You're viewing a single thread.
Hum... Try sorting it by price.
Is price the only concern? Seems like too narrow of a focus.
Maybe try sorting by "lifespan", as nuclear facilities last 3-4x longer.
You could try sorting by "crude oil usage", as each turbine needs 60 gallons of high synthetic oil to function, each needs an oil change every 6 months.
Would be interesting to sort by "birds killed" or "acres of habitat destroyed"
I'm not saying nuclear is necessarily better, that is a difficult calculation. But we got ourselves into this climate change disaster by short-sightedly "sorting by price". Perhaps spending more money for a long term investment would be more wise than always going with the cheapest option.
You could try sorting by “crude oil usage”, as each turbine needs 60 gallons of high synthetic oil to function, each needs an oil change every 6 months.
Oil is usually recycled after it's changed.
I was going to shred you because nuclear plants also have turbines that rotate and need lubricant, but then I did a quick search and found an interesting article that interviewed someone from a nuclear power plant that claimed one oil change in 34 years. https://www.lubesngreases.com/magazine/15_5/lubricants-at-the-atomic-frontier/
Yeah, since there is no combustion there is no carbon deposition and thus the oil basically lasts forever. We just filter it and add occasionally to make up for leaks.
There’s no combustion in a wind turbine either, so why do they need changes more frequently?
Because of higher efficiency requirements and because the wind turbines have a much larger number of smaller moving parts.
The oil requirements of nuclear are all on the first construction, mining, and refining of the fuel. Very little is required at the operation of the reactor.
Very likely heat. I think reactors use water to cool the oil.
"shred"
Try price/year instead of lifespan.
But yeah, you can go with crud oil usage, birds killed and acres of habitat destroyed too. Those won't give you the result you are wanting to see.
It's not that nuclear is useless. But it's worse on almost every way. Yeah, that "almost" is important, but the meme is way out of line.
It's not useless, and it's most certainly not worse in almost all ways - enriching the fuel and construction time/costs are all that make it fall apart.
Nuclear can be built near pretty much any water source without tainting it at all, it generates a huge amount of power with very little land usage, it lasts for a long time.
If we had time, I'd be all in on nuclear - but it takes almost a decade of build time... We need solutions a hell of a lot faster than that or we're all screwed anyways
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
The waste is worth the carbon emissions reduction.
If we could replace all our carbon emitting power with wind and solar today I would be in full support. But we can't. Especially in parts of the world where solar doesn't work half the year.
So I'll take the waste surrounded by warnings burried in a hole over carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are much worse.
Permanently Deleted
Just need to bury it at the tooth of a subduction zone.
Nuclear power is cheaper per megawatt generated, though.
That's so against reality that it's funny.
Nuclear power is as cheap as the sky is green.
Not only is it cheaper, it's safer too.
But it's annoying to show that.