syn@yourcomputer​ #

I can accept being wrong about many of my opinions, but the exception is nuclear power.

I firmly believe that we either grow up as a species and embrace it as a pathway to fusion, or we collapse into resource wars and cease to exist as a species.

Nothing matches it in energy density.

Mar 1 at 9:18pmWeb
Show threadCassandrichMar 1
@dave This is one you're wrong on. There is no way nuclear of any sort is ever practical in a world without centralized power backed by threat of violence. We can easily meet everybody's actual needs (not their technofuturist technofascist fantasies) with solar alone, even moreso solar and wind, and do this with local production where it's going to be used, no centralized targets that need to be protected.
Show threadCassandrichMar 1
@dave Capitalism and fascism by nature expand to consume all resources to preserve scarcity. Vastly increasing the available supply of energy doesn't fix that. See: proof-of-work and now "AI". Wastes that were funded precisely to soak up the supply.
Show threadLisPiMar 1

@dave Consider: Literally just the actively misused and wasted space is enough to cover for the USA's needs in solar.

That's the scale of things.

Sure nuclear has its uses but in a lot of ways it's just not even needed?

@dalias

You are being misled about renewable energy technology.

Let's learn and grow. New things are cool!Links 'n' stuff down below. Lots of links.First, the "clean version." Please pass that around.https://youtu.be/Zgxb...

YouTube
Show threadsyn@yourcomputer​ #Mar 1

@lispi314 @dalias I don't disagree with that. If solar, wind, geo, works for you where you are, rock on my friend.

But they don't work everywhere. Nuclear does. And it can even be run at a small scale.

Show threadLisPiMar 1
@dave @dalias You completely ignored the post. There's absolutely no way you watched that sequence that fast.
Show threadsyn@yourcomputer​ #Mar 1
@lispi314 @dalias I watch his videos. I watched that video.
Show threadLisPiMar 1

@dave @dalias I see. Fair enough.

I don't think large-scale generators can be put everywhere and I'd be wary of trusting the competence (or diligence) of thousands or millions of operators not to screw up horribly on a semi-frequent basis.

The smallest-scale ones in submarines have already led to numerous passive accidents and containment losses without active sabotage or incompetence (rather the skill barrier for nuclear submarine crew is pretty high).

I'd sooner recommend "not being hated by everyone such that interconnection isn't an option" as an energy strategy, if somehow one has no renewables options.

Show threadCassandrichMar 2
@lispi314 @dave Anyone advocating for nuclear needs to explain how we're supposed to handle safety and waste, from both accidents and intentional acts to commit mass harm against populations, without the force of state violence. Otherwise it is a "solution" compatible only with fascist futures not with a future we should want (and want our descendants) to live in.
Show threadLisPiMar 2

@dalias @dave The disposal part can be relatively-simply addressed on massive sites with on-site deep geological disposal.

That's not an option at small random sites. So already this becomes a large coordinated effort (nevertheless possible without states, yes).

That also precludes the reuse of the "waste" in slightly different reactors, because that waste is most likely not truly waste but simply unfit for that particular reactor design. (Sure, contaminated PPE truly is waste, but I mostly mean the "spent" fuel which isn't really all that spent.)

(This is where the temporary-long-term storage & its safety becomes a problem.)

It also doesn't solve the incoming transport of mass reusable for harmful purpose & its security, though.

Show threadCassandrichMar 2

@lispi314 @dave I'm willing to listen if anyone has real ideas to solve these fundamental issues and is committed to a future not dependent on immensely powerful states wielding the threat of violence (i.e. not just arguing in bad faith because they care more about being 'smart' on nuclear than about opposing fascism, which is a thing I encounter A LOT).

But it seems like a huge waste of effort and excess complexity. We know how to solve all of our energy needs with solar and wind. Everywhere, possibly with trade & transmission lines where more-than-baseline levels are wanted in polar-adjacent locations, but yes everywhere.

Show threadLisPiMar 1

@dalias @dave

There is no way nuclear of any sort is ever practical in a world without centralized power backed by threat of violence.

I disagree, here's one sort: nuclear batteries.

They don't require anywhere near the same kind of extraction and do have practical application without mass violence (low power applications in offgrid sunless areas).

Besides, uranium requires some extractivism and cannot (easily) work at scale without states, but that's also with current mining options. It is pretty abundant in the sea overall.

Fusion, if one ever manages to stabilize it, has various material options that aren't particularly rare. (And some that on the contrary are absurdly rare.)

Atomic battery - Wikipedia

Show threadToby Wint_rmuteMar 1
@dave the problem is not nuclear technology, but people. Humanity can't really be trusted to do nuclear power safely. We can't even agree where to store the waste properly. Corrupt people cut corners and compromise safety. Physical and networked wars can target them.
Show threadrainynight65Mar 2

@dave Nuclear power is highly dependent on Uranium, which in significant quantities is only mined by a handful of countries, and almost half of the 2021 world production came from one single country - one that is in dangerous proximity to Russia.

The current viable world Uranium reserves are estimated to last for another 100 or so years based on current demands. If that's not a pretext for resource wars, I don't know what is.

Also, looking past that, almost all nuclear projects in history have blown out in cost and time to build. Many nuclear power plants have been decommissioned after half their projected lifespan because they weren't economically viable.

Lastly, long-term storage of nuclear waste is far from a solved problem. Last time I checked (which wasn't too long ago) there were exactly two countries in the world with designated and operational long-term nuclear waste storage: the USA, and Russia. There *may* be a third country putting a long-term storage facility into operation soon. Everyone else has sunk billions into assessing potential sites to no avail, and is carting nuclear waste around between temporary/short-term storage sites.

Show threadQuixoticgeekMar 2
@rainynight65 @dave you can recycle ~97% of the uranium in nuclear waste to make new fuel for nuclear reactors. Yes the waste is a problem, but ultimately it's an easier problem to solve when you can just dig a hole and stick it in said hole, Vs the alternative which is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere... France is a counter point on the construction stuff. Build a fleet of identical plants to get economies of scale, and don't let UK government project management anywhere near it...
Show threadrainynight65Mar 2

@quixoticgeek
That may be so, but there still isn't a nuclear power plant in France that has taken less than eight years to build. Their most recent one, Flamanville 3, took 17 years from build start to commissioning (2007-2024), and exceeded its original budget by a factor of five. The most recent French nuclear plant before that is Civaux, which took 14 years to build and commission (1988-2002). All that is excluding the time it took to plan and approve the projects.

Hinkley Point C, if completed according to latest estimates, will have taken twelve years to build. That one's budget is another matter entirely..

@dave

Show threadQuixoticgeekMar 2
@rainynight65 @dave yep. Project management is a disaster. What's the alternative that doesn't involve pumping shit tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Show threadrainynight65Mar 2
@quixoticgeek @dave Aside from Solar, Wind and Hydro, you mean?
Show threadQuixoticgeekMar 2
@rainynight65 @dave can we deploy enough of those, and the grid scale batteries. Fast enough? Hydro is very location specific, and incredibly ecologically damaging, albeit very localised. Not something we can have here in the Netherlands really. Would love to see more solar and wind tho.
Show threadrainynight65Mar 2

@quixoticgeek
Current evidence appears to suggest we can. Battery tech is evolving rapidly. A side benefit is that land used to install solar panels and wind turbines isn't lost to other purposes.

https://www.iea.org/news/massive-global-growth-of-renewables-to-2030-is-set-to-match-entire-power-capacity-of-major-economies-today-moving-world-closer-to-tripling-goal

@dave

Massive global growth of renewables to 2030 is set to match entire power capacity of major economies today, moving world closer to tripling goal - News - IEA

Massive global growth of renewables to 2030 is set to match entire power capacity of major economies today, moving world closer to tripling goal - News from the International Energy Agency

IEA
Show threadhackbyte #antifa #friendica 13HB1Mar 2

@dave I don't think so ....

In a perfect society, we could put aside all the resources that are needed to extract fuels, enrich them, build and run reactors and keep the waste secured for _millenia_ afterwards.

But in this capitalistic shithole of a civilisation?

It just doesn't work out ... there will _ALWAYS_ be someone cheaping out on something (like, diesel storage directly besides the water at fukuchima daiichi, or tungsten tips on control rods on russian RBMK reactors).

So nuclear will always be inherently to risky and to pricy for real world allday use.