• Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        1 month ago

        Thank you Junior. Don’t forget to wear you shoes when you go play in the asbestos pit at school. I put two cigarettes in your lunchbox you can have one at lunch if your teacher says its okay and one on the way to home after your shift at the radium watch painting factory.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’ll come back eventually unless fusion takes over. The power density promises are simply too attractive.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The mining and processing of the “fuel” is not. The cost of the plants and the risks neither. That’s why nuclear is slowly losing to regenerative.

        Btw, from the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024 > Key Insights:

        Russia is also playing a key role in the supply of fuel services, involving uranium mining, conversion, and fuel assembly manufacturing for Soviet-designed VVER pressurized water reactors, of which there are 19 in the E.U. and 15 in Ukraine. International sanctions have had little effect on the business. On the contrary, the share of Russian supply of natural uranium, conversion, and enrichment services to the E.U. all increased between pre-war year 2021 and 2023; VVER fuel imports doubled.

        And you can see all of my points confirmed in that report.

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        A lot of terrible things have been done by good people with good intentions who had no idea what the fuck they were talking about.

  • MeatPilot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “Timmy you left the aluminum foil on the atomic wafer!!”

    “By golly Tim you shattered space time and opened a black hole!”

    “My apologies mother and father, I have been absent of clear cognition.”

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Given the up-front cost of any kind of reactor, I don’t think the concept of a usage-based electric bill goes away as long as it’s corporations competing for customers. Maybe eventually it would be like ISPs where it’s a flat fee depending on the size of your connection. I guess it could be totally unmetered then.

      Like so many things, it gets a lot simpler if it’s the government supplying the service.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s not too cheap to meter even when provided as a public service. Nuclear is more expensive than battery + solar, more expensive than wind, more expensive than coal

        “Too cheap to meter” was a lie that ignored costs of safety and decommissioning.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah I agree, and you still hear that BS about fusion power, that it will be an unlimited source of cheap/free clean energy.

          I guess I could imagine scenarios where power is not metered and is supported via taxes, maybe in a scenario where citizens have a right to energy just like a right to healthcare. It’s not free by any means, but the people who make the most money and thus benefit the most from the infrastructure end up paying into it the most. And the truly poor would get free (to them) electricity.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I really wonder about fusion. Most of the news of energy production higher than energy input is about non-electricity fusion - the big tokamak fusion systems are not yet producing more power than they take to run, but scientists working on them are expecting good results soon

            Like when I was a kid fusion was 20 years away and would always be 20 years away. Now it looks like it’ll be 5 years away for a while

            • Zink@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I like to follow fusion news whenever I see it, and I think the situation might be even worse than you’re describing, lol.

              The news about ignition and/or more energy out than in, that refers to the energy actually delivered to the sample versus the full energy released from the sample. So it doesn’t include all the energy needed to charge and fire the lasers that was lost along the way. And like you said, it’s the thermal power they’re measuring, and you lose a huge amount of that power when converting to electricity.

              I think we’re still firmly in the “fusion is 20/30 years away” cycle.

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m hanging out for when ITER is operational. There’s every chance it runs at or just over 1:1

                • Zink@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Oh yeah, I think ITER is supposed to have a Q of like 10, so maybe they can produce a net gain system-wide.

      • BussyCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        More people die from wind turbines and hydro than from nuclear on a per tWh basis. If we actually want to save lives we would require higher levels of safety standards on fossil fuels that are magnitudes more dangerous than nuclear

    • WaterWaiver@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Atomic wafers made by the techo-church-state? Or have I got this back to front and this is how the non-technical society irradiates its children?

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 month ago

    She’s right there. This is literally a power play to force her kid to do a pointless task.

        • JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 month ago

          I’m all for paying my electric bill in horsepower/hours. That feels very American. How many V8s is my house?

          • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’d be horsepower * hour, since horsepower is a unit, of, well, power, and [Energy] = [Power]*[Time]

            But might as well go for an obscure time unit as well at that point. Horsepower Sennights, baby

            • reinei@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Hmm but couldn’t we then also go even further and assume an idealized muscle car with an effective transmission to its wheels of 1:1 running at its optimal torque vs speed point and thus with a given speed of its wheels rotation for a given time?

              Aka convert energy into miles (traveled) or something (with the choice of motor and wheel diameter and everything else standardized ofc.)?

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The apostrophe abbreviates the es (to 's) that used to be part of the English possessive (as it still is on some words that end s)

          It’s a bit shit. Lots of people have trouble with it, lots of English as a second language people have trouble with not understanding what is replaced by the apostrophe

  • nl4real@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    I passed out from the flood of Fallout references that just rushed into my brain.