• farmer_of_song@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    Nukes generate waste, have small meltdown odds (thus medium or larger meltdown odds the more you deploy them), and also the technology chain can be modified for uranium enrichment.

    Solar and wind are also popular because their generation can be decentralized, but this is less of a concern for MLs who favor planning.

    • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      The actual dangerous waste is less than 0.1%. intermediate and low level can be reprocessed. Nuclear is also more capacity efficient than solar.

      We also have reactors that do not have the ability to melt down, with the development of molten salt and thorium coming ever closer.

      The problem is that capitalist nations cannot be trusted with nuclear; as they will fleece construction, regulation and qualifications every single time. Compared to Chernobyl; which was a design flaw in the early, ancient reactors of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, incompetence and decadence run deep here and has been responsible for accidents here for that exact reason before.

      I still believe nuclear is the way and there are plenty of much more worth it advantages to nuclear power for grid-use or military-use. I believe China is developing these organic panels as a form of “grid self-sufficiency” for rural areas, possibly. The less houses/homes in a nation of a billion connected to energy is more power for all. Could also be used in cars, space (Their first outer-solar system launch is coming up), etc.

      • farmer_of_song@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        Solar + batt in China is currently cheaper than coal and natgas.

        Solar is a 100% mature technology that promises to provide further cost savings over existing technologies, and has reasonable odds of reaching the 1 cent per watt point, where solar is competitive with fusion.

        Fission can’t scale to that point; the main point of fission is that it can produce reactors for warships and submarines, as well as uranium for fission, boosted fission, and thermonuclear weapons.

        • destroyamerica@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          the main point of fission is that it’s a clean form of power generation that is very consistent unlike solar or wind. batteries are supposed to help, but you still want a consistent form of power in case of a long stretch of bad luck with weather. Fusion is still decades off of being price competitive barring a major breakthrough in something like a roomtemp super conductor.

      • destroyamerica@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 days ago

        We also have reactors that do not have the ability to melt down, with the development of molten salt and thorium coming ever closer.

        the first one just opened so I think it’s safe to say it’s now finally here!