1432
Just saying
(thelemmy.club)
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 18 Feb 2026
1432 points (98.3% liked)
memes
20171 readers
1261 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why not nuclear?
You can double check it but I think solar is cheaper now. I was shocked as well, I thought nuclear was the cheapest still.
But solar is unreliable. Night day, snow cover, dust cover. It also has to be local and supplemented by other sources
Which is why you add storage and wind to the mix. Overproduce energy when it's available and store the leftovers for when you under-produce.
At this point, saying Solar doesn't work at night is kind of like saying cars don't work without wheels. No one is getting solar without storage, just like no one is driving a car without wheels.
Energy production being local is a benefit.
Just like the fediverse being unaffected by some servers going down. Deliberately or accidentally, doesn't matter, the rest will keep up.
Smaller production is also easier to scale up. You can erect a solar farm in a month or shorter, while a nuclear power plant takes a decade to build.
Batteries.
Batteries plus solar is still cheaper than all other power systems. It's remarkable but true.
Several of my friends live in states with energy provider choice. Buying from the 100% green power providers is more expensive. Natural gas is extremely cheap after all.
Yep, the unreliability is exactly why buying from 100% green energy providers is more expensive than buying from natural gas providers. Batteries are extremely expensive, natural gas is cheap.
Source: Several of my friends live in states with energy provider choice; the green providers cost more.
Why do you think solar has to be local?
There was a time when investing deeper into nuclear would have made a lot more sense. That moment has passed, though. The economics are not on the side of nuclear and the numbers are getting worse by the day - nuclear is getting more expensive over time while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.
It's basically impossible to get any nuclear built without heavy subsidization because of how poorly they function economically, not to mention how impossible it is to buy insurance for such a venture. This is not inherently bad, but it does definitely displace other areas we could be subsidizing instead. I would be in favour of this if nuclear didn't have a completely natural replacement in renewables and batteries.
Only in us I think.
Most expensive way of heating water
Russia is doing it and their electricity costs are cheapest on the planet
Yep, France has cheaper energy than Germany. France went nuclear, Germany went solar/wind (and even had to re-online some coal plants due to shortages).
The pushback on nuclear from anti-fossil advocates never ceases to amaze me.
France is heavily subsiding nuclear power.
Without it, it would be the most expensive one.
I am all in for nuclear power, as long as it is waaaaay cheaper than it is right now.
Even buying the uranium is today more expensive than building a solar plant. (compared to resources per power generation)
Additionally, why it is stupid to build new nuclear plants (keep the old ones as long as the maintenance is not too high).
If you now decide you need 1 GW in 10 years Then you can plan your nuclear power plant and start to build it. However as we know it will now take 30 years to build it and costs 10 times as much, while your demand is now 4 GW.
Also what do you do in the meantime? Hope that the power is enough for 10 years?
Nuclear is expensive, not scalable, and takes way too long to build.
It is pretty safe. Especially new reactors. Also the atomic waste should be recycled in different nuclear reactors, which can use it as fuel, but those are still in research.
Isnt Germany's costs are absolutely outrageous? Like the most expensive in Europe
Yeah. A series of fucktarted decisions caused Germany to fuck themselves:
They really, really, really should have kept those nuclear plants like France...
Yeah Germany fucked it really hard.
Going away from nuclear without a good plan b to replace the power was stupid.
We basically replaced nuclear power with wind and solar, but the new power demand that was coming since the turning off of the nuclear plants, was achieved by building gas turbines. So fossil fuels again.
And now our energy minister is a lobbyist from the gas energy sector.....
Every German energy problem is entirely down to political self owns
Because of decades of fear-mongering and under-investment (that gets redirected to fossil).
Radioactive waste storage.
I do think that goal power plants need to be turned off before nuclear ones, but neither is sustainable.
The amount of high level nuclear is overstated and over-exaggerated it's common for people to refuse the actual figures.
20 years for half a million homes. And that's an old generation reactor which is less efficient with fuel usage and not even considering that something like 98% of it can be reprocessed into useable fuel if the incentive was there. The reason its not is the same reason old solar panels aren't reprocessed into new panels: It's cheaper and easier right now to just produce new ones.
This pic doesn't include the less active waste and the hulidng materials of the reactor, thus it's misleadig to claim this is everything that needs to be stored.
Nuclear waste is a problem for the most like any other. Given enough investment it can be solved, and no I'm not talking about finding better ways to store it. China has made major advances in this regard, their newest reactors generate waste that is much less long-lived (hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years), and they can reduce the volume of that waste through recycling.
I'm not saying nuclear waste is not a hard problem to solve, it is and we must be careful as a society to make sure it is managed well. In the meantime, we have a climate catastrophe which is much more pressing. Coal plants, which provide base-load electricity, are a prime target for conversion to nuclear, because their steam turbines can be reused. This could decarbonize a large part of the electricity mix of many countries.
The nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years isn't going to be a problem.
It can be used to make betavoltaics.
We might actually run into the problem where we don't have enough nuclear waste and we might need to spin up a reactor or two to keep making RTGs (for space) and betavoltaics.