▲ 231 ▼ Trump goes off script in UN address, praising Germany for returning to nuclear energy and fossil fuels: 'All green is all bankrupt' (fortune.com) submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world 60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] HKPiax@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago (1 child) It's just a wrong take permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago (1 child) For real. The only maybe compelling arguments are the risk of reactor meltdown and nuclear waste, but modern reactor design and safety practices make that essentially a non-issue (indeed, nuclear power is safer even than wind power, statistically), and people typically vastly overestimate the amount of waste that is produced (all of the nuclear waste from power generation that humanity has ever produced could fit on just six cargo ships with some room left over, and that ignores the fact that not all waste is equally dangerous) and it’s not like other power generation methods don’t generate pollutants and waste either, it typically just gets vented into the atmosphere. Personally, I’d rather the waste be in a form we can contain. The only actual problem with nuclear is that there isn’t enough nuclear material in the world for it to provide for all of our power generation needs, but that’s not even really a problem so much as it just means it can’t be our only solution to the problem, and nuclear is incredible for generating a stable baseline, an advantage that something like wind and solar lack. Until we crack profitable fusion, it is far and away one of our best options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago (1 child) Economics. Fission build out sucks ass. This is the one and only reason there aren't any new reactors coming online in the US. The NRC is giving out new licenses, but nobody wants to fund that shit because it's been a black hole of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago There's no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago (1 child) For real. The only maybe compelling arguments are the risk of reactor meltdown and nuclear waste, but modern reactor design and safety practices make that essentially a non-issue (indeed, nuclear power is safer even than wind power, statistically), and people typically vastly overestimate the amount of waste that is produced (all of the nuclear waste from power generation that humanity has ever produced could fit on just six cargo ships with some room left over, and that ignores the fact that not all waste is equally dangerous) and it’s not like other power generation methods don’t generate pollutants and waste either, it typically just gets vented into the atmosphere. Personally, I’d rather the waste be in a form we can contain. The only actual problem with nuclear is that there isn’t enough nuclear material in the world for it to provide for all of our power generation needs, but that’s not even really a problem so much as it just means it can’t be our only solution to the problem, and nuclear is incredible for generating a stable baseline, an advantage that something like wind and solar lack. Until we crack profitable fusion, it is far and away one of our best options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago (1 child) Economics. Fission build out sucks ass. This is the one and only reason there aren't any new reactors coming online in the US. The NRC is giving out new licenses, but nobody wants to fund that shit because it's been a black hole of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago There's no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago (1 child) Economics. Fission build out sucks ass. This is the one and only reason there aren't any new reactors coming online in the US. The NRC is giving out new licenses, but nobody wants to fund that shit because it's been a black hole of money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago There's no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) True, but I would argue that this isn’t an issue with fission power so much as an argument that it should be handled, either in part or in whole, by the government rather than the market. All kinds of things exist which are necessary for a populace which are not economically viable for private operators (fire departments, postal services, public transit, etc.), and typically the role of government in that scenario would be to step in and either make it viable through subsidy or just pay the cost outright and personally operate it (indeed, this is part of a larger argument that public utilities like power probably shouldn’t be privately owned in the first place). Nonetheless, if we’re being realistic, that is unlikely to change anytime soon, particularly in the US, so I can see the value in assessing from a perspective of optimizing for raw economic pressure, as that is likely the only way we’ll be able to get the people and organizations with significant capital on hand to align with the goal of renewable energy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago There's no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 10 months ago There's no particular reason to think that government dumping money into fission would produce a better result than dumping it into grid, solar, and wind. permalink fedilink source parent