this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
392 points (95.0% liked)

memes

10322 readers
2160 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Template

Source - The colors of the grids represent CO2 emissions

The title is a reference to the 2021 Texas power crisis

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 135 points 4 months ago (39 children)

Just to stir up some shit: France is green because they have a lot of nuclear power. Which means a lot of energy for basically zero CO2. Germany could have been green, but opted to shutdown their nuclear facilities in what can only be described as a "hurt themselves in confusion" move.

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

To stir up some more shit, nuclear power has the same hidden emissions as lithium and the same political problems as oil, nuclear waste excluded.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Accounting for mining, construction, operation, decommission and disposal, nuclear has less emission that Solar.

The political problems are entirely artificial, fabricated by the fossil fuel competitors and have been soundly disproven.

Nuclear waste is no where near the problem people assume it is. A single plant doesn't produce more than it can store onsite during it's entire operation and 100% of all the waste can actually be recycled and ran through newer generation breeder reactors to 'burn' the radioactivity and render the resulting 'waste' safe as background radiation within a decade or so in a cooling pool. The only reason this isn't already common practice is nuclear fuel is so abundant it's not as profitable to do this, It'd be the equivalent of a coal power plant halting using coal for a few weeks so they could shovel in trash from a nearby landfill until it was empty. Less overall power output for less profit.

[–] GordonBrightfoot@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This is spot on. The economics is what really kills nuclear. The cost to build and operate a plant vs the revenue you get out of it won't break even until 25/30 years. Compare that to a natural gas plant that'll be profitable in ~5 years.

You'd think this is the kind of thing where governments would step in with subsidies, but that gets halted due to oil and gas lobbyists.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Neoliberal capitalism is bad at long-term projects. That's why we're struggling so much with climate change mitigation. A lot of the gigantic power projects that required such long-term planning were built in the New Deal era and the postwar industrial boom. During this time, corporate tax rates and workers' salaries were high because the government was genuinely afraid of worker power.

Building a modern nuclear power plant requires subcontracting it out into what is essentially a builders' market in which companies compete with each other for pieces of state-level building grants. None of these companies want to undertake risky long-term ventures like a new nuclear reactor because they want to maximize their short-term revenue (profit). So they jack up the prices until the project budget is overrunning already in the planning stage, and it's doomed from the start.

you don't even really need to subsidize it, you just need to front the cost for the plant, build it, and the produce power. Might be time for a nationalized US power company.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)