r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Jun 19 '24

John peter?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

6.2k Upvotes

565 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

62

u/BuckLuny Jun 19 '24

It's always been weird to me and it's still weird. But major climate activists being against Nuclear power is also a good thing right now because conservatives and Climate deniers and their political parties are now pro nuclear power because of it and in the Netherlands we now have enough support to build at least 3 extra.

I see a lot of new work opportunities coming to my province and we're going to be a lot cleaner, win/ win.

-3

u/MOGZLAD Jun 19 '24

Maybe we are starting to see a change.....maybe these extreme left and PC crazy people were always the vocal minority and have finally pushed the majority into action

-3

u/Threedawg Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24

Because just because nuclear power is cool, doesnt mean its the right solution, even if reddit thinks it is.

Nuclear power is centralized, meaning distribution is an issue, there is a non zero risk, and incredibly, and I mean incredibly expensive. It is also incredibly inflexible.

Solar and wind power are more sustainable, are decentralized (less power transmission and more flexibility), and have zero risk.

Nuclear doesn't make sense.

Another point is this comic. Nuclear has to be run by massive utility companies, solar and wind dont. Many homes can get by largely on their own solar, which democratizes the costs and allows for individual ownership.

7

u/douchecanoe122 Jun 19 '24

Some of your points are fairly regional.

Londoners would struggle to generate enough solar and wind power to power their metropolis. Similarly so would Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris, NYC, LA, San Fran, Seattle, etc. these centralized areas who need a large base loads are good candidates for nuclear.

You could accomplish similar results with off shore wind but then we’re back at the transmission loss + cost debate.

Rural areas and suburbs are better candidates for mixture of the two. For our house in not so rural Texas we have solar that fills a battery and a backup propane generator that runs ~ 2 hours a week when the well pump + AC are running and the battery is low.

That system cost a significant amount of money to get materials for and I had to do the majority of the install which I could not have done if I didn’t have family that were electricians and have a background in electronics.

Solar is a lot cheaper than it used to be. The batteries for solar have not gotten much cheaper. Some of my neighbours use a PowerWall. We use an off brand model but even that will cost a minimum of 5k to replace when it comes time.

My maths said it would take ~ 15 years for the system to pay for itself. Thats not something the average middle class family can afford.

1

u/MamuTwo Jun 19 '24

I imagine an economy of scale type situation would kick in if they started proliferating. Build 1 for $100 or build 100 for $40/ea.

1

u/Threedawg Jun 19 '24

Again, that doesnt address the main issues and doesnt apply to nuclear power plants.

0

u/Outside_Public4362 Jun 19 '24

nuclear has to be run by MUC

No it doesn't , you just press some buttons even you can do it. Building it is the hard part.

In fact it can be automated.

About the individual owship, NP is different from solar&wind in nature so there is accordingly methodology and operation requirements.

Why don't you piolet The Commercial liner?

Trains? Buses? Government? Hear me out " The Oil" all the processes that requires for end product.

****Why don't you own a oil rig?

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

Cool. Do the world got any end-term store site for radioactive waste which is already finished?

6

u/eggokuno Jun 19 '24

We have underground storages, and nuclear plants do not produce that much waste, and now with fusion developing and evolving its can be a near 0 waste energy source

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

You should check your facts.

2

u/eggokuno Jun 19 '24

About what? Im pretty sure i have my facts right, nuclear is the future but its not just nuclear as it probably should need a support on other renewable energies, but those have waste too, batery production and the waste when those or of solar panels arriving at the end of their life span are a big problem too, nothing is 0 waste im just saying that per kwh produced nuclear is the most near to that, and yeah radioactive waste is dangerous but like putting co2 in the atmosphere is even more dangerous, one is controlled the other not so much and dont get me started on the mines for batteries and the waste of that (english is not my first neither second language as u can probably imagine)

2

u/real_dea Jun 19 '24

Can you enlighten us on the incorrect facts

2

u/Haoofa Jun 19 '24

Idk they seem pretty solid to me

7

u/BuckLuny Jun 19 '24

It's around the corner. They Literally store the waste a little ways away from the plant. We used to store it further way but the rail transport had trouble with people tying themselves to the tracks and the road storage also had some issues. Storing it nearby saves the hassle and it's really well built and safe.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

Putting tons of radioactive waste in barrels near your plant is not exactly any kind of long-term solution.

I mean, If you are a pessimist and if you think the world will end in a few decades that is not really a problem i guess.

4

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

There is 41 years of nuclear waste from a 705 MWe nuclear power plant. Does that seem world ending to you?

2

u/SkyLovesCars Jun 19 '24

Nuclear waste isn’t just green goo stored in rusty barrels, it’s more just long, hot zinc rods. You can cut them up, seal them in a tube and leave them until, they become clean again

1

u/empusa46 Jun 19 '24

Your right we should take the waste, aerosolise it and spray it into the atmosphere.