• IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Being pro-nuclear was a very valid position up until a few years ago. Now solar has gotten so cheap that there is practically no reason to do it except to protect yourself against US imperialism.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can still like it if you are looking far enough in the future to realize it’s the only viable energy source for space travel past like… Mars. Further than that and solar panels just won’t generate enough.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      The trends on wind and solar have been clear for at least a decade if not more. The time for nuclear was last century when it had no serious competition.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Solar still has some huge problems when it comes to seasonality and day/night cycle. You either need massive battery build out or some other form of energy to handle base loads and/or offset when solar isn’t producing enough.

      Not saying solar isn’t part of the future, but we literally can’t just rely on solar.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You have to over build and you have to diversify. As many different types of generation as you can.

        Nuclear probably has a role. However it doesn’t fit well in a dynamic generation scenario. It doesn’t like just sitting there waiting to fill in the gaps left by solar and wind. It wants to be a full power all the time just due to economics.

        If we could get tidal working, that would be superb. Regular, predictable and almost universal.

      • Joelk111@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Battery tech is getting super good though, and the materials are recyclable. If solar becomes cheap enough we could even store it in creative (but less efficient) batteries like lake batteries or weight batteries and the like.

        • njordomir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I had heard of lake batteries over the years, but never a weight battery. Thank you for teaching me something new today!

          You know what else I haven’t heard of in a while? Thermal solar, where they use a parabolic mirror array to concentrate the sun onto a small tube full of water pushing a steam turbine. Even the plain steam could be used for heating and more. Steam can absolutely be concentrated under pressure (more of a capacitor than a battery since the temp won’t hold, but it does provide stability). The steampunk future from comic books is at our finger tips only we will generate the steam using the sun rather than big factories of iron and steel.

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            You haven’t heard of a weight battery because the weights need to weigh something close to a lake to be useful.

            Companies come up every so often selling the idea and then people realise that the energy stored in the tower, mine, or whatever is about the same as a couple of EV batteries unless you have something the size of a lake.

      • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Solar panels have become more than ten times cheaper than they were a decade ago. They are easily able to gather half the energy of what they did a decade ago in the summer now in the winter.

        So even in the winter solar is twice as price efficient.

        Yes there is downtime but solar is a fast and cheap way to replace most electricity cost. Then the rest can be fixed with nuclear in 20 years. We need clean cheap energy now and we can mostly get it.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not talking about price, I’m talking about generation.

          I have solar panels, they are great. However, I get too much energy in the summer, not nearly enough in the winter, and no power at night. Since I’m on a grid that doesn’t matter too much for me, but highlights some of the issues.

          Even if I installed a battery, I’d end up with extra power in the summer and not enough in the winter. Which just highlights the discrepancy in production. Batteries obviously help solve this, but some mixture of wind/nuclear/other is needed.

      • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        This isn’t a problem at City scales and beyond. You just can’t buy a bunch of nazi batteries so there isn’t a corp greasing politicians to build it.

    • nforminvasion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You do realize that you can support multiple things? You don’t have to be antinuclear to be pro-solar.

      • njordomir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        This is true. I am mostly pro-solar and mostly anti-nuclear, but if we decided to build a huge multi-national plant to combat/reverse global warming and it needed obscene amounts of energy to operate, I think that might be a perfect task for nuclear. The same doesn’t hold true for AI data centers though. I hope those guys have to generate their power by daisy chaining potato batteries.

    • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Nuclear, both fission and fusion (which will never happen anyway) are relics of an era of cheap fossil fuels and relative world order.

      Solar electricity is viable at scale but also indicates a change in our species’ living arrangements on this planet.

      • njordomir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s an interesting way to look at it. If it’s not just about the power and the cost, there are actually a lot of other factors that we have glossed over.

        Solar is cooperative and local while nuclear necessitates centralization. In a nuclear future, large nuclear generating corporations are the sellers and we are the buyers. In a solar future, we pool and exchange our power depending on current production ability and current electric need… comrade.

        • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes, but the bonanza of fossil fuels that rocket-propelled humanity from 1859 onwards with chemicals and pesticides and fertilizer is not sustainable with only renewable energy and resources.

          For example:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

          You think things are kind of uncomfortable now wrt inflation and fuel prices? Oh hold on, it’s not going to get better!

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        We have started to build the first commercial fusion plants now. You may want to update your rhetoric.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I look forward to seeing them produce energy in a short 20 years from now.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            You should read up on the topic, I know I was surprised, the breakthroughs have recently happened. Now it is just permitting and building. Obviously there will still be issues, but there is little question to the reality now.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I’ve read of smaller reactors that should speed up prototyping, but nothing about actual net positive energy production. That’s still far away.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                This happened a long time ago. Prototyping is over. I was very skeptical as well up until they figured out a practical reactor design and are in the process of building and permitting several commercial plants around the world.

                • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA haha hahaa haaaa hahhahahaha aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh hahahahahaha!!!

                  You can get more power by putting a small wind turbine near my face than any of your fantasy-land nonsense comic book contraptions.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Living in denial as they are building commercial plants. Looks like Big Oil propaganda got you.

                • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Thankfully there’s no Big Fusion propaganda. Might want to check your face for a gigantic hook.

                  There is no system capable or conceivable to generate net electrical energy at commercial scale.

                  None.

    • psycholocomotor_no2@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Nuclear reactors could still be useful in things like the mass production of hydrogen through steam electrolysis or even using fancy stuff like thermochemical reactions.

      I know China is planning on building the world’s first nuclear reactor integrated into an industrial area for the production of very hot steam.