As the title says, I’m interested in this community’s perceptions on nuclear energy.

  • perestroika@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Fusion: yes, when eventually feasible.

    Fission: maybe. It has high energy density. But uranium ore is very thin and needs to be refined a lot. Storage of spent fuel is problematic. Generally, it costs a whole lot. Even if I consider it green, I don’t see it solving the most pressing problems - setting up nuclear energy is slow.

    • Nirile@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If fusion were ever to be feasible, would it also need to used mined uranium, or are there other fuel sources?

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

        Current fusion (thermonuclear bombs) require a fission bomb trigger to start fusion in a lithium deuteride body, but reactors - absolutely not.

        Fusion reactors do one of the following:

        • use magnetic fields and electrical current to contain + heat a ring tritium (hydrogen isotope) plasma to extreme temperatures
        • use a laser pulse to compress + heat a capsule of tritium to extreme temperatures
        • use a magnetic field and electrical current to collide two rings of helion (helium isotope) plasma at extreme velocities

        Short version: fusion needs fission only in warfare.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love nuclear energy. Well maybe to strong of a word. I am extremely favorable towards it.

      But we needed to go majority nuclear 10-20 years ago…

      There are so many nuclear safety regulations and red tape (for good reason) that it makes new reactors being started now not financially profitable. Renewables are mugh much better until the current highly excessible lithium deposits dry up (tons of lithium in the world, but a tiny fraction of it is minable without decimating the environment)

      But that brings me to my main point: energy providers are constantly for profit just like leacherous landlords. Basic necessities should be run publically in many cases. If you can get electric prices so low that it is almost free provided a large governmental investment (a mere tiny fraction of the military industrial complex budget) then you could literally turn the world around in 10 years. But that is a pipe dream that will never happen.

      Oil companies control all of the energy decisions around the world and will sooner invest in renewables than nuclear.