submitted 2 weeks ago by einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

135 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 45 points 2 weeks ago

Efficient use of resources still matters in a service-driven model.

The service in this case is to provide electricity - if other alternatives can provide the same system of electricity while using less resources in the process, then it is clearly preferable.

[-] overcast5348@lemmy.world 89 points 2 weeks ago

Externalized costs are a thing though. For instance, a coal plant spewing smoke (and radiation) costs everyone else money. A nuclear plant OTOH is usually responsible for dealing with all of its own shit. So it's not always an apples to apples comparison to consider just the profitability of a project.

[-] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 13 points 2 weeks ago

Absolutely. I don't know that anyone is arguing for coal, except for Trump, but he's also completely deranged.

Wind and solar have very little externalities, however. I'd even call their externalities trivial.

[-] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Water vapor from the cooling tower is also a greenhouse gas but all heat exchange power plants at such scale emit it, and it condenses quickly (and increases albedo if the cloud is visible). Plus the nuclear waste, if not economical to recycle, may become its own long-term problem too. So the overall externalities of a nuclear power plant are small (it's the least deadly one!) but not zero.

[-] waldfee@feddit.org -2 points 2 weeks ago

It sure isn't apples to apples, but it's also not like nuclear plants actually dealt with their waste

[-] Philote@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago

Are you talking about current nuclear plants or the first generation ones built in the 50’s. Because that’s like using steam train safety to negate the use of modern trains.

[-] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

You do realize that they made nuclear recycling illegal in the USA right?

Which is ironic because nuclear waste is 97% pure fuel and the remaining 3% has other uses in medicine or have half-lives measured in minutes/hours or are stable (like gold)

[-] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 0 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know what this has to do with my post at all to be honest

[-] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

It's relevant because the less-resource-efficient oil industry has lobbied to make nuclear power artificially inefficient so that their industry can continue to exist.

[-] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't think anyone is arguing for the oil industry.

Even if nuclear power plant byproducts were re-used at 100%, this would still decidedly not make nuclear energy more resource efficient than solar and wind.