this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
977 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

59132 readers
4380 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (27 children)

I’m imagining it now: basically exactly the same situation as we’re in now, except nuclear is even less cost effective than solar and wind because the price of uranium is higher, not to mention the worldwide nuclear waste issues…

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Uranium price has being multiplied by 7 in 2007, and France's electricity, which were 70-80% nuclear at the time, didn't see any increase in price. Uranium price is definitely not driving electricity price, because nuclear use so little resources and fuel, that's one of its main appeal.

And 60+ years of french nuclear produced a 15 meters-wide cube of high level waste. This is what it looks like . Does that looks like some unsolvable issue to you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You know what uses even less fuel and produces even less waste, at the same or cheaper cost, as safely or safer? Renewables.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You know what uses even less fuel and produces even less waste

That's false, solar and wind power consume considerably more resources than nuclear and therefore produce considerably more waste than nuclear power.

What's more, because of their low load factor and intermittency, they require oversized capacity, storage devices and redundancy, further increasing their footprint.

at the same or cheaper cost

Only if you don't account for oversizing the capacity, the storage and redundancy induced by the wide adoption of solar and wind power.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

CEO M Vest Energy and Norsk Kjernekraft (Norwegian Nuclear Power)

Ah yes what a trustworthy source! Very cool, thank you!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)