• Krono@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is price the only concern? Seems like too narrow of a focus.

      Maybe try sorting by “lifespan”, as nuclear facilities last 3-4x longer.

      You could try sorting by “crude oil usage”, as each turbine needs 60 gallons of high synthetic oil to function, each needs an oil change every 6 months.

      Would be interesting to sort by “birds killed” or “acres of habitat destroyed”

      I’m not saying nuclear is necessarily better, that is a difficult calculation. But we got ourselves into this climate change disaster by short-sightedly “sorting by price”. Perhaps spending more money for a long term investment would be more wise than always going with the cheapest option.

      • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You could try sorting by “crude oil usage”, as each turbine needs 60 gallons of high synthetic oil to function, each needs an oil change every 6 months.

        Oil is usually recycled after it’s changed.

        • TheBaldFox@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, since there is no combustion there is no carbon deposition and thus the oil basically lasts forever. We just filter it and add occasionally to make up for leaks.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s no combustion in a wind turbine either, so why do they need changes more frequently?

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because of higher efficiency requirements and because the wind turbines have a much larger number of smaller moving parts.

              The oil requirements of nuclear are all on the first construction, mining, and refining of the fuel. Very little is required at the operation of the reactor.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The waste is worth the carbon emissions reduction.

        If we could replace all our carbon emitting power with wind and solar today I would be in full support. But we can’t. Especially in parts of the world where solar doesn’t work half the year.

        So I’ll take the waste surrounded by warnings burried in a hole over carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are much worse.

    • winterayars
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear power is cheaper per megawatt generated, though.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s so against reality that it’s funny.

        Nuclear power is as cheap as the sky is green.

        • winterayars
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not only is it cheaper, it’s safer too.

          But it’s annoying to show that.