There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

3 points

Hope she told Greenpeace as well where to leave the nuclear waste and how to archive costs similar to renewables. Because that’s a question I don’t know the answer to.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Nuclear waste can be buried deep inside the ground in stable rock in specially made canisters, not possible everywhere in the world but it’s a good way to store it long term where it’s possible.

While other renewables might beat nuclear in costs they cant produce electricity when the sun doesnt shine or wind doesnt blow etc. So when also accounting for the energy storage to smooth out the spikes nuclear is considerably cheaper

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Thank God you’re not the one that has to figure it out then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Long-term nuclear waste doesn’t take up huge amounts of space in the grand scheme of things. And while renewables are essential, having a nuclear backbone in the mix is going to be needed for times of lower output. Otherwise you’d need huge amounts of batteries which would drive up the cost again and slow down the move to zero fossil fuels.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I am from Germany. We have been looking for an “Endlager” (place to store the waste up to a million years safely) since the beginning of using nuclear energy and we haven’t found one. No one wants to have one in ones vicinity and the place where we are storing it now (Asse) is leaking. Times when the sun does not shine and there are no winds are rare and there are more options to store energy than batteries. What we need are better power grids to meet demands during those difficult times and harvest the renewable energy more efficient.

Plus, where does the uranium come from, that for example France uses? Russia (dictatorship), Kazakhstan and Niger (military coup). The sun and the wind don’t attack sovereign nations, don’t write an invoice and cannot pressure you to do a moral limbo when it comes to your energy resources.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s stupid because here in Australia we have the size of Western Europe as desert that won’t ever be used for anything. We already have ports and roads in and nuclear testing has already taken place in the desert.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I mean, they may as well. Even if Greenpeace disappeared entirely, cost would still stop construction of nuclear power plants.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Give LFTR now plz

permalink
report
reply
2 points

I’m not sure it’s the right way now. Small modular reactors, regardless of tech, seem to be the way forward, and molten salt/thorium could just increase the amount of new things that need to be tested and developed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I agree with the sentiment. I would caution people that nuclear waste can last something like 10k years but swapping the current climate crisis for a future radioactive waste storage crisis is probably good trade at the moment.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

I mean, it was a good trade 50 years ago. An even better trade, really.

Anti-nuclear campaigns, when all is said and done, may have accidentally had the effect of turning sentiment against something that would have actually saved the planet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

Nuclear has never been good, just an “oh shit, we left it too late”.

Nuclear will be good when there is no wind, at night, with limited hydro and storage. The excitement with it has been from years of industry astroturfing. Seeing reddit go from opposed to, celebrating nuclear as thinking it was superior to all other renewables was a wild ride.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Nuclear is easily the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy production. Until we get to nuclear fusion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Nuclear is the best option

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

False. Solar PV, hydro and wind are superior without the nuclear waste problem.

Nuclear has a purpose in the mix, but more in a supporting role.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The nuclear waste problem’s solution is stick it in the side of a mountain in the middle of nowhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Hacker News

!hackernews@derp.foo

Create post

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules
  1. Keep it legal
  2. Keep it civil and SFW
  3. Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 21K

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators