this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
56 points (58.8% liked)

Science Memes

20802 readers
515 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 265 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (32 children)

Well yeah, it's a service. Expecting profit from necessary services is stupid and counter-productive but it makes a few people rich so of course it happens then you get memes like this.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 1 week ago (5 children)

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 1 week 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] bacon_pdp@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

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)

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (31 replies)
[–] BambiDiego@lemmy.zip 104 points 1 week ago (3 children)

If you ever need firefighters make sure you ONLY go to a profitable firehouse, or you'll be a huge hypocrite. Either that or stupid.

Also make sure you ONLY drive on profitable roads, and ONLY use private delivery services. And ONLY during the day because of streetlights.

A public service should be a public service, not profitable from the basic level.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lemonhead2@lemmy.world 103 points 1 week ago (7 children)

why is there such a negative sentiment towards nuclear power? was it all oil and gas propaganda? or is there some truth

[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 76 points 1 week ago (1 children)

the man who decided to end german nuclear power production getting a seat in gazprom doesn't inspire confidence in reality-based discussion of this subject

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

It was decided after Fukushima under Merkel.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

I'm still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So what has released more uncontrolled waste into the world, all the nukes including those, or the equivalent mega-wattage of all other human power generation? Our entire global community is FUCKED to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars from consequences of petro, while meanwhile very few of us are suffering from the effects of nuclear power generation. Nukes don't replace solar and wind, they complement them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 14 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Ideally we figure out some sweet Nuclear Fusion.

[–] LeFrog@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Ah yes, the Fusion Reactors that are coming soon (TM) (promised decades ago).

We need energy now, not at some unknown point in the future. Of course, resaeching this technology may make sense. But it does not help today and also not the next 20 years.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 13 points 1 week ago

Yeah, putting your hopes / goals on a fusion powered future is foolish at this point.

But I def support (lots of) research into it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 10 points 1 week ago

Honestly I think renewables are at a place where it doesnt really matter much anymore. My perception has been that its propaganda, but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Soup@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You’re in the comments trying to act like you’re more noble, but if your very first angle and the one you built your post on is about profitability then you’ve already lost. You made a strawman and are just mad that it was called out.

Yea, renewables would be better, for sure. Talk about that, then, if that’s what you really care about.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StillAlive@piefed.world 63 points 1 week ago (4 children)
[–] apftwb@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago

Sun isn't profitable. We should just extinguish it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone 56 points 1 week ago (4 children)

There has never been a reactor that produced more energy than it took to construct? You sure about that?

Otherwise this is a capitalism meme, not a science meme.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Legianus@programming.dev 44 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Even if this were true, would that be important nowadays? If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission). Fusion would be great though

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It can't. It takes WAY too long to build, and for what it is the whole work isn't worth it.

The volume of renewables and batteries (Incl. Sodium-Ion, great tech for the grid) we can produce outpaces nuclear by a long shot, is safer, cleaner, available quicker, easier to install, easier to regulate (once the batteries are up, it's a combo deal) and especially more "for the people" (you can carry and install smaller units of solar and wind anywhere).

I also thought nuclear (fission) made somewhat sense a few years ago, but it really doesn't in any way shape or form. Countries who're dead-set on nuclear such as France are already running into SO mamy problems. They're building a huge financial pile of shit for the current and next generation to be fucked over by.

[–] Bashnagdul@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Why not do all of these things. Build nuclear power plants, do battery storage, do renewables, carbon capture, plant trees etc, etc, etc. if the goal is reverse, stabilize or slow climate change. There isn't 1 silver bullet, we need to do all the things.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] LinkeSocke@feddit.org 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

First of all. I'm against nuclear power plants.

But. This right here, is a weird argument against it. I would even say, its no argument against it at all. We should not produce anything with the focus to make a profit. We should produce to meet needs. I would say that for the entire industry.

And even if you're not for a democratic industry that is owned by the people, you should at least see that there are some services where it just makes even less sense to look for profit. For example energy production, healthcare, public transport or the food industry. These are all fundamental services that just need to work. They should never have to focus on generating a profit. Even many liberals have realised this.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 17 points 1 week ago (3 children)

From Wikipedia

In 2019, the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies, using a regulated industry 4.3% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 6.6%) over a 30-year cost recovery period.[63] Financial firm Lazard also updated its levelized cost of electricity report costing new nuclear at between $0.118/kWh and $0.192/kWh using a commercial 7.7% cost of capital (WACC - pre-tax 12% cost for the higher-risk 40% equity finance and 8% cost for the 60% loan finance) over a 40-year lifetime.[64]

The article discusses why that number is probably flawed and relies on cherry picked data, but it seems somewhat close to profitability. Assuming theyre above with a cost of electricity of ~$0.20/kWh (already cheaper than some of US) should be viable, yeah?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rothe@piefed.social 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Neither are most roads, sewers or hospitals, we are talking basic infrastructure here, whether it is profitable seems to me to be completely irrelevant.

And again, not a huge fan of nuclear power plants, but this argument is not one I hold against them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Fossil fuels are only 'profitable' if you ignore the long-term environmental costs.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (9 children)

Is this true? Because Holy shit this would be hilarious if it was.

[–] zxqwas@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You can cherry pick the numbers to show whatever you like.

Wikipedia has an article on the economics of nuclear power. To summarize: it's expensive upfront. If you look at it from a pure commercial enterprise it's not really worth it. If you look at it as decarbonizing the future it's better.

Solar and wind is cheaper, but intermittent and it's a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.

[–] VibeSurgeon@piefed.social 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

it's a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.

Given the average time to build one single nuclear power plant, you should consider whether we have time to finish construction of one before we cook ourselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] red_tomato@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] fullsquare@awful.systems 19 points 1 week ago (6 children)

they also last decades and are cheap to run with extremely low carbon emissions

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›