• that guy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Tax payers subsidize the power plants, pay for the electricity and the corporation gets to keep the profits

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This is one of the many reasons that I think nuclear plants should not be corporate owned

      I think a lot of stuff that’s currently corporate owned shouldn’t be but that’s a conversation for another time

      Edit: Should to shouldn’t

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        The people with money to invest in the energy sector don’t seem interested in nuclear. They’re looking at the history of cost and schedule overruns, and then putting their money in solar and wind. Regulators do seem willing to greenlight new nuclear projects, but nobody is buying.

        If the public were to finance a nuclear power, we have to ask why there’s a good reason to do so when private investment is already rejecting it. There has to be some reason outside of cost effectiveness. One answer to that is recycling all the nuclear waste we already have.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s because private companies are incapable of large scale engineering. They want fast profits, not stable infrastructure.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Nuclear is not going to help that. It doesn’t synergize well with wind and solar. You want something that can scale up when wind and solar drop off. Nuclear only makes sense if you can run it at the same level all the time.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                There is. Clouds come in, and all that cheap solar goes away. You want something else to ramp up. Clouds go away, solar is dumpling dirt cheap power to the grid, and those other things ramp down.

                Nuclear is not the solution to that.

                • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Batteries and other power storage exist though… just run nuclear to x% percentage and y exists in battery form to cover potential solar/wind/geothermal/tidal outages.

                  • frezik@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    When you have batteries, you don’t need nuclear. You just need solar and wind.

                    Edit: I’ll also point out that there are other arguments from nuclear advocates (bad ones that don’t realize where we are in the tech development) saying storage solutions aren’t ready. Estoppel much?

                • guacupado@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Clouds come in, and all that cheap solar goes away

                  I can’t believe we’re about to hit 2024 and people are still saying this.

            • Eyelessoozeguy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              What do you mean it doesnt scale up? It sure does. What do you think the control room operators are doing? Nukes turn water to steam and run that steam through turbines much like any other steam driven plant. Using control rods you can adjust the energy output of the plant. Could a single nuke cover a whole state covered in solar? Not likely. But neither can a single battery.

        • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Need some smaller, shipping crate sized nuclear generators that can be rented. If smaller set ups end up helping with knowledge and new tech then awesome. If not, it’s still pretty fucking cool.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          The good reason is cost externalities. Nuclear is the only power source that deals with its own waste. No one demands the solar industry recycle their stuff for free or that they pay a carbon tax for the trees that don’t exist because of the panels in the space. Same for wind but add on the birds killed. Same for hydro but the fish killed. Same for coal but add all of us killed.

          We all subsidize the waste disposal of the other power sources. Coal gets to dump all that stuff in the air and our collective resource is that much lowered in quality.

          Change the market conditions to reflect the true cost and nuclear comes out on top. Even the CO2 used to make the plants is laughably small when you consider that the plants can last over 50 years while solar has to be almost completely replaced in 15.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            It deals with its own waste by leaving it sitting in a big pit. That’s not a viable long term strategy. It needs to go to a central facility to be buried for 100k years, or (my preference) recycled in other reactors designed to do that. Neither is being done right now in the US, and both would almost certainly require public subsidies.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Who do you think paid the banks all that money to keep housing artificially high? Who do you think have GM all that money to make oversized trucks?

              Noticed you didn’t mention all the costs inside of the plant to deal with the waste nor the transportation costs to Yucca.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ta payers also subsidize banks, pay for the housing price crisis twice, and the corporatation gets to keep the profits.

      Neither is great but at least electricity is something that can keep you alive. Next time power goes out and your food/insulin is about to spoil and there is no heat in your home are you going to yell out “please Warren Buffet fix it!” Or are you going to be very happy to see those line workers doing their jobs?