I don’t get it. Current nuclear power solutions take longer to set up, have an effectively permanently harmful byproduct, have the (relatively small) potential to catastrophically fail, almost always depend on an abundant supply of fresh water, and are really expensive to build, maintain and decommission.

If someone ever comes up with a functional fusion reactor, I could see the allure; in all other cases, a mix of wind, wave, geothermal, hydro and solar, alongside energy storage solutions, will continually outperform fission.

I suspect that the reason some countries like nuclear energy is that it also puts them in a position of nuclear power on the political stage.

[–] zigmus64@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (30 children)

In what universe do those other power generation methods even come close to nuclear power?

It would take about 800 wind turbines or 8.5 million solar panels to replace the power output of one nuclear reactor.

And the fissile material can be reprocessed after it’s been spent. Like 90% of the spent fuel can be reprocessed and reused, but the Carter administration banned nuclear waste recycling in the US for fears it would hasten nuclear proliferation.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel

Wind, hydro, solar, and geothermal are all great. Anything is better than coal or gas power generation. But to say these green power generation methods come close to nuclear… not a chance.

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

The performance of nuclear power must be calculated in relation to its cost and risk. And here renewable energy is more than competitive.

[–] joe_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I concur. Nuclear has had seventy years to compete. Renewable is cheaper and has nowhere near the political hurdles of nuclear.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (28 replies)

load more comments (40 replies)