1194
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2026
1194 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
89424 readers
4002 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Averaging nuclear over the entire world really doesn't give it a fair shake, since there are many jurisdictions that won't build nuclear capacity for political and societal-preference reasons, rather than technical ones. Where I am, the percentage of electricity supplied by nuclear power plants is more than five times what's supplied by solar and wind combined, and we're doing just fine (and building out more nuclear in addition to more renewables).
In UK in 2010, 10 new nuclear plants were announced. Since then 5 older plants have been shut leaving us with 5 active. 1 of the 10 new ones started construction and it's massively over budget and delayed.
In the same time we've added about 20GW of solar.
New nuclear plants take like 10 years to build, and need to plan out a 50+ year useful life in order to be worth the up-front construction costs.
I wonder what the state of energy production in 2075 will be, where a nuclear power plant designed in 2025 and completed in 2035 will still have 10 years in order to break even on cost, competing with whatever the state of the art is on generation in 2075. Fusion? Widespread solar+wind+geothermal+batteries? Something we haven't even dreamed of?
That's why I'm skeptical of nuclear fission these days. It locks us in too long.
I'm all in on solar for most places.
Sure it uses a bit more land, but it makes no noise, no pollution, there's zero risk of an accident, no targets for terrorism and your grid isn't completely shut down if it is somehow turned offline.
You don't depend on others for your own resilience. No need for oil, gas or uranium.
Unless you live in the high northern latitudes, there is almost no reason to not be building a durable and resilient battery-renewable grid
btw the reason why denmark and germany are building so many wind turbines is mostly because they're so far north.
Solar should be in every parking lot and the median of every highway as the baseline, already space we've developed and can (more) easily add to.
Nuclear is slow. Solar is fast.
Modular reactors are fast. Ontario will have three online in 2 years.
You can have a solar panel up and running in like an hour.
Solar is still faster
Solar is fast and getting better continuously. The new battery technologies like Sodium Ion are eliminating the downsides to it. We just need a big battery shack on every block with safe sodium battery storage and solar panels on all the house roofs.
Nuclear has been slow, for a variety of reasons, but that is about to change.
SMR
Solar is fast now. We need fast now.
You're not wrong, but it was slow for a good reason.
Solar and wind don't render entire regions uninhabitable when something goes wrong.
Solar and wind alone can't run a grid unless there is a significant amount of battery storage.
Okay? That doesn't have anything to do with the issue.
Sorry if this is an uninformed question, but can't we just pump infinity liters of water uphill?
Sure if you have the infrastructure and topography to do so. But this adds to the cost.
The problem is everyone always compares solar alone to nuclear in this comparison it looks really good. However when you include the cost of storage, it doesn't look as good.
The analyses I've seen suggest that we will need to build at least some nuclear to achieve the fastest and cheapest decarbonization.
Its possible to build reactors that don't fail spectacularly. Just look at penslyvania with the three mile island nuclear plant or hell you could even look at fukushima. People still live around those locations.
edit: Build out more solar too because that is a great way to generate power but don't snub other things just because they aren't "perfect" from your perspective.
I think the main advantage is how much easier and cheaper solar is than nuclear. Also apparently nuclear will have diminishing returns as the earth warms up, due to cooling issues.
Also with things like balcony solar, you can easily get a distributed power network.
That being said, nuclear is also great. Especially the newer powerplants behind produce very little waste material.
Most jurisdictions aren't allowed to build nuclear, for nonproliferation reasons. That's because nuclear technology can be used for nefarious purposes, and requires a highly functioning security apparatus in order to enforce safety requirements. So as a society we've tried to keep it out of the hands of those that the great powers have decided can't be trusted with the tech.
Which then raises the uncomfortable question of whether we should trust ourselves, the current great powers, with this technology? If we plan out a 50-year useful life for a power plant, do we trust that the governments and companies operating that plant (and its supply chains and its waste management) will still be doing things safely in 50 years?
These days, I'm less sure.