• drake@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    23 hours ago

    When energy storage and transmission methods are also not up to the task, nuclear becomes the best answer.

    Obviously, the best answer is to improve energy storage and transmission infrastructure. Why would we waste hundreds of millions on a stupid toy power plant when we could spend 10% of that money on just running decent underground cables.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      22 hours ago

      You do realize that all that is also expensive, and limited? We haven’t invented room temperature superconductors yet, and battery technology is far from perfect. There is only so much lithium and cobalt in the entire world. Yes we can now use things like sodium, but that’s a technology that’s still young and needs more research before it’s full potential is realized. There is also a reason we have overground cables and not underground. Digging up all that earth is hella expensive.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      You really don’t understand how expensive underground cables are. You know those big, huge steel transmission towers that you see lined up, hundreds in a row?

      Those towers costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars each. And the reason they’re used is because that’s way cheaper than underground.

      Shit - just the cable is a couple million per mile per cable.

      • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Are you fucking serious? Nuclear power plants cost way fucking more than some cables. You people are fundamentally so unserious. Pull your head out of a reactor for ten seconds and take reality as it exists

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Yes. They cost more than some cables. But we aren’t talking about wiring a stereo.

          A new nuclear unit (4 billion-ish) costs about as much as 2,000 miles of transmission-grade cable (about 2 million per mile). Considering that there’s about 30 cables on a tower run, you’re looking at around 65 miles’ worth of cable for the cost of a nuclear unit.

          And that’s just the cost of the wire. No towers, no conduit, no substations, no land acquisition (aerial easement and underground are very different things), no labor.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            A new nuclear unit (4 billion-ish)

            In the USA the most recent two reactors (2 added to a plant that already had 2 existing) cost $34 billion just for the two new ones. source

      • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        22 hours ago

        and breeder reactors are more expensive than faerie magic, I prefer to use technologies that are actually real rather than things I wish were real