Due to heavy regulations to build. Purely in terms of energy production it’s one of the cheapest and most reliable.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Climate Change
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
Due to heavy regulations to build. Purely in terms of energy production it’s one of the cheapest and most reliable.
Absolutley not. Nuclear Energy is the cheapest, safest and most efficient form of energy by a considerable distance and produced low Co2.
Hydro produces more Co2 emissions the. nuclear. Geothermal takes up the land and emits more Co2. Wind & Solar don’t create enough energy to supporrt needs and require fossil fuels to make up the shortfall, leading to more Co2.
Last edited:
Rorschach
Mel Hopkins
It is not as reliable as you think, and is especially vulnerable in a warming world. I'll dig up some info on the French grid and issues they have had and are facing. Financially, new nuclear makes almost no sense now. Capitalism should sort this brick out, but 'free markets' are not a thing in the energy space.
Any new nuclear build-outs will almost be stranded assets before they come online. Battery tech is at the start of the learning curve and is already at a price point in some locales to kill off other energy sources. In the next few years, it is only going to get worse for fossils fuel. This fight is won already. Politics is the only anchor.
It is the most reliable though.
I am sure it’s not difficult to find something critical of Nuclear. Likewise it wouldn’t be difficult for me to find something that’s critical of whatever energy source you prefer. They are all in competition with one another.
But we can compare energy costs in France where they remained invested in Nuclear vs the rest of Europe and it tells us all we need to know. May not be as cheap when it stops being subsidised by other countries buying energy from them when they have their own Nuclear plants though.
It's the most expensive. It's only cheap if you don't have any regulations or decomisioning costs and are willing to pay trillions of dollars for a clean up opperation when things f up.
Lengthy licensing processes, complex safety reviews, environmental litigation, and ever-changing regulatory requirements dramatically extend construction timelines and financing costs.
Its the regulatory burden, not the physics of generating heat from uranium, that largely makes nuclear appear expensive. Once operational, nuclear plants have relatively low fuel and operating costs and produce massive amounts of steady electricity for decades, meaning the per-unit cost of actual energy production is comparatively low.
And sure if something went drastically wrong there will be costs and issues dealing with that. But that’s the same for other energy sources. How many pensioners die each year because they can’t afford to have their heating on? This is a pro renewal ones article and it has Nuclear in between wind and solar for deaths caused.
Chart: Which power sources are most deadly? Hint — not solar and wind
Fossil fuels kill far more people than renewables and nuclear — and that's just counting deaths from air pollution and accidents, not climate disasters.
www.canarymedia.com
Rorschach
Mel Hopkins
Er.... we just talked about it.
Lengthy licensing processes, complex safety reviews, environmental litigation, and ever-changing regulatory requirements dramatically extend construction timelines and financing costs.
Its the regulatory burden, not the physics of generating heat from uranium, that largely makes nuclear appear expensive. Once operational, nuclear plants have relatively low fuel and operating costs and produce massive amounts of steady electricity for decades, meaning the per-unit cost of actual energy production is comparatively low.
And sure if something went drastically wrong there will be costs and issues dealing with that. But that’s the same for other energy sources. How many pensioners die each year because they can’t afford to have their heating on? This is a pro renewal ones article and it has Nuclear in between wind and solar for deaths caused.
Chart: Which power sources are most deadly? Hint — not solar and wind
Fossil fuels kill far more people than renewables and nuclear — and that's just counting deaths from air pollution and accidents, not climate disasters.
Fukishima is estimated to cost $1trn to clean up by the time it's finished. That's why regulations are so strict.
Been hearing about improvements to renewable storage for decades. I’m sure it’s improving but I am suspicious that it’s to the level that’s advertised. In part due to being ripped of by solar on one my my rentals lol.
If thd battery power gets to where I needs to be I would be all for it. Renewables backed up by Nuclear would be ideal as well.
But at this point we can see where energy costs are lower and where they are more expensive and make a direct correlation between the source.
The way the new plants are built that wouldn’t happen today. And that’s not due to regulation it’s just tech advancements.
Bet the japanese said the problems with chernobyl wouldn't happen today due to tech advances, when they built fukishima.
Never underestimate the chances of a fudge up.
Fukishima was built 20 years before Chernobyl. The Banqiao Dam killed at least 100,000 people and there have been way more deaths attributed to hydro than Nuclear.
6 years before. My bad though thought fukishima was newer.
Commissioned in 1967 and operational in 1971. Chernobyl was in 1986.
Chernobyl was built 6 years before fukishima.
Even so at the time neither thought anything would go wrong. They both had safety measures in place. It was unforseen. As they usually are.
Ok I’m talking about the incident itself.
Sure. They also say that the battery’s for renewables are not amazing and can store enough energy to make them cost effective and be able to power modern societies.
ricky2tricky4city
Barry Daines
FTFY
In the tropics yes. We have winter in this country though. Overcast days. Power would drop to 20-30% of summer peak. At a time where we all need heating.