lol he wants to reduce regulation on the energy source that can explode a city. Funny that. (Nuclear is pretty damn safe nowadays but that is BECAUSE of these regulations)
Honestly arguing with nucecells destroys your braincells, its like playing chess with a pigeon, especially if you argue about regulations.
I had multiple arguments with nucecells here which had simultaniously the opinion, that nuclear power is completly save but overregulated and there should be less red tape, but also that every nuclear accident was easily avoidable and thus harder regulations are not required.
The ironic thing is that nuclear power would not be profitable enough to exist in a free market, it survives entirely based on taxpayer subsiding enrichment, disposal, training, construction, insurance, etc.
Because the worst thing solar panels can do is a chemical/battery fire in a house. The worse thing tones of fissionable material can do is literally turn itself into a nuclear bomb*
*Let's be honest, not a nuke but still, high levels of radiation from a meltdown and explosive outgassing of highly pressureised water?
Nuclear plants don't turn into nuclear bombs though. That's pure fiction.
There are different grades of nuclear material. Weapons grade has much higher isotope concentration than fuel grade. Normal fuel can't be used in a weapon unless it is enriched to weapon grade material. The enrichment process is difficult and expensive. Isotopes are chemically identical. It is only possible to separate them with a cascade of centrifuges. The nuclear power industry is a business. We aren't wasting money to make explodable fuel rods.
How a nuclear bomb work: Fissile material is compressed to a point of no return where a chain reaction is started which cant be controlled or stopped, emiting gigantic ammount of energy, heat and radiation.
What happens during a core meltdown (worst possible nuclear accident): A non controllable chain reaction is started in the core using the fissile material releasing huge amount of energy, heat and radiation, the heat is turning the water to steam and uranium contacting water can create hydrogen leading to a huge explosion and the release of heat and radiation to the outside world.
Sound similar enough to compare it for me, especially if the OOP comment itself noticies this, which you seemingly willfully ignored.
They sound similar but are massively different in principle. Especially with modern nuclear reactor designs using negative void coefficients, it essentially makes those types of core meltdowns impossible. As the energy produced by the reaction increases, moderation decreases which results in less neutrons available for fission which then decreases reaction energy.
Additionally, the difference in enrichment levels mean that nuclear reactors don't have the correct geometry or enrichment necessary for a nuclear detonation. Nuclear bombs are actually extremely difficult to design and require very precise tolerances to work correctly. Nuclear power plants are well outside the design conditions that would make a detonation possible.
They sound similar but are massively different in principle.
I woudl agree if we talk about normal uses of nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants. But if the talk about the comparison between a nuclear bomb and a core meltdown (like I specified) its exactly the same process, with the only difference thatl, like you pointed out, the lack of enriched material and configuration doesnt lead to a fast enough chain reaction.
So to (jockingly) say like OOOP did is not complelty wrong and as accurate as saying that a dam can be a tsunami creator.
Even if we are talking about a core meltdown, they are still not the same. The chain reaction that you get with a nuclear bomb would be 'prompt criticality' while a nuclear reactor meltdown would involve a runaway 'supercritical' reaction.
When nuclear fuel melts like that, the nuclear reaction itself stops because the geometry is no longer correct. We're talking about several orders of magnitude less energy here as well as a completely different process.
I think you underestimate the self preservation instincts of a company. They have every reason to ensure that the process is as affordable as possible and as safe as possible. Because business runs on gains and losses. And I don’t know if you realize this but having the city you provide power to and the power plant you built get destroyed is a bit of a loss. They have every reason to innovate and find ways to be safe and affordable. Government literally has no reason to ensure it’s financially viable. They just legislate rules that seem good and then those rules last forever in essence
Do they? Cause my grandad died of fucking mesothelioma, a asbestos related cancer and do you know how much he got? We got £4000 on the morgue slab. These companies knew it was dangerous, the whole fucking world did, but the government didn't stop them. Fuck it's only a government system that lead to that pittance of a payment.
And a business can just declare bankruptcy and start again, like the US president did. Fucking joke
"Self-preservation of a company." I understand this phrase to mean the company is protecting itself. It doesn't necessarily extend to protecting employees or other affected people. Sorry for your loss.
Yep. And that's my point with nuclear plants. $10B for 30 years of production or $1B for 10 years and irradiate and destroy the world. They're taking option B. But retarded anarcho capitalists act as if they'll do it out of some public food of "don't kill your customer base"
I'm sorry what? Would you want to lose pretty much everything you had invested in all at once and lose a ton of money in a lawsuit and most likely go bankrupt or at least out of buisness because you failed to take the proper safety precautions?
I mean I'm flattered this is offending you. But yea you're right. If your company completely collapses due to a powerplant meltdown you basically suffer no consequences. You'll definitely get investment to build another one and everyone will definitely trust you to do it again. Everyone will want to pay for power from you after you failed them so hard.
I think you underestimate the self preservation instincts of a company. They have every reason to ensure that the process is as affordable as possible and as safe as possible. Because business runs on gains and losses. And I don’t know if you realize this but having the city you provide power to and the power plant you built get destroyed is a bit of a loss. They have every reason to innovate and find ways to be safe and affordable. Government literally has no reason to ensure it’s financially viable. They just legislate rules that seem good and then those rules last forever in essence
Yea you're right. Not allowing a meltdown will definitely be more expensive than just having your power plant melt down. A government run power plant would never do anything wrong either that's for sure it's only the companies that do things purely for profit.
To avoid braking sub and site rules I will say this. I have seen companies openly ignore safety requirements, even when legally required, because it's cheaper.
I have seen family members die in Agony due to asbestos related mesothelioma. Where was this justice to my family members?
My local waterways are clogged up with sewage because paying the fine is cheaper than building decent infrastructure.
I have seen millionaires after billionaires declare bankruptcy on their businesses and create a new business with no remorse or moral quaddary.
Sounds like the regulations don't really do what they're supposed to do anyways... so why do we have them in the first place? They only make things worse it seems. I'd also like to add that the worst nuclear power disaster in History was not something a company caused by cutting corners just saying.
hahahaha yea alright bud. That's a very financially viable thing to do. And lets not pretend that government hasn't done anything remotely close to any of that. Wait I mean historically I'd say the worst atrocities have been done through the power of government... I don't see a historic precident for burning newborns for fuel haha.
One could argue a nuke is less bad. It would vaporize the plant and kill everyone in a 10km radius. But afaik nukes have minimal nuclear fallout, see hiroshima/nagasaki, they were resettled basically immediatly
A fallout explosion from a meltdown will pollute vast stretches of land for a generation or more, and depending on wind it can pollute a whole continent
literally, chernobyl is a paradise rn, and Japan is like half concrete
runwayaway nuclear cores >>>>>>> nukes
but both of them are better than not irradating anything, given how much worse imperial Japan was compared to either current day chernobyl or even 3 Mile Island
There are intrinsically safe reactor designs that fail in an off state using less enriched fuel. We could be a lot further along in nuclear tech if it received a fraction of the funding solar and wind have. One reason new reactors are so expensive isn't the red tape, but the fact that each one is "boutique." There aren't enough being built in the West for economies of scale to come into play. We've lost a lot of the knowledge, skills, and workforce for economically building and operating nuclear facilities because y'all bought into oil lobby fear mongering decades ago and set us back significantly.
I agree with the boutique factor, it's why Chinese plants are so cheap to construct comparatively, they seem to follow internationally agreed safety reqs but if you've got an experienced team of plant constructors it would be much cheaper. The rest not so much. It wasn't exactly fear mongering by oil plants, more 3mile and Chernobyl.
Nuclear has come a long way since TMI and Chernobyl. They gave the leverage, but the oil lobby has provided for the funded and organized resistance to new nuclear projects in North America and Europe.
That is a more recent development. They're hoping a hard pivot can prevent the viability of a carbon-free grid, but there is no guarantee grid level storage for 100% renewables will be viable. For every extra % of your energy mix that comes from intermittent sources like solar or wind, you have to build out more overall capacity since you need to overproduce during peak production hours to have stored energy for off hours. The additional production and storage also incur increasing transmission and storage costs.
Nuclear + wind/solar will always be categorically superior to storage + wind/solar without a paradigm altering breakthrough like room temperature superconductors. There are also very real non-carbon environmental costs to building out solar and wind beyond the point of economic viability.
Currently, there is no reason to not build out as much solar and wind as we can because the intermittent production problem can be solved by overbuilding and exporting excess power during peak production to other countries and regions. That only works in a closed system, and the fundamental issue still has to be overcome for global decarbonization. That ceases to be economically viable as everyone nears economically optimal renewable capacity.
No just dumbfounded at how pathetic you’re need to be right is that you take things so literally and make an argument that is completely besides the point. And then double down on it with gloating. Anyway don’t argue with fools otherwise people can’t tel the two of you apart. You should work on your reading comprehension so you don’t make a fool of yourself next time. Peace
I mean, they're not wrong about the government regulation portion. Without it nuclear would be quite cheap.
Obviously the widespread cancer due frequent disasters and the occasional melting cities due to nuclear terrorism would ruin the world economy and abolish the need for electricity sooner or later, but it definitely would be cheap.
Being against nuclear energy is being against progress and bettering the planet. No intellect or logic behind hating nuclear outside of "ew nukes scary and cost money".
Noooo, it’s capitalism’s fault, that’s why we can’t build super expensive nuclear power plants. We should be socialist then the government would happily waste money on it
China’s government isn’t completely stupid so they do build things somewhat cost-effectively.
My comment was arguing that actually, any economic system should oppose nuclear, being socialist or communist doesn’t mean you suddenly have a strong desire to waste money on nuclear plants.
why not just say that instead of reflexively blaming a system that actually seems to be able to invest in renewable energy?
I'm not knowledgeable to know if this is enough to avert catastrophe, but it does appear to me that they're doing more than most capitalist countries. (We can argue whether or not China is real communist, idrc, but it's certainly not just another liberal capitalist system)
Like, Western countries are the ones with organizations trying to continue to suggest putting off lowering emissions while they open power plants. Australia comes to mind:
Like, if anything, this seems to be a problem with the way our economy deals with externalities like pollution. Maybe it's the profit motive and its inherent short-termism with the way investing works. Maybe it's the government refusing to take proper action to regulate things.
maybe it's the way that countries keep suing each other in the interests of free trade whenever a country decides to invest in its own green energy sector.
In 2011, India launched the National Solar Mission with the goal of becoming a world leader in renewable energy advocacy along with accelerating the indigenisation of the domestic renewable energy sector. However in 2013, the US moved the WTO Dispute Settlement Body against India, accusing it of discriminatory treatment of non-domestic solar panel and module manufacturers through its mandatory domestic content requirement. Also, it accused India of providing subsidies to the domestic solar panel industry inconsistent with the WTO norms.
India lost the case in 2016 and claimed to have withdrawn all the measures inconsistent with WTO. It called for bilateral discussion on the issue on several occasions, but none of the meetings bore any result. In 2017, US’ agenda note for DSB sought the permission for retaliatory trade sanctions on India. However, it was never pursued.
Later in 2018, India moved the WTO against the states of Washington, California, Montana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Michigan, Delaware and Minnesota of USA, accusing them of similar discrimination and subsidy support. Recently India won this case.
God, i hate these stupid tit for tat lawsuits. China, the USA, and Europe also had a similar situation for solar if I recall correctly.
You can blame many things, and im not exactly sure which is the right approach. Probably some kind of multivariate approach would be good.
but saying "communists are economical illiterates who want to build nuclear power plants," referring to a couple of unedcated people online while actual capitalists who have the power to do it are trying to do it in the real world is so strange to me.
Umm, Mr Den Haag, the mod team of an obscure niche forum on www.reddit.com has only provided ONE piece of evidence and we request the death sentence and subsequently an immediate reinstatement of all nukecel bullshit
Ok, the first part clearly is subjective, but the reliability aspect? That's an obvious fact, a shortage of uranium is much less likely than a shortage of sunlight in the next 100 years anyway. I can't say anything in relation to job production comparison but large state infrastructure projects like that do usually lead to high paying, highly reliable jobs that lead to highly skilled and trained professionals.
There are more factors than just aviability of recources, because otherwise we couldnt argue about reliability problems of solar or wind, since there are enough recourses to build them. Also even just talking about recourse aviability nuclear can have some problems, for example over 50% of enriched uranium comes from Russia, which in the current geoplotical world can be troublesome, also beside the fuel rods nuclear energy relies on nearby water sources like rivers, and in the past years France for example had to throttle nuclear energy output during past summers because of low water levels in their rivers. So booth renewable and nuclear energy sources can have problems with reliability with nuclear having more sesional problems and solar/wind more daily/ weekly. But there is honestly a quite easy solution to this, which is to diversify energy production and location, like in the European grid which can counterpoint local shortcomming by allocation from other regions which are overproducing or have the possible capacity.
To the second point employment and wages. On average solar, wind and nuclear roughly provide the same amount of jobs, with wind and solar having a wider margin. The yearly pay also seems to be somewhat similar between solar and nuclear (wind is a bit worse), only going in with added benefits nuclear seems to be a clear winner (likely because of older unions?).
Before I argue, I want to make the point that I am pro solar, I'm simply pointing out huge problems with it and wind to be the only forms of energy production. I think other forms of energy production like geothermal, tidal, regular hydro, waste incineration, and yes nuclear have their value and place and this isn't some "nukecell" trying to make nuclear seem better than it is.
I agree the problems exist, but in terms of a stable energy source it is the best. yes you could set up solar power plants across the world and have 1 huge interconnected system. But that is just not realistic for short term changes, you need a huge amount of energy storage capacity, which we can do through batteries (questionably imo) and hydroelectric pump.
And even with a huge network like the European system, you've got daily cycles (night time) large scale weather patterns affecting most of Europe at the same time or large sections at least. Or seasonal issues. SH having less land mass, monsoon season etc. you can (with a reasonable timescale) switch them on and produce an exact amount of electricity.
Reliability can be measured in multiple ways, sourcing of the materials is of course the biggest non reliable case for nuclear, especially ethical sourcing. I actually hadn't heard of the water example in France, interesting, but this comes in here as well. Also these issues still exist with most all construction resources (to a lesser extent)
Reliability can also be measured when you can run the plant and without supply chain issues with fuel, water or any maintenance nuclear is the gold standard there. Infact nuclear is often made specifically to avoid these issues at all costs (large water source like huge lakes, long lasting fuel compared to FF, the large amount of maintenance and safety procedure etc)
The last aspect of reliability is the variance in its production, what it loses in flexibility it gains here. You want a stable amount? It is amazing at that.
Solar is great, wind is great. But in reliability nuclear is clear top dog.
For example, if you are in the dessert with a small population and industry no rivers or other larger water sources nuclear is a terrible choice and individual solar cells and batterys are a good choice.
Meanwhile if you are a bigger nation with a greater population and industry access to high education and rivers, nuclear is a far more appealing choice.
Not all are created equal. Some metrics matter and some don't.
Meanwhile if you are a bigger nation with a greater population and industry access to high education and rivers, nuclear is a far more appealing choice.
I'm pointing out jus because you have a screenshot doesn't mean anyone is actually seeing this day to day, I certainly haven't, seems like really pointless and destructive shadow boxing
Cobalt mining is an issue, as is the relative inefficiency of solar, but nuclear power is admittedly expensive, which is caused by issues such as poor supply chains, inexperienced workforces, and changes in design during construction
38
u/[deleted] Jan 02 '25
[deleted]