this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
968 points (86.4% liked)

Science Memes

11081 readers
5567 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hugohase@startrek.website 11 points 2 days ago (93 children)

Slow, expensive, riddeled with corruption, long ago surpassed by renewables. Why should we use it?

[–] mEEGal@lemmy.world 50 points 2 days ago (33 children)

only antimatter could provide more energy density, it's insanely powerful.

produces amounts of waste orders of magnitude lower than any other means of energy production

reliable when done well

it shouldn't be replaced with renewables, but work with them

[–] marcos@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago

Energy density is a useless bullshit metric for stationary power.

Produces more waste than almost all of the renewables.

Reliable compared to... ... ... ok, I'm out of ideas, they need shutdowns all the time. Seems to me it's less reliable than anything that isn't considered "experimental".

And it can't work with renewables unless you add lots and lots of batteries. Any amount of renewables you build just makes nuclear more expensive.

They are an interesting technology, and I'm sure they have more uses than making nuclear weapons. It's just that everybody focus on that one use, and whatever other uses they have, mainstream grid-electricity generation is not it.

load more comments (32 replies)
load more comments (91 replies)