- Joined
- Nov 1, 2022
- Messages
- 25,890
- Reaction score
- 7,649
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I thought I said fossil fuels
But oil of that mix is only a tiny, tiny fraction. You didn't ask about Natural Gas and Coal, you asked about Oil. The vast majority of fossil fuel electricity production comes from Natural Gas. You should be glad that is the case as it's very clean, and unlike with Coal, we don't have to blow up entire mountains to get it.
That is one of the cases against Nuclear power....but if a few of the regulations were streamlined it would make the cost more in line.They are safe.
The problem is the cost overruns and that those same safety measures make them prohibitively expensive.
That right now is one of the biggest problem with Nuclear...when push comes to shove people may have much to say on where the plants are built and they will have to be built if climate goes any further south.Also the perception is bad, no electorate is willing to place the nuclear power plant near them. They might like it in general but not near them.
These problems develop more from fearmongering, intentional and not, from the 70s, 80s and 90s. Everything became exploitable and we don't tend to teach about how safe nuclear power actually is. Most people don't even know how few people died in Chernobyl or that no one died at TMI. Fukushima, most of the deaths claimed as being the fault of the nuclear accident were actually from the evacuation. Some people still think exposure to radiation will turn you (or your children) green or cause you to glow in the dark.Nuclear needs some kind of advancement in cost/effectiveness. Right now, as it stands, it is the most unprofitable energy source by far. This has a lot to do with modern security and safety measures and lack of scale.
There is also the problem that nobody wants a nuclear power plant near them, they might want nuclear power plants in general just not near them and nowhere close to them.
A lot of brown outs would wake people up even more.Education would seem to be the best way.
My home is 100% solar and my energy bill went from about $300 a month to $45 a month and that $45 is because my PUD has a minimum charge other wise my electric bill would be $0 year around. Yes the initial cost was high but in the long run it was worth ever penny....Agreed and I wholly support such methods. That said, their power generation does not match nuclear or fosil fuels and are at the mercy of the environment. But they do make an excellent supplement to those power sources, reducing the demand for them.
If homes and other buildings included solar panels, they would be cheaper in the long run than paying for generated power from a plant. More individual utilization would also decrease the need and cost of solar farms.
This is why we should be subsidizing power, especially something like nuclear. The military already provides civilian nuclear power plants with roughly about 1/3-1/2 of their workforce's training because Navy nukes tend to go on to work in civilian nuclear power after they get out.Its not cheaper because you can't just hide the fact that the installation or construction initial one is so pricy for nuclear.
Investers don't look just look at power to produce electricity, they look at it as an investment over long term and how much money it will make. So they factor in installation, production and then removal. With all that factored in, nuclear is just way worse than renewables or fossil fuels. I mean, I have nothing against nuclear but it is what it is. There is a reason why countries so easily abandoned it.
Somehow, I doubt it.A lot of brown outs would wake people up even more.
I have solar too and other than a small service charge for being hooked up to the grid, I either do not have any electric expenses or very minimal.My home is 100% solar and my energy bill went from about $300 a month to $45 a month and that $45 is because my PUD has a minimum charge other wise my electric bill would be $0 year around. Yes the initial cost was high but in the long run it was worth ever penny....
Indeed. They are a long term investment. Fortunately they are also designed to operate for decades.Now with said.... Nuclear power plants are costly to install but in the long run their are the future.
Small modular reactors are looking promising, even if not quite there yet. These would make switching out fuel so much more easy and less expensive too, so less costs in the long term by a lot.Somehow, I doubt it.
I have solar too and other than a small service charge for being hooked up to the grid, I either do not have any electric expenses or very minimal.
Indeed. They are a long term investment. Fortunately they are also designed to operate for decades.
The new natrium reactor tech looks promising too. One is being built in Wyoming. It's the next generation nuclear plant. It's supposed to be able to store energy and be more efficient than current gen reactors.Small modular reactors are looking promising, even if not quite there yet. These would make switching out fuel so much more easy and less expensive too, so less costs in the long term by a lot.
What are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)?
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors.www.iaea.org
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?