• evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s zero emission but not renewable.

      Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source. Even coal and oil are renewable on long enough time scales. But there will never be more uranium than there is right now.

      We actually don’t have that much of it if we consider the long term future, only a thousand years or so. So nuclear is intended to be a bridge to eventual full renewable power generation and storage, an essential component in the present day but it’s still a bridge.

      Another thing to consider is that nuclear is the only power source that works in deep space away from the Sun. So if we’re serious about exploring the solar system or further, we’d be best not to burn up all of our fissionable material right away.

          • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The production of the uranium fuel, the gigantic building itself, the transport (the fule gets shipped around the world), the storage after its depleted.

            Its definitely better than any Combustion fuels, but not at all better than actual renewables.

            • evranch@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              When considering these externalities for nuclear, you have to do the same for renewables as well. i.e. scrap turbine blades, concrete in dams, weathered PV panels, land use taken up by panels and turbines.

              Remember that the materials used in most renewable generation are also shipped around the world and many have very dirty refining processes.

              I’m a firm renewable energy supporter but you have to be fair to both processes.

              • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You neglect the problem that the stuff from a nuclear reactor is literally unusable forever and becomes Special waste while the remains of renewables are recyclable, yes even turbine blades, there is just not enough market for it to attract a business so far, that will change of course with time, also the stuff is not toxic or radioactive…

                Remember that the materials used in most renewable generation are also shipped around the world and many have very dirty refining processes.

                Depends, newer version of the stuff don’t need rare earths, or much less, meaning the dirtiest of it falls out of the equation.

                I am fair, nuclear is just not future proof for large scale usage. It also takes to long to be “effective” 10 years to build one powerplant, and is waaaay to expensive. you could build more actually renewables for less money in the same time and the electricity from it is basically free as there are almost no operational costs.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Renewables need all of that too plus they generate SHITLOADS of waste.

      • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source

        But if you go according the strict physical principle every energy source is non-renewable

        The sun fuses a finire amount of hydrogen, earth has a finire amount of latent heat, the moon a finire amount of gravitational inertia etc.

        And there’s a little paradox if you think about it, how can fusion be non-renewable but solar, that use radiation from the sun fusion, be renewable?

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it’s not. That’s just delusional. All the ideas of a sustainable uranium fuel cycle are based on non-existent technology. Uranium is a finite resource and we have nowhere near enough of it to power the world, even if you ignore all the other problems.

      • nicman24@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        there is enough U238 to last until we get there. except if you think fusion is more than 500 years away (yes, that number is out of my ass)

  • Aesthesiaphilia@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly I don’t care if it’s solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel, or nuclear, as long as it displaces fossil fuels. And it’s feasible on a very near time scale.

    If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

    We need an “all of the above” approach. This fight between nuclear and renewables is just stirred up by fossil fuel interests. Either is good. Both is good.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Sweden did an honest investigation and found that renewables would be more costly and take longer, let em get nuclear.

      Bullshit. Renewables are cheap as chips.

      Think of a traditional power plant. There are 4 main cost catagories: Construction, Maintenance, Fuel, Demolition.

      • In a traditional plant, over the life of the plant Fuel will by far be the biggest cost.

      • For renewables, Construction, Maintenance and Demolition cost more (issues such as remote locations, weather, smaller generators means more generators which increases the mean time to failure) however they have ZERO fuel cost.

      Renewable generation is profitable as fuck, moreso than nuclear. Your average wind farm pays itself off in less than 5 years.

      This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

      • nicman24@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        have you ever been in Sweden? it is a a rocky mountainous and mostly dark region. they only renewables that they can easily manage is geothermal and iirc they do not have the correct crust for it

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is a right wing government backing the interests of fossil fuels, by implementing policy that delays any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use.

        Simply incorrect and ignorant and I could leave it at that.

        But I won’t so here:

        1. Nuclear is carbon neutral

        2. The majority of Swedens energy production is still renewable and will continue to grow

        3. Nuclear is absolutely necessary for load balance

        4. Current nuclear plants are nearing their end of life and needs to be replaced

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. I’m not critising nuclear for not being green.
          2. Renewables should grow (they’re profitable), but there should be further incentivised growth to help reduce reliance on fossile fuels more quickly.
          3. Yes, nuclear is brilliant for voltage and frequency stability. Large turbines have momentum in their spinning mass, when loads are switched on and off they keep spinning the same speed. However there are other options, eg rotating stabilisers, often used on very large ships but land installations are now being made also. These can be built without the nuclear red tape.
          4. Replacing existing nuclear plants is always a decent thing to do. You skip over many of the hurdles by building on the same site under the same nuclear permits. However taking money away from renewables to pay for this is questionable at best.

          I think Sweden does have some geographical complications, along with a lackluster transmission network. These are much harder to get private investment for. However if there was a decent transmission network then there would be more utility of renewable generation in the north as well as the capability for import of energy from neighbouring countries or even export when Sweden has an excess.

          Putting my balls on the table, I reckon if Sweden put all the money they’ve got in nuclear into transmission first and then renewables, I reckon they could switch off more fossil fuels more quickly.

          • Murvel@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The points I listed are the strongest arguments to expand nuclear power which both the left and right of Riksdagen generally agrees on.

            So how this is a right wing conspiracy to further the fossil energy industry as you point out is still to me a mystery, that’s all you need to explain.

  • Aux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Finally! Some countries are starting to make rational decisions!