• Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    nuclear uses lots of energy to build. Even windmills use fibreglass.

    It may be more expensive to build, but not because it’s more energy intensive. Especially when you look at capacity. It is by far the most efficient source, requiring much less material and energy per generation capacity.

    • @Claidheamh

      That’s a big claim, and having watched a #nuclear power station being built I struggle to agree. Especially if you look at full life cycle from mining uranium to disposal.

      Also most of the work with a #windmill is establishing the site. Once done repairs and upgrades are cheap.

      And #renewables are quick. Chuck a spare at it and you’ll have useful energy in a few months. The main problem in the UK is government obstructing them.

      And they’re still being built.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m challenging the claim about energy use, not cost. Uranium mining is a rounding error in this regard.

        What you’re missing from seeing a power station being built is how much energy it produces. Being conservative, a single reactor generates as much energy as around 1000 wind turbines. And that’s without taking into account the full life cycle, which can probably 3-4x that number.

        The energy density numbers of nuclear power are such completely different orders of magnitude to other energy sources that people usually have trouble understanding them in real world terms.