| ▲ | oceanplexian 3 days ago |
| How is the hype for a limitless clean energy source, something that could benefit every aspect of humanity more than any other invention in human history considered “weird”? |
|
| ▲ | delusional 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > limitless clean energy source Like the guy you're responding to, I'm not a nuclear hater. We also have other "limitless clean energy sources" however, wind and solar. How is nuclear going to benefit humanity in ways electrical energy hasn't already? We haven't been energy constrained in the past 10-20 years. It really doesn't seem like additional energy production is going to make that much of a difference. |
| |
| ▲ | throwawayffffas 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There are hard limits on wind and solar. | |
| ▲ | otikik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Limitless” in that context means “it still happens in a cloudy week with no wind” | | |
| ▲ | mulmen 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That is what storage and long distance transmission are for. It’s very hard to take these tired arguments seriously. | | |
| ▲ | otikik 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | With our current rate of storage and spending, storage would last hours at most. Long distance transmission on the scale where we would not get short of power is a project as big, if not bigger, than nuclear reactors. | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Both of these are not feasible solutions for industrial economies. |
| |
| ▲ | delusional 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd like to see a prior for that use of that word, otherwise you're just making stuff up. Please use words to say things. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | V__ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because this limitless clean energy source is too expensive, even though it had 60+ years time. I hope the day fusion energy finally has its big breakthrough isn't too far away, but conventional nuclear won't solve our problems. |
| |
| ▲ | xienze 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Because this limitless clean energy source is too expensive I’m laughing in $0.11/kWh nuclear energy while Germany’s “cheaper” green energy is uh... quite a bit more expensive. | | |
| ▲ | V__ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Retail or production price, where are you based? | | |
| |
| ▲ | mulmen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wind and solar are literally fusion power with extra steps. Running our own fusion reactors would be great but waste is not limited to fission designs. All nuclear generation has radioactive waste, it’s unavoidable. Grid scale storage with renewables can absolutely meet our needs. | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > extra steps. Those extra steps are crucial, as they massively dilute the output and make it weather/daylight and seasonally dependent. Intermittent renewables produce at least an order of magnitude more waste than nuclear reactors, be they fusion or fission. | | |
| ▲ | g-b-r 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Those extra steps are crucial, as they massively dilute the output and make it weather/daylight and seasonally dependent and leave the waste on a far away star | |
| ▲ | mulmen 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | How are you defining waste here? Nuclear reactors can’t adjust production rapidly and require peaker plants. I don’t have to squint to see how this is also solved by grid scale storage. |
| |
| ▲ | pfdietz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Wind and solar are literally fusion power with extra steps. This observation seems entirely useless and pointless. What implication are you saying we should draw from this? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | stonemetal12 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| For something that is supposed to be clean it sure keeps making places unhabitable. |
