I am interested in hearing your opinions about nuclear power, what you know, if you have any fears, or ideas? Do you know if your country has any nuclear power generation?

  • 87Six@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It’s better, smaller, and even more eco-friendly than what is generally considered “green”.

    But it takes a very long time to get up and running, and the current world is all about the short term.

    One downside I see is that bad cunts can bomb them. Like Israel bombing the Russia-operated one in Iran.

  • Catoklysm@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I am defintely not against nuclear power and I am also not afraid of any nuclear disasters seeing how safe nuclear reactors actually are. I still prefer solar and wind power over nuclear tho because we still deal with nuclear waste and not very well imo. I would also love having fusion reactors or helium-3 fission reactors which also combats the nuclear waste problem.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The cool thing about wind and solar power generation is that you could build one in your backyard.

    For nuclear power that is seriously frowned upon.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It was worth it 30-50 years ago. But we wasted too much time fucking around.

    At this point any money spent is better spent on wind and solar.

    • jaykrown@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I’ve seen this mentality too many times. The fact is China is actively building many nuclear power plants. The idea that it’s “too late” is ridiculous. There is growing demand for nuclear power. You can have solar, wind, AND nuclear.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        With unlimited resources, yes it would make sense to keep building nuclear.

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

        But wind and solar have outpaced nuclear. You can get way more power way quicker with wind and solar than you can nuclear.

        And what we need right now is maximum speed. We don’t have time. This transition should be happening overnight, but we’re dragging our feet.

        • jaykrown@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          In reality it makes sense to keep building nuclear, the resources required to build nuclear are mostly different than building solar and wind, so you can definitely do both to increase carbon free energy rapidly. I agree we need to rapidly scale solar and wind, but we also need to be advancing nuclear power technology.

          Also solar and wind need batteries because of their variable generation, again which are different materials/knowledge than nuclear mostly.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            They may take different materials, but until we escape capitalism the only thing that will matter is the literal monetary cost.

            In a perfect world, we would be doing both side by side because of the different materials needed. But in the current world the opportunity cost exists due to monetary limits.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                We as in humanity. The majority of nations are capitalist nations, and all nations use currency, which means opportunity cost.

                Every state and power utility that is considering what to allocate their money on is going to choose the bare minimum it takes to keep the lights on. That means going the cheapest, not doing the most.

                China may have a lower opportunity cost due to the tighter control over the economy, but they’re still paying it. China is not in the perfect world situation either. They’re just sacrificing the opportunity cost.

                • jaykrown@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  I’m confused, do the Chinese not count as a part of humanity? The entire world is losing to China when it comes to nuclear power increases.

  • pilaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Nuclear energy is expensive to generate compared to its green competitors. Therefore, it’s a waste of time and money to focus on it at a time when renewable energy is currently cheaper to produce, knowing that the gap between nuclear and energy is projected to widen even more.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    I am extremely pro. Hear me out. For instance in Scandinavia, we have some of the largest uranium deposits in the world. Yet we import most of our fissile material from Australia. By boat.

    The Scandes (mountain range) happens to be one of the best places to store spent fissile material on the planet.

    We also have a highly educated workforce, and some of the best universities and colleges in the world.

    We also have regional depopulation in the areas where this would be relevant, and suffer from brain drain, because there is more money to be made abroad for the whole range of academic disciplines, so the smartest people, and a fair chunk of the lesser smart people, move abroad. Because lack of opportunities and money.

    Furthermore we are addicted to not only fossil fuels like carbon and gas, we (Europe) import most of our energy from Russia (famously). And we are making a lot of geopolitical concessions for the privilege (Nordstream springs to mind).

    My proposition is that we expand nuclear power in the nordics, massively. We mine our own uranium deposits, store the spent fuel in our own mountains (think Moria, Nords would make for great LOTR dwarves), create a massive surplus of energy, then sell it off to the rest of Europe, creating basically an energy export hegemony. The energy basket of Europe.

    We’d be fucking kings.

    Then we’d create a Nordic Union, and get nukes, but that’s a different story.

    (Just as a fun fact, Sweden had one of the worlds most advanced nuke programs after WW2. They got talked out of it bc USA)

    • jaykrown@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Reprocessing spent fuel is also a massive opportunity. But yea I am 100% in agreement with you.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Right? Let’s build world class long term storage, it’s like a parking garage, a scam old as time, just rent out space to whoever can’t or don’t wanna deal with their shit and cash that check monthly. And we can enrich and be lords, of course there are some political obstacles to say the least but what are we if we don’t dare to dream

        Maybe I’m thinking about the whole thing in a SimCity 2000 kind of way but that’s just how I was brought up.

  • BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    It would have been a good transition source of power away from fossil fuels 15 years ago with further development while we build out a renewable infrastructure. Now, best I can see it as backup for some areas of the country.

  • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    My only complaint to add to the debate is that too much of the waste discussion assumed it’s burnt fuel and not just irradiated junk shoved in barrels. At least that is what a former nuclear engineer complained to me about.

    The second I guess in the US is the weird public private deals that permiate the industry. Like who’s the inspector? Oh that’s a private company? Whos responsible for the waste? The government? Where is it stored? Oh your not sure? It was SUPPOSED to here but some of its there and some of it supposed to recycled but some supposedly can’t be. Who funded this? Who’s profiting?

    I got some very confusing answers asking people in the industry about it, and they seemed to agree it was confusing.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    It’s good and has few downsides, but I feel like we kind of missed the boat and solar is the move now.

    • jaykrown@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      There is still massive energy demand, “missed the boat” is kind of nonsensical.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        It’s not a well-reasoned feeling, I’m sure if I saw the numbers on the energy production vs cost etc., I could form a better opinion on it. As-is I will support both nuclear and solar, since they’re both clearly better than fossil fuels.

  • jaschen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    I live in Taiwan and we are actively shutting down our nuclear facilities. Now the majority of our electricity is from fossil fuels.

    I much rather work towards clean energy but at the same time only use nuclear power.

  • DeckPacker@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    They aren’t nearly as unsafe as people think they are and I think they are completely fine.

    BUT it still doesn’t make sense to build them, because renewables (especially solar) is so much cheaper, so we should focus all our energy on expanding that instead of nuclear.

    • ksh@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Nuclear is good for many reasons except it’s not good for anyone when there still is geopolitical and military instability. I don’t know much other than what can be read on Wikipedia and other popular information sources.

  • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I like the idea of nuclear power, but I think the cost is not justified as it is currently implemented.

    Now, the cost for nuclear power can come down. The Trump admin already reduced the cost for setting up nuclear power plants in the US, but that cost reduction comes with increased risk. The reason why I would be fine living near a nuclear power plant, is because the whole thing is designed and run with safety as the first priority. If you haven’t yet, check out the Smarter Everyday video Destin filmed inside a nuclear power plant. You can tell from watching the video that safety at that plant is a constantly improving process, and it comes at a cost. Extra concrete to protect the building, extra environmental studies to look for contamination, round the clock armed security… All these things make nuclear power safer, and they are all things that every investor and board member would love to cut to make some extra margin on their billion dollar power project. TBF, I don’t think the profit/rent seeking line-go-up management and political culture in the US today is condusive to running safe and reliable nuclear power, and I would much rather see our power come from lower-consequence renewables.

  • CADmonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I used to think it was the way to go for base load generation, but now I’m more excited about sodium batteries because they seem safer and cheaper.