"President Joe Biden’s administration on Wednesday finalized approval of $1.1 billion to help keep California’s last operating nuclear power plant running. "

Because renewable energy sources are too expensive?

  • Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m all for nuclear power. We need to get off gas and coal ASAP, and nuclear is a reliable baseload power source that doesn’t require massive arrays of lithium or lead batteries, and doesn’t fluctuate with the rainy season. Ideally, I’d like us to go to more advanced nuclear power like molten salt reactors, but even light water is appreciated. I wouldn’t mind it even in my own backyard. We need reliable energy.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      how is a salt reactor better? i tought reactors were all just glorified water boilers?

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It is, but it’s safer, since it’s a fuel salt loop that has radioactive fuel mixed in, which is too dilute to melt down. It powers a second, independent molten salt loop that goes to a water boiler elsewhere in the system. This has a variety of benefits, and also depends on the tech. But one, it stops meltdowns. And two, if the salt loop or boilers fail, it doesn’t release superheated, radioactive steam since the boiler is elsewhere in the complex.

        Some can also recycle radioactive fuel that is already spent too.

        Molten salt technology also has other benefits, nuclear energy aside. In solar towers with molten salt technology, it boils salts which then power a steam turbine. The salts are fucking hot, and stay hot enough to boil water for 12 hours after the sun has stopped shining. In the morning, some fuel is used to heat up the salts in prep for the sunlight. So, while it does use a bit of carbon, it provides reliable baseload energy that can serve the grid uninterrupted at night/during storms :)

        Can’t get the pic to link right. Here’s a solar tower

    • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sounds good, just make sure the industry can do this on its own, without government subsidies. When will the industry find some way to insure itself without the US government’s help? Oh, and when will become cheaper than renewables? Oh, and how about the radioactive waste? When will it take responsibility for that without government help? Oh, and when will it find a source for fuel that isn’t from Russia?

        • Nyfure@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Shouldnt matter much either way because they have to have so many regulations anyways…

          • mxcory@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 months ago

            I am of the same mind that they should be government run because electricity is a necessity for modern life. Electricity should not be produced for profit. Yes it would be nice for it to bring in more than it cost in order to fund expansion and upgrades, but shareholders shouldn’t be involved.

            I personally believe it should basically be another USPS, but hopefully consistent and safe.

      • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Providing power to the US is the government’s responsibility in the same way that governments funding maintenance of public roads, paying for teachers, and paying for firefighters doesn’t always generate money yet is subsidized or wholly paid for by a government entity. The fact that the government doesn’t have to fully pay for the nuclear plant (because its offset by the money the plant makes) makes it less that the government has to spend. If anything, I’d like the government to completely take over nuclear plants so that there’s less profits for private entities. Yes nuclear is more expensive than renewables, but an already existing nuclear plant is cheaper than a new one, which is way better than fossil fuels, the real enemy. Not to mention, in how long will renewable take to make up the almost 10% of energy that the plant supplies to California? Instantly? no. It takes time, and until that time, we need all the energy generation we can get, ESPECIALLY if its not a fossil fuel based one. Radioactive waste? Definitely a problem, in a couple hundred years. Right now, all the radioactive waste the US has ever made would fill up a football field, 10 yards deep. Not really a high priority problem especially compared to the risk that global warming risks.

        All in all, it feels like we shouldn’t let the search for a perfect solution, impede temporary good enough solutions.

        • lettruthout@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          “Providing power to the US is the government’s responsibility…” Where did that idea come from? That’s nonsense. Yes, some municipalities run their own power companies, but the Diablo Canyon plant is privately owned.