top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 116 points 2 years ago (22 children)

It is cheaper to operate and that has been it's selling point for the last years.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 182 points 2 years ago (16 children)

    In case you're ever wondering, this is an example of your tax dollars at work. Thirty years ago solar and wind generation had to be heavily subsidized with government grants to make them viable in the energy market. Now the technology of both has advanced to the point that it's undercutting all of the other forms of electricity generation, without subsidization.

    Government subsidies work. They're effective for getting new technologies off the ground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    They are great. As long as they don’t end up like corn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Or oil and coal, propping up bad energy sources while the clean ones have to often fend for themselves and compete against the subsidies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 59 points 2 years ago (22 children)

    It's worth pointing out that the renewables break down as such (% of all electricity):

    • Solar: 6%
    • Hydro: 6%
    • Wind: 10%
    • Nuclear: 18%

    Nuclear energy is providing more than any other individual source, making up 45% of all renewable electricity.

    Next time you hear someone "concerned about global warming" also fearmonger about nuclear energy, it's worth considering where their allegiances lie. Most people are misguided, but when it comes to politicians, it says a lot about how much they actually care about sustainability.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    There have been studies (this one, for example) that suggest the total radioactivity-related health impacts from coal power exceed that of nuclear power by an order of magnitude. That's not all pollution-related deaths for coal -- just those associated with radon exposure inside of mines, and radioactive materials embedded in coal going out into the environment. For all the fear-mongering about nuclear, it's hard to find a less dangerous source of base load generation using present-day technologies. Maybe once grid-scale batteries are available at scale, they could replace nuke plants, but that's a solution ten years too late for an environmental problem we have to fix right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (17 replies)
    [–] 48 points 2 years ago (35 children)

    This is economics now, not politics. US can go full crazy Trump, but the grid will just keep getting greener as greener is cheapest. He can rant and rave about global warming being a conspiracy or anything else, but it's unstoppable now.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    No, the grid won't get greener if Trump is elected because he WILL go full dictator. And he will revert everything that is being done currently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (26 replies)
    [–] 48 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

    The only thing that's keeping carbon-free power from growing faster is natural gas, which is the fastest-growing source of generation at the moment, going from 40 percent of the year-to-date total in 2022 to 43.3 percent this year. (It's actually slightly below that level in the October data.) The explosive growth of natural gas in the US has been a big environmental win, since it creates the least particulate pollution of all the fossil fuels, as well as the lowest carbon emissions per unit of electricity. But its use is going to need to start dropping soon if the US is to meet its climate goals, so it will be critical to see whether its growth flat lines over the next few years.

    Uh... So, listen. I work in the Nat Gas sector. And while I'm happy to confirm that its far cleaner, easier/safer to transport, and more efficient than coal and liquid oil, I'm going to have to pump the breaks on the enthusiasm. We are definitely not "emissions-free". One of the larger investments we've made, in the last few years, has been in detecting gas leaks along our existing lines and plugging them. And we definitely still flare off excess and lose reserves during transit as circumstances dictate.

    Way back in the 1970s a small upstart energy company known as Exxon had one of its engineering departments estimate the ecological impact of drilling into the East Natuna gas field off the coast of Indonesia. This was primarily a natural gas reserve, accessible without the modern fracking and cracking techniques used throughout the Permian and Delphi Basins.

    Senior scientist of Exxon, James Black, authored a report estimating the impact of drilling and burning off the fuel in the East Natuna reserve, and concluded it would result in a significant increase in global temperatures. This lead Exxon to commission further studies, in the late 70s and early 80s, to estimate the full impact of their drilling and refining practices. The end result was a model of climate change that has mapped neatly to current climate trends

    I say this because while natural gas is relatively cleaner, it is by no means clean. And with the increasing rate of energy consumption occurring globally, our reliance on natural gas is decidedly not contributing to an emissions free future.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 44 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's a very cool article, I didn't know the US was actually making the change so quickly.

    Weirdest part of the article is the included pie chart from the US Energy Information Agency showing the usage of different types of energy, but the entire pie is orange, like every slice of different energy is orange.

    They need one art guy, just one.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 38 points 2 years ago (85 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (68 children)

    Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 68 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago* (40 children)

    Nuclear power is good for its consistent output that is independent of outside factors like wind, clouds, or drought. Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn't particularly expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn’t particularly expensive.

    I wish that were true. Nuclear plants built in the 60s and 70s (but still operating today) was losing money in Ohio. So the power companies bribed the Republican Ohio Speaker of the House $60 million dollars to pass a law that citizens have to pay extra fees totally over $1 billion dollars to power plants so that power companies can make a profit on nuclear. The bill was passed, and signed into law by the governor of Ohio, and years passed before the investigation found the bribery scandal.

    That former Ohio Speaker of the House was sentenced to 20 years in prison finally.

    The bad bribed-passed law is still on the books in Ohio and citizens are still paying extra to artificially make nuclear profitable for the power company. Here's just a small source for the whole sorted story..

    So no, even old built nuclear power plants are still more expensive that nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (25 children)

    That consistent output isn't as useful as you think. Solar and wind are ridiculously cheap, so we would want to use them when they're available. That means winding down nuclear plants when those two spin up. I'm turn, that means those initial construction costs you mentioned aren't being efficiently ammortized over the entire life of the plant.

    What we can do instead is take historical sun and wind data for a given region, calculate where the biggest trough will be, and then build enough storage capacity to cover it. Even better, aim for 95% coverage in the next few years, with the rest taken up by existing natural gas. There's some non-linear factors involved where getting to 100% is a lot harder than 95%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is the trap. The fossil fuel industry has co-opted wind and PV solar by way of filling in the gaps and transitioning to net zero emissions. Of course, the gaps will always be there and the transition will never complete and "net zero" seems to just leave the door open on fossil fuels forever.

    Nuclear power, on the other hand, has the reliability that @FireTower@lemmy.world mentioned and it closes any of the gaps from wind and solar right up. You don't have to quickly cut the power on a reactor if it's sunny or windy, just divert it to hydrogen and ammonia production. Even if the efficient high temperature electrolysis tech isn't ready yet, it doesn't really matter since it's emissions free. Furthermore, nuclear power produces good heat/steam to support cogeneration and various industrial processes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nonsense. Conservatives have brought up nuclear for decades as a way to play "gotcha" with anti-nuclear progressives. Maggie Thatcher, for example, embraced the science of climate change early on as a way to push nuclear. It was never serious, though. Always a political game that resulted in no new nuclear being built while coal and oil continued to ramp up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (22 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (24 replies)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago (14 children)
    load more comments (14 replies)
    [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    It's better than nothing. Hopefully we can speed this up in next couple of years.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    That’s actually better than I thought.

    In my city they had everyone switch to renewable energy, they sent Mail out stating that your energy source will automatically change unless you opt out.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This makes electric cars less polluting with every passing day as this percentage increases.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Car manufacturing is, itself, a messy process. And we'd all be better off (for a whole host of reasons) if we could move to a public transit system and away from the messy, overly-complex, extraordinarily expensive highways-and-byways personal vehicle system.

    Electrified rail and Multi-family homes would dramatically reduce both energy consumption AND housing costs, if we were willing to invest in it at rates comparable to what we spend subsidizing new fossil fuel wells, road expansion/maintenance, and policing of the homeless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    Great except the military pollutes more than 140 countries and there are several wars ongoing. If you really want the climate to stop changing we need to reel in the international shipping industry, the fashion industry, and also the global war machine.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (9 children)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    There's a lot if you look for it, recent developments in tidal are incredibly positive and we're absolutely going to see a rapid uptake in marine electrification as existing technology progresses through the market. Most people never really think about the resources used and pollution caused by small boats but one of the big destructive forces at play is the infrastructure requirements - small boats need big boats to supply their fuel stations.

    Transitioning away from this system and instead using costal tidal generators to charge electric ferries and barges could be a total game changer in many areas, especially many of the highly trafficked and polluted tidal basins like in north Brazil, Nigeria, or island clusters like in the Philippines. Also the intercoastal waterways around the US and other leisure spots.

    We're making great progress in many areas and I really think it's important to acknowledge this and cheer it on least we get so caught in a false sense of doom that we just give up.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    That's very surprising, in a good way.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›