this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
-1 points (45.5% liked)

Science Memes

17710 readers
2105 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NONE_dc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, you see, the "Anti Magic Rock" Lobby has immense amount of power because of the money of the still lucrative "burning stuff and pollute everything" business.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

It's the "Burning other magic rocks" party.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nuclear isn’t in competition with fossil fuels, it’s in competition with renewables. Renewables are better than nuclear by pretty much every conceivable metric. So fuck nuclear power, it’s a waste of money and time.

[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you sure renewables don't require more extracted resources and more land usage per quantity of energy produced?

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] oce@jlai.lu 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You may be incorrect

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Fact: that is a fake statement.

Nuclear is not renewables competition.

Nuclear provides a base line energy production.

Both renewables and fossils produce a variable production line.

So within a rational production scheme the choice is nuclear+renewables or fossils+renewables. As renewables by themselves cannot work. Because there is months over the year when it's not sunny, not rainy and not windy enough, what do we do for those months? We close humanity during those months because some political dogma says so?

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Burning down your house doesn't poison people thousands of years later, so it's not a perfect analogy.

Plus we have magic mirrors and magic fans that do the same thing as the magic rocks just way cheaper.

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We had magic mirrors and magic fans for centuries tho.

Yet we decided to release way more poison and even way more radiation by mining and burning fossil fuels. We just poison larger areas than any nuclear disasters. And with fossil fuels people actually get cancer, and with toxic byproducts, mutations and birth defects.

People in polluted areas die sooner. Except around nuclear disasters sights - the air gets cleaner once all the people are thrown out.

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?

[–] mEEGal@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

only antimatter could provide more energy density, it's insanely powerful.

produces amounts of waste orders of magnitude lower than any other means of energy production

reliable when done well

it shouldn't be replaced with renewables, but work with them

[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, but energy density doesn't matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.

[–] Remotedeck@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago

If something is Nuclear enough it can generate heat, its just the reactors make use of an actual reaction that nuclear waste can't do anymore. Yever watch the Martian, he has a generator that's fuel is lead covered beads of radioactive material, it doesn't generate as much as reactors but it's still a usable amount.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a huge lobby of pro-nuclear think tanks who try to astroturf pro-nuclear shit onto social media. We, scientifically literate, rational people, need to counteract these harmful narratives with some facts.

FACT: Renewable sources of energy are as cheap or cheaper per kwh than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables are faster to provision than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables are as clean, or cleaner, than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables are much more flexible and responsive to energy fluctuations than nuclear.

FACT: Renewables will only get cheaper. Nuclear will only get more expensive, because uranium mining will get harder and harder as we deplete easily accessible sources.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't actually need to mine more uranium though. You can run certain nuclear designs on Thorium, Plutonium from weapon stocks, or even waste from other reactors. Current generation nuclear designs are laughably inefficient at using the nuclear fuels we have available, and I fully understand why people don't support them.

Realistically though I don't ever expect nuclear fission to be as cheap as renewables in most areas. In some places nuclear or another power source is always going to be needed though just because renewables are not practical in certain conditions.

In the long term the answer is almost certainly going to be nuclear fusion or another future power source like neutrino voltaic. Solar and wind power are ultimately just offshoots of fusion, and so is fission if you think about where uranium, thorium and so on come from. In fact all power we know of seems to come from either gravity or some kind of nuclear reaction (inc. geothermal and fossil fuels).

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Notice how pro-nuclear people always point towards a bunch of fictional technology as the solution? Oh, we just need fusion, or breeder reactors, or a bunch of other shit that doesn’t exist. No, bro, we just need to build renewables and proper energy grids. It’s really not that complicated. If it’s not sunny where you live, then you just get electricity from where it is sunny. It’s really really simple

Nuclear energy is a solution looking for a problem. Total tech bro bullshit. Like crypto.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If it’s not sunny where you live, then you just get electricity from where it is sunny. It’s really really simple

Yeah, really, really simple. Wait, what are transmission losses?

[–] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anon is dumb. Anon forgets the nuclear waste. Anon also forgets that the plants for the magical rocks are extremely expensive. So much that energy won by these rocks is more expensive than wind energy and any other renewable.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anon isn't dumb, just simple. Nuclear energy can be the best solution for certain situations. While renewables are the better choice in every way, they're effectiveness isn't equally distributed. There are places where there just isn't enough available renewable energy sources year round to supply the people living there. When energy storage and transmission methods are also not up to the task, nuclear becomes the best answer. It shouldn't be the first answer people look to but it is an answer. An expensive answer but sometimes the best one.

Also nuclear waste doesn't have to be a problem. If anyone was willing to cover the cost of burning it in a breeder reactor for power or burry it forever. It just is because it's expensive.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When energy storage and transmission methods are also not up to the task, nuclear becomes the best answer.

Obviously, the best answer is to improve energy storage and transmission infrastructure. Why would we waste hundreds of millions on a stupid toy power plant when we could spend 10% of that money on just running decent underground cables.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You really don't understand how expensive underground cables are. You know those big, huge steel transmission towers that you see lined up, hundreds in a row?

Those towers costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars each. And the reason they're used is because that's way cheaper than underground.

Shit - just the cable is a couple million per mile per cable.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you fucking serious? Nuclear power plants cost way fucking more than some cables. You people are fundamentally so unserious. Pull your head out of a reactor for ten seconds and take reality as it exists

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes. They cost more than some cables. But we aren't talking about wiring a stereo.

A new nuclear unit (4 billion-ish) costs about as much as 2,000 miles of transmission-grade cable (about 2 million per mile). Considering that there's about 30 cables on a tower run, you're looking at around 65 miles' worth of cable for the cost of a nuclear unit.

And that's just the cost of the wire. No towers, no conduit, no substations, no land acquisition (aerial easement and underground are very different things), no labor.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because superconductors are even more expensive than breeder reactors.

[–] drake@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and breeder reactors are more expensive than faerie magic, I prefer to use technologies that are actually real rather than things I wish were real

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I prefer to use technologies that are actually real rather than things I wish were real

Wake up, 80-ies were 40 years ago!

USSR figured it out long time ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600_reactor

[–] Teppichbrand@feddit.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

1000005010. Don't feed the troll 💩

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As long as you don't care when the electricity is produced

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Storage is a solvable problem. Whereas we don't have the resources to power the world with nuclear plants.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Storage is a solvable problem

I'm not convinced it is. Storage technologies exist for sure, but the general public seems to grossly underestimate the scale of storage required to match grid demand and renewables only production.