this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
257 points (96.1% liked)

News

23259 readers
2967 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Measures moving through Congress to encourage new reactors are receiving broad bipartisan support, as lawmakers embrace a once-contentious technology.

The House this week overwhelmingly passed legislation meant to speed up the development of a new generation of nuclear power plants, the latest sign that a once-contentious source of energy is now attracting broad political support in Washington.

The 365-to-36 vote on Wednesday reflected the bipartisan nature of the bill, known as the Atomic Energy Advancement Act. It received backing from Democrats who support nuclear power because it does not emit greenhouse gases and can generate electricity 24 hours a day to supplement solar and wind power. It also received support from Republicans who have downplayed the risks of climate change but who say that nuclear power could bolster the nation’s economy and energy security.

“It’s been fascinating to see how bipartisan advanced nuclear power has become,” said Joshua Freed, who leads the climate and energy program at Third Way, a center-left think tank. “This is not an issue where there’s some big partisan or ideological divide.”

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Solar has had impressive growth, but the land use needed to actually meet all electrical demand is a lot. Solar still needs a backup solution, battery tech to solve this doesn't exist and any realistic cost estimate is on par with nuclear.

It's going to take decades to build enough panels anyway, so we might as well build some nuclear anyway. It significantly reduces the amount of solar needed.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Solar has had impressive growth, but the land use needed to actually meet all electrical demand is a lot.

You don't have to dedicate the land solely to solar. There are many places where it can improve the environment/efficiency through dual use, e.g. parking lots or even fields with animals. Many places also have more than enough space to dedicate to it. I don't see this as a real problem.

Solar still needs a backup solution, battery tech to solve this doesn’t exist and any realistic cost estimate is on par with nuclear.

Nuclear also needs a backup solution (e.g. due to summer heat or maintenance). Battery tech has improved massively over the last years, and grid-level storage is being deployed as we speak. A new nuclear plant doesn't have to compete against current batteries - it has to compete against the batteries we'll have built by the time the reactor is finished. Even if the cost estimates right now are on par with nuclear, they won't be in a couple of years.

It’s going to take decades to build enough panels anyway, so we might as well build some nuclear anyway.

Solar (and other renewables) are much faster to deploy than nuclear reactors are. In the same time, and with the same resources you've spent on a reactor, you could have built multiple times the generation capacity in renewables.

It significantly reduces the amount of solar needed.

Sure, as does any other power source. But we should go for the cheapest and quickest solutions - and nuclear fission isn't, and will most likely never be, either of those.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I love it. All of civilization has to be redone just to get around using nuclear power and meanwhile people like you are complaining about how much work nuclear takes.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

All of civilization has to be redone just to get around using nuclear power

What are you talking about? Which part of which civilization has to be "redone"? I genuinely have no idea what you could be trying to express here. Nuclear power currently makes up roughly 10% of global power production - it's not just small, it will keep getting smaller because it's fundamentally not economic.

Reaping double benefits from dual land use isn't "redoing all of civilization", it's "not being stupid and taking an opportunity when you see it".

and meanwhile people like you are complaining about how much work nuclear takes.

I'm not "complaining about how much work nuclear takes". My whole point is very simple, but I'll gladly repeat it:

  • The sooner we remove existing fossil capacity and replace it with green capacity, the better.
  • We have a limited amount of money. We need to invest this money in power production.
  • Building new solar capacity is much quicker and cheaper than building new nuclear capacity.

Do you understand now? If you're willing to look at this objectively, nuclear simply doesn't make sense.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Fine show me the battery infrastructure to support it

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No thank you, you are not a person worth wasting time on :)

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Have fun supporting big coal