syn@yourcomputer​ #Mar 1

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.

Show threadrainynight65

@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.

Mar 2 at 2:09amWeb
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