• Krono@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    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.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Try price/year instead of lifespan.

      But yeah, you can go with crud oil usage, birds killed and acres of habitat destroyed too. Those won’t give you the result you are wanting to see.

      It’s not that nuclear is useless. But it’s worse on almost every way. Yeah, that “almost” is important, but the meme is way out of line.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not useless, and it’s most certainly not worse in almost all ways - enriching the fuel and construction time/costs are all that make it fall apart.

        Nuclear can be built near pretty much any water source without tainting it at all, it generates a huge amount of power with very little land usage, it lasts for a long time.

        If we had time, I’d be all in on nuclear - but it takes almost a decade of build time… We need solutions a hell of a lot faster than that or we’re all screwed anyways