Oddbean new post about login | logout The environment affected by a nuclear power plant can be seen in a photo, to show the environment affected by a field of wind generators would require thousands of photos. All right, environmentalists, most of you have never set foot in the mountains in your life and do not realize the damage you are doing. https://m.primal.net/LDeX.png nostr:note169d0hel5wwltrnlxxr2ypfgxc2054fjf8eprtksrrvf88jxtsv4qfv9gvu
The renewablt energy movement was captured by corporations around the 90s and became a scam once the govt subsidized it. solar make sense, but only on top of existing structures, not as a field of panels. Windmills make sense, but not massive ones covering the landscape, small ones used on farms. I'm definitely into nuclear, but I still think it'd be better if the energy policy was about diverse sources of production as close as possible to said source And distributed/decentralized production.
Nice photo from former power house Isar 1 + 2 near Munich. But how do you get your absolute anti-government stance and nuclear together? #thereisnotenoughnuclearonnostr
Stop subsidizing the production of wind and solar energy. It is as easy as not to get their dirty hands in the energy sector, although unfortunately the energy sector worldwide is an oligopoly in the shadow of the states.
I'm uncomfortable to say this, but the highly improbable, but potential large externalities of nuclear need some good law and law enforcer at least.
Three Mile Island says what?
That even in case of a meltdown the public gets hardly harmed.
So this one is big for me for multiple reasons. Depending on the location of nuclear meltdown & its proximity to water sources it can destroy far more living organisms than if it’s an enclosed blast. Yes, I love humanity. Kill all plankton in oceans and humanity dies. Slow deaths or immediate destruction of Humanity is a question to be pondered? That’s my take on it.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. What are the trade-offs of not using nuclear, the most efficient energy source available until now?
I hate these sight of wind generators with a passion.
When comparing nuclear and wind energy, nuclear, especially with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), requires significantly less land, using 30 to 45 times less space than wind farms. While nuclear has higher upfront costs, it provides reliable, continuous energy with a long operating lifespan, and its Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) can range from $60 to $70 per MWh in the best case. Wind, though initially cheaper, has significant downsides: it’s intermittent, requiring expensive backup power and grid stability investments, especially in less windy regions, pushing worst-case LCOE estimates to $80 to $100 per MWh. SMRs, with potential future cost reductions, could become a more competitive and efficient energy option, with fewer land and intermittency issues.
