this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
968 points (97.5% liked)

WTF

791 readers
1 users here now

The average c/WTF enjoyer

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 45 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I would love to learn about the mortal danger solar panels put me in

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 36 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don't know about solar but I know nuclear at least used to be statistically safer than wind per MW just due to injuries during construction. Gotta remember, it takes a lot of solar or wind to make the same amount of power as a nuclear plant and that means a lot of construction work. But I also haven't seeen those stats for a while so it may have changed.

Nuclear is very safe assuming you don't build the plant in a tsunami prone area which also happens to be practically on top of 4 different fault lines.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I was bullish on nuclear for a while but having looked at how expensive it is to build out I don’t think it really makes much sense anymore

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

It really depends on the location and situation. With the new generations of reactors they can also do things like seawater desalination with the waste heat alongside power production. You also have situations where the nuclear waste heat is used to heat entire communities far more efficiently than could be done with electricity. There are also many places where solar and wind just aren't practical for various reasons. In those areas nuclear may be a good option for base load power. Nuclear is also still far less environmentally destructive than hydro.

Yes, nuclear power plants are henoiusly expensive and there are definitely areas that they shouldn't be built, but they do still serve a purpose in certain areas. Most of the flack nuclear gets is just because most of our reactor fleet was built durring the cold war. New technologies can acheive far more with nuclear power far more safely and cost effectively than those old reactors.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What about the conversion of coal fired power plants to nuclear ones? I've seen that proposed quite a bit.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't only the turbines and cooling tower be reusable? I thought the hard part was the reactor itself.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Even then I don't imagine it would be easy. Anything in a nuclear plant needs to be built to an extremely exacting standard that I'm pretty sure old coal powerplant components wouldn't be. I can't see how you could convert a coal plant into a nuclear plant without having to completely rebuild everything.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

The problem with reusing coal turbines isn't that they couldn't work, but that you would have to engineer everything backwards from the turbines to the reactor. You COULD do that, but really, you should be engineering to what the current projections for the power needs to be, not the projected power needs from when the coal plant was built.

Maybe reusing the coal plant site makes sense, but only if the coal plant was already taken offline, which to be fair, a lot of plants are being taken offline.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

From the little I know it's a pipe dream. Just completely different scales.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Most of the cost is regulatory, and for good reason. I’d like to think that the new small modular reactors will allow us to reduce cost but it’ll take a lot longer than we have available to us.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Two things could remove much of the expense and increase safety:

1- remove lawsuits and NIMBYism to overcome. That's where a lot of the cost and delay comes from when building these, so if millions didn't have to be spent on lawsuits just to get the goahead to begin construction it'd cut the cost massively.

2- remove profit from the equation. Without profit motive, the incentives that encourage discarding safety in favor of profit go way down.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Here’s the argument. The byline every conservative I’ve talked to falls back on is “there’s no way to recycle the materials and they don’t last that long”. “Where’s my recycling?” “Same with wind turbine blades”.

You start to notice the repetition of the same statements across republicans when you talk to any number of them.

The repetition is a bit creepy, but this is how conservative talk radio works. They are fantastic at mobilizing their peeps and this is part of how they do it.

[–] Fosheze@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

I don't know about solar panels but fiberglass wind turbine blades are kinda recyclable. Fiberglass can be ground up and mixed into concrete to vastly improve the strength of that concrete.

[–] troglodytis@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yep. From people who also say recycling is a scam

[–] Kalysta@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago