The big problem with nuclear power (other than the disposal of nuclear waste) is the time and money it takes to build the damn reactors. Even if they decided to build one right now it would still be decade or more before they were producing power (taking into account the planing and approval process). In that time you could have constructed several alternative energy farms, battery storage and distribution infrastructure. In addition, several generations of solar, wind and storage technology will have occurred potentially making nuclear power even more unattractive.
this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2023
12 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
58150 readers
5848 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sweden has several power plants that are not running because the previous government tried 100% renewable energy and failed and ended up having to buy electricity from Eastern Europe to supply the country’s needs several years in a row. The electricity purchased was from coal, far worse for the environment than nuclear.
You can’t turn off reactors in a country before your production of renewable energy is sufficient for the country’s needs, but this is what has happened in Sweden looking back four years or so, and with every reactor shutdown more electricity from abroad has been required.
The current government is not talking about building new reactors, they are planning on opening up the reactors that the previous one closed down to make way for what they (previous government) failed to provide its citizens. Closing down before building is NOT the way to go.
Good. Hopefully nuclear fission will buy us enough time to get nuclear fusion working and energy will be a problem of the past.
We have several private companies pursuing fusion now (such as Tokamak Energy) so hopefully one of them will pull a SpaceX and break the stagnation. STEP and ITER look promising in any case.
Wow. That would suck. Especially as noone has any solution for the problem of safely storing radioactive waste. Running nuclear power plants makes us create a problem many generations after us have to deal with.
Sweden tried and failed running 100% renewable energy and ended up threatening blackouts the last few winters, asking people not to hoover and to stop wasting electricity. In the end fossil energy from Germany and Eastern Europe was bought.
At the current rate we’re not leaving our future generations much either, and as it stands Sweden can’t produce 100% renewable energy which is a problem we need to solve before we shut down the Swedish power plants. Nuclear might not be the best alternative, but it’s way better than fossil.
Nuclear waste remains a problem largely for political reasons. The engineers know how to deal with it: You can burn it to make more power. Fully burned nuclear fuel stays dangerously radioactive for a couple hundred years. It's no harder to deal with than any other moderately obnoxious industrial waste.
One of the ways the anti-nuclear movement really screwed us was by freezing most nuclear technology development in the 1980's. The so called Gen IV Reactor designs are mostly design ideas that had been proposed by 1990 and some still haven't even had a demonstration plant built even though most of them largely avoid both the major safety and waste issues that are the major complaints against nuclear.