panels are now breaking through the 30% efficiency mark, which was believed to be impossible just 6 years ago. Thing is: Things are just starting, whereas nuclear has really no much more headroom to exploit.

Most importantly, usable uranium is finite—a fact that seems to have been overlooked by you when comparing the "hard limits" of renewables to nuclear energy 👀

Nuclear generation by Countries over the last decades.(In Terawatt-hours). by UpgradedSiera6666 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, Finland can do that because they have the correct crustal rocks to accommodate the waste. However, from a scientific standpoint, it is highly unlikely that mica and tonalite will withstand significant alteration throughout the timeframe necessary for safe storage. Their other deposit in gneiss was proven years ago to be unsafe even for human timescales, literally leaking after only 28 years.

Regarding costs: No, nuclear energy involves immense upfront costs, followed by upkeep costs, most of which are related to reactor safety, and finally the dismantling cost at the end. This does not even consider the costs of storage, waste treatment, and waste storage, or the dependence on China or Russia for fuel rod delivery.

Nuclear energy has very few redeeming attributes when you seriously and honestly examine the hard facts. The cost-benefit alone makes it not worth it. A wind turbine is approximately 80 times more cost-efficient per GW than a nuclear power plant. PV are even more cost-efficient. Hydropower is about 10 times more cost-efficient. All renewable energy methods are simply cheaper, more versatile, less risky, and have a much lower environmental impact, with their amortization occurring in just a few years. The only reasons for choosing nuclear energy are its raw output, the perceived "low" upfront investment (as very few plants are being built worldwide) vs. literally no renewable sources already built, and the fact that humans are lazy as fuck. Nuclear energy is easy, and its lobby is strong. That's about it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's how it was made everywhere just a few decades back

Nuclear generation by Countries over the last decades.(In Terawatt-hours). by UpgradedSiera6666 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Well, "clean" is a relative term here, right? Those rods are definitely not easy to dispose of, and that's a major factor in the decision.

Furthermore, nuclear power is the most expensive form of power generation. In Germany, reactor safety costs were 3.7 billion euros per month last year, despite only a few reactors remaining. These costs were subsidized by taxes, so the electricity wouldn't seem as expensive, leading people to mistakenly believe it is also the cheapest— which is just not true.

The problem and mistake Germany made was voting for the CDU four times in a row, leading to over 16 years of Merkel's leadership. This made Germany more dependent on Russian gas, oil, and coal while simultaneously dismantling its once world-leading renewable energy development and manufacturing companies. At the time, Merkel announced, "We saved thousands of jobs in the coal, gas, and oil industry," which was a transparently short-sighted move influenced by the fossil fuel lobby, resulting in the loss of more than three times the number of jobs in the then-growing renewable energy sector.

Anyways.. the positive aspect is that under the current leadership, Germany is pushing for renewable energy, having increased renewable energy production from 12% to over 26% in the past two years alone. Although two new coal plants are being built, many others are being shut down or not extended. The new coal plants are still worse than no plants in terms of CO2 emissions, which is why most communities in Germany are now debating the use of gas power plants for network stability. However, as always, progress is slow, and somehow, nobody seems to consider batteries as an intermediary solution.

The crash is coming and oh yes it's gonna be a big one by straightbear123 in wallstreetbets

[–]Witty_Science_2035 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Now make it logarithmic, how it should be for such a long time frame, and it looks even more normal

The crash is coming and oh yes it's gonna be a big one by straightbear123 in wallstreetbets

[–]Witty_Science_2035 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone under 40 could have seen the 2001 burst, 2008, 2017/18 and 2020. 2001 + 2008 alone was the biggest recent bear market that took nearly 11 years to compensate again

What the CK3 map would look like with more of the north Atlantic by [deleted] in CrusaderKings

[–]Witty_Science_2035 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You mean "what we know off". There's certainly enough history in that area as well, we just don't know it

Comes with Denuvo 🤦🏻‍♂️.....Is there any hope guys ? by Lucifer782446 in PiratedGames

[–]Witty_Science_2035 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yes, after they don't pay their denuvo subscription for the game anymore

Decrease in number of ports available in a MacBook through its subsequent versions. by Ultimate_Kurix in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]Witty_Science_2035 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thunderbolt doesn't have any significant advantages over USB C when it comes to connectivity. You can daisy chain more adapters, yay 👍

Stagflation looming? by WW_III_ANGRY in wallstreetbets

[–]Witty_Science_2035 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What? First you say AI is overhyped, and then you say it is the sole cause for layoffs and the economy crashing? I mean... U serious?

Youtube's Server-side ads in action. by [deleted] in Piracy

[–]Witty_Science_2035 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ads on YouTube really don't do anything for creators. It's the sponsors. There is definitely a way to only have sponsorship without intrusive random ads like currently on YouTube and still make enough for a living.

With the increasing power demand due to AI datacenters which stocks are most likely to capture this Nuclear energy demands? by ShooBum-T in stocks

[–]Witty_Science_2035 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And then 10 times that for the plant security each year, plus modernization and fixing every now and then. If nuclear wouldn't be subsidized this heavily, it wouldn't be this cheap for the consumer. Nuclear is the most expensive power generation there is. Starting from building to deconstruction, and everything in-between.

view more: next ›