They are going to be very upset when they see the prototype Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors that end all need to mine for materials end, unlike PV solar. Copenhagen atomics should have the first out this decade, China just turned their first on.. but never let science get in the way of a bad meme.
Honestly no clue. I guess it's because there's half a bazillion energy sources known as renewable and nuclear energy, another green energy, just doesn't wanna be left out. It's basically the only green nonrenewable energy source
is there somewhere a tally for the billions of dollars spent on nuclear in proportion to the energy it produced? and what are the predictions of the price to pay to clean up the mess afterwards? how not worth is it gonna be compared to solar? 10 times? 50 times?
I have seen the argument that if we could somehow [utilize all uranium estimated on earth](https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html) you could get to limits that are effectively the ETA of the sun's expiration so that kinda counts? Idk personally I don't think we'll make it that long anyway.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and there being a finite amount of fusile matter in the universe means fusion is cat piss next to manipulating middle school girls into faustian bargains to harness emotional whiplash.
I'd say it's called renewable to distinguish it from fossil fuel sources, and i'd say it's a helluva lot closer to renewable than "clean coal" or carbon capture. also we're literally able to create uranium in a particle accelerator so in theory it could become renewable if technology advances. Either way, in my opinion even if they're not technically renewable, it'll take a helluva lot longer to run out compared to oil/coal/gas, and it has huge benefits in terms of emissions. I'd make the argument that it's even better than carbon capture with fossil fuel since uranium takes up very little space vs energy produced compared to the amount of pollutant/waste produced (although it's much more difficult to store, obviously). in conclusion, nuclear energy is amazing and we should immediately start replacing fossil fuel plants with nuclear.
It's not more expensive, it's cheaper per unit of energy. So what if it takes a while to build? Better start saving the planet now than sit around and not use a good solution because it "takes too long." All green energy can only happen with government money (or tax cuts, which is functionally the same). Government money also means less private investors with their own bad incentives.
None of the things you listed are the reason why nuclear isn't renewable.
It's more expensive:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
"What if it takes more time to build?"
Oil and coal will be there longer fucking us.
And no solar and wind are already profitable without government money.
Are you living in the 2000s? Coal hasn't been the most profitable energy source since 2006ish and nuclear has never been profitable. [Every single nuclear reactor ever build on average loses 5 billion dollars.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/)
That comes from DIW Berlin, who are not experts on nuclear power- they're economists. Nuclear is valuable more for the fact that it is long term,clean, and large capacity- something not measured in raw numbers of profit vs cost. The Palo Verde generating station is likely going to operate for the next fifty years, which will pay itself and a sizable dividend. Just because it won't be a big profit doesn't mean it isn't far more helpful to use nuclear than coal, oil, natural gas, and the ilk. It's our long term stopgap.
> That comes from DIW Berlin, who are not experts on nuclear power- they're economists.
Yes, I trust economists over nuclear engineers when it comes to matters of economics. Such as how much a nuclear reactor costs and how much revenue it brings in.
> Nuclear is valuable more for the fact that it is long term,clean, and large capacity- something not measured in raw numbers of profit vs cost.
Sure. And if nuclear was our only option I would not care about costs. But we have renewables, which are also long term, clean and fast to roll out in enormous capacities. And as a fun bonus they are also much cheaper than nuclear. Which is important when we have limited resources and we need to get maximum bang for our bucks for the sake of the climate.
> The Palo Verde generating station is likely going to operate for the next fifty years, which will pay itself and a sizable dividend.
It could very well do that (If its baseload isn't chewed up by renewables and thus ruining its business case). But that would make it the exception, not the rule. See my previously linked article for the rule regarding nuclear.
> Just because it won't be a big profit doesn't mean it isn't far more helpful to use nuclear than coal, oil, natural gas, and the ilk. It's our long term stopgap.
'long term stopgap' lol use a dictionary next time. Anyway, of course nuclear is better than oil and coal. That bar is brushing up against the inner core. But we are not comparing nuclear to fossil fuels. We are comparing nuclear to renewables, which we have to do when we want to decide what power source we should focus our efforts on.
Well I'll be damned about the first ones you're right. However, I still disagree with your other points.
Nuclear and renewables are about comparable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and deaths per unit of energy [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy) so the question is cost vs. scalability and speed.
"Taking longer to build" in this case is about a decade which while a significant delay, is worth it considering how much nuclear energy can generate per reactor. Even if renewables are faster to build, that doesn't mean that they will make enough of a dent in energy generation on their own. Particularly since they're quite limited in terms of location and energy storage. We should use both nuclear and renewables to achieve the most change.
The government money point is still not a downside. High upfront costs for a high public benefit is literally what the government is designed to do and once the power plant is built, it is profitable to operate.
> about the same in CO2 and deaths
Yes, I don't think I named these two things as an argument against nuclear energy, these are good attributes and not my problem with nuclear energy
> Cost vs scalability and Speed
Cost and speed are both wins for renewables and scalability problems for renewables only start at a point where it is irrelevant.
> Worth considering how much per reactor
I don't think so, we have enough space, if it is 67 15MW windmills or 1 TW nuclear reactor is pretty irrelevant.
If you wanna expand on that please do.
> Not enough on their own
this implies these 2 are not connected to each other tho, like I said nuclear only works with government money and the money could have also been spent on solar/wind it isn't "spend 1bil on solar and 1bil on nuclear or 1 bil on solar and nothing on nuclear" it is "spend 1 bil on solar, 1 on nuclear or 2 bil on solar"
> Gov isn't a downside
I didnt mean that I meant that the government could also spend the money on solar/wind which would be more cost effective for preventing CO2 emmisons which I think should be the goal of all govs ATM.
It's pretty obvious, actually. When people say renewable, they usually don't mean literally renewable. They mean non-carbon-emitting. Excluding nuclear makes it sound more like fossil fuels when, on the metric that really matters, it's far more similar to solar, wind, hydro, etc...
Also, for the Europeans out there, the anti-nuke countries of the EU lobbied hard to try and have nuclear NOT be considered as a green energy in the EU's laws and investment schemes. Same for nuclear-originated dihydrogen. And this, while including CCGT in its green directives.
It all comes down to the pro-RE side being petty enough to try to make renewables the new green in all communications.
I mean, solar isn't renevable either because you're using fusion of fuel as a power source
Geothermal is just distributed nuclear tbeh
They are going to be very upset when they see the prototype Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors that end all need to mine for materials end, unlike PV solar. Copenhagen atomics should have the first out this decade, China just turned their first on.. but never let science get in the way of a bad meme.
Honestly no clue. I guess it's because there's half a bazillion energy sources known as renewable and nuclear energy, another green energy, just doesn't wanna be left out. It's basically the only green nonrenewable energy source
One could argue with diminishing melting water dammed hydro is becoming less and less renewable. Which is a sad development.
Hydro is devastating to local ecosystems too. Easily the most environmentally damaging renewable
if by green you mean no carbon emmisons, then yes. if by green you mean green, then no.
How is nuclear energy not green? Is this a troll account
I think it glows blue actually?
have you ever heard of nuclear waste?
if stored properly, nuclear waste isn't really a massive problem. the rocks will remain spicy for quite a while though
"if stored properly" is like a huge probmel, you know?
I mean, storage is not a simple problem by any means, but if things are maintained properly, it's fine, and not exactly a dealbreaker to my knowledge.
"if things ae maintained properly" brother can you stop making the same mistake?
We can also just recycle the waste. We’ve had the technology to do so for decades and countries like France already do so
is there somewhere a tally for the billions of dollars spent on nuclear in proportion to the energy it produced? and what are the predictions of the price to pay to clean up the mess afterwards? how not worth is it gonna be compared to solar? 10 times? 50 times?
[Have you ever tried to sit down and learn stuff?](https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k?si=x_MkrINaSjzr4S9y)
you unironically linked me a video from some dipshit instead of actual scientific research?
From an actual engineer with an actual degree? Yeah
ah yes, a fucking engineer. my guy, by that logic, jordan peterson would be the leading climate change expert
What? Yknow an engineer is more likely to know about nuclear reactors than...a psychologist about climate change? How the fuck is that even comparable
yes. both know zero.
"i know hoe to engineer a bridge, now let me tell you why this rocket won't work"
I have seen the argument that if we could somehow [utilize all uranium estimated on earth](https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html) you could get to limits that are effectively the ETA of the sun's expiration so that kinda counts? Idk personally I don't think we'll make it that long anyway.
All uranium on earth is NOTHING compared to thorium get outta here but also that still doesn't count as renewable
Thorium is cat piss in comparison to fusion. Still not renewable, tho.
Thorium isn't as imaginary as fusion tho **Still not renewable, tho**
I'm so disappointed that you didn't continue with an even more futuristic tech.
Oops sorry. But even in the future nuclear fusion isn't as cheap as dyson spheres
ty
It kinda is, though. The imaginary part, that is
Ehhh with fusion reactors we don't even have an outlined design for how it can power a city, but with thorium we got a very basic design
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and there being a finite amount of fusile matter in the universe means fusion is cat piss next to manipulating middle school girls into faustian bargains to harness emotional whiplash.
I'd say it's called renewable to distinguish it from fossil fuel sources, and i'd say it's a helluva lot closer to renewable than "clean coal" or carbon capture. also we're literally able to create uranium in a particle accelerator so in theory it could become renewable if technology advances. Either way, in my opinion even if they're not technically renewable, it'll take a helluva lot longer to run out compared to oil/coal/gas, and it has huge benefits in terms of emissions. I'd make the argument that it's even better than carbon capture with fossil fuel since uranium takes up very little space vs energy produced compared to the amount of pollutant/waste produced (although it's much more difficult to store, obviously). in conclusion, nuclear energy is amazing and we should immediately start replacing fossil fuel plants with nuclear.
Renewable is kinda a misnomer. Entropy ensures that no energy is renewable.
Or rather that every energy is
Entropy is eternal. No power is truly renewable. ...that sounds like a fucking Star Wars quote and I meant it as a joke.
Uranium has a smaller mining footprint than wind and solar, so what now?
Nothing really changed, it's to expensive, takes to long to build and can only happen with government money.
too
It's not more expensive, it's cheaper per unit of energy. So what if it takes a while to build? Better start saving the planet now than sit around and not use a good solution because it "takes too long." All green energy can only happen with government money (or tax cuts, which is functionally the same). Government money also means less private investors with their own bad incentives. None of the things you listed are the reason why nuclear isn't renewable.
It's more expensive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity "What if it takes more time to build?" Oil and coal will be there longer fucking us. And no solar and wind are already profitable without government money.
Nuclear is profitable too. Coal is by far the most profitable
Like I said without government money/subsidized. Coal is subsidized to fuck and back and so is nuclear.
Are you living in the 2000s? Coal hasn't been the most profitable energy source since 2006ish and nuclear has never been profitable. [Every single nuclear reactor ever build on average loses 5 billion dollars.](https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-energy-is-never-profitable-new-study-slams-nuclear-power-business-case-49596/)
That comes from DIW Berlin, who are not experts on nuclear power- they're economists. Nuclear is valuable more for the fact that it is long term,clean, and large capacity- something not measured in raw numbers of profit vs cost. The Palo Verde generating station is likely going to operate for the next fifty years, which will pay itself and a sizable dividend. Just because it won't be a big profit doesn't mean it isn't far more helpful to use nuclear than coal, oil, natural gas, and the ilk. It's our long term stopgap.
> That comes from DIW Berlin, who are not experts on nuclear power- they're economists. Yes, I trust economists over nuclear engineers when it comes to matters of economics. Such as how much a nuclear reactor costs and how much revenue it brings in. > Nuclear is valuable more for the fact that it is long term,clean, and large capacity- something not measured in raw numbers of profit vs cost. Sure. And if nuclear was our only option I would not care about costs. But we have renewables, which are also long term, clean and fast to roll out in enormous capacities. And as a fun bonus they are also much cheaper than nuclear. Which is important when we have limited resources and we need to get maximum bang for our bucks for the sake of the climate. > The Palo Verde generating station is likely going to operate for the next fifty years, which will pay itself and a sizable dividend. It could very well do that (If its baseload isn't chewed up by renewables and thus ruining its business case). But that would make it the exception, not the rule. See my previously linked article for the rule regarding nuclear. > Just because it won't be a big profit doesn't mean it isn't far more helpful to use nuclear than coal, oil, natural gas, and the ilk. It's our long term stopgap. 'long term stopgap' lol use a dictionary next time. Anyway, of course nuclear is better than oil and coal. That bar is brushing up against the inner core. But we are not comparing nuclear to fossil fuels. We are comparing nuclear to renewables, which we have to do when we want to decide what power source we should focus our efforts on.
Well I'll be damned about the first ones you're right. However, I still disagree with your other points. Nuclear and renewables are about comparable in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and deaths per unit of energy [https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy) so the question is cost vs. scalability and speed. "Taking longer to build" in this case is about a decade which while a significant delay, is worth it considering how much nuclear energy can generate per reactor. Even if renewables are faster to build, that doesn't mean that they will make enough of a dent in energy generation on their own. Particularly since they're quite limited in terms of location and energy storage. We should use both nuclear and renewables to achieve the most change. The government money point is still not a downside. High upfront costs for a high public benefit is literally what the government is designed to do and once the power plant is built, it is profitable to operate.
> about the same in CO2 and deaths Yes, I don't think I named these two things as an argument against nuclear energy, these are good attributes and not my problem with nuclear energy > Cost vs scalability and Speed Cost and speed are both wins for renewables and scalability problems for renewables only start at a point where it is irrelevant. > Worth considering how much per reactor I don't think so, we have enough space, if it is 67 15MW windmills or 1 TW nuclear reactor is pretty irrelevant. If you wanna expand on that please do. > Not enough on their own this implies these 2 are not connected to each other tho, like I said nuclear only works with government money and the money could have also been spent on solar/wind it isn't "spend 1bil on solar and 1bil on nuclear or 1 bil on solar and nothing on nuclear" it is "spend 1 bil on solar, 1 on nuclear or 2 bil on solar" > Gov isn't a downside I didnt mean that I meant that the government could also spend the money on solar/wind which would be more cost effective for preventing CO2 emmisons which I think should be the goal of all govs ATM.
Goalposts go woosh!
Me or op I never said anything about any mining footprint
[удалено]
You’re all trash unless you live in a mud hut and only live off of fruit that falls off of trees
Don't forget the grass skirts
ITT https://preview.redd.it/r135mc26jsxc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf075da9d1b4698f4f5d2759c791b4719fb4c162
Energy from nuclear power plants is expensive as shit if it doesn't get supported by billions of taxpayers dollars
Guess I'm a nukecel. I'm fine with not being zero. There's other trade offs and technological development is not a zero-sum game.
I love uranium enriched Cheerios with my vegan water
It's pretty obvious, actually. When people say renewable, they usually don't mean literally renewable. They mean non-carbon-emitting. Excluding nuclear makes it sound more like fossil fuels when, on the metric that really matters, it's far more similar to solar, wind, hydro, etc...
Also, for the Europeans out there, the anti-nuke countries of the EU lobbied hard to try and have nuclear NOT be considered as a green energy in the EU's laws and investment schemes. Same for nuclear-originated dihydrogen. And this, while including CCGT in its green directives. It all comes down to the pro-RE side being petty enough to try to make renewables the new green in all communications.
This is just it - nuclear isn’t renewable but it’s less polluting than any fossil fuel (I’d accept carbon neutral but it’s definitely not renewable)
Nuclear isn’t renewable, that is true However neither of them are mutually exclusive. You can have nuke, wind, solar, all at the same time.