if they claim a 15lb Turkey feeds 12, how am I supposed trust any of the other numbers?
Or how 1 GW/(200 W/person) came up with a number that started with a 3 instead of a 5. Like 5 million people, not 30 million.
But it only takes 3.5 hours per turkey and a day has 24 of them. So if some people get up at 3am it works out!
Can we also talk about the way they chose to manipulate the perception of the data by their choice of states
There are states with populations higher than 30 million. Like yea that’s a lot of people, but the cherry picking of states is annoying
I thought this was going to be about how many turkeys you could cook directly using the reactor heat
my disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
Be about 3x that number. Reactors are about 33-40% efficient. So a 1000 MW electric plant is running at 3000 MW thermal. Would be relatively easy too. Just a gigantic steam heated oven. So 7.5 million turkeys, enough to feed 90 million people or about a quarter of the US.
I doubt an oven needs 2400W continuous to keep at temperature. Also a single large oven will be far more efficient than 7.5 million separate ovens.
you know what, i am thankful for you
Glad to know I’m not the only one!
deleted by creator
Or just toss all the turkeys into the reactor
Restricted sous-vide basin
Turkey control rods
The fun part of this is this is true of any 1GW power source. We have been deploying solar+battery arrays in that range recently for much less money and much faster than nuclear.
Thanks “Office of nuclear energy” for pointing out how useful large scale solar+battery is too!
How is this a meme?
I’d like to see this redone using energy instead of power. E.g is 2,400 watts during the initial heatup or when the oven reaches stable temperature? They’re not taking into account the time change either.
2400W is typical maximum power for an oven. If you run that continuous you’ll have very crispy (black) turkey
I really don’t get this ackshually business about nuclear power, we’re absolute idiots to not employ it more. Everywhere there’s been a focus on nuclear power generation we’re seeing reliable results over a long long timespan
The problem with nuclear is: business wise, it is a TOUGH sell to the public, even without the anti-nuclear lobby groups fighting with safety propaganda.
It takes a much higher capital spend to start up nuclear than any other type of plant, so you won’t “break even” for 30 plus years, if ever.
It doesn’t help when there are high profile sites that are being refurbished, whose costs are already phenomenaly high, and then the managing firm fucks it up (I’m looking at you Crystal River).
It makes it high risk, financially. And it’s the public that ultimately ends up paying.
My hope is that SMR’s become viable. They introduce a new factor though. If you get small, “cheaper” nuclear plants, then you will get more operators and you will get some that may run fast and loose. One fuck up can ruin it for everyone.
I can accept the argument that it’s safe and effective but the public irrationally won’t accept it. Seems to have been a pretty good sell on the other side of the curtain though
SMRs also produce significantly more waste for the amount of power generated.
It’s sort of too late for nuclear though. They take years to build and cost a fortune. The time to invest in nuclear power on a large scale was probably 10 years ago (although, was it as safe then? I don’t know)… Right now we need answers that get us away from fossil fuels much, much quicker. Nuclear may still be a part of the picture, but renewables are more pressing.
Think beyond your own lifetime
The energy problem we have isn’t beyond my lifetime, it’s now. There is a finite amount of investment available for new energy projects, and if we pour it into nuclear that means 10+ years of continuing with present usage of fossil fuels. Obviously I know noone is suggesting we do only nuclear, but the point remains that renewables projects can be completed sooner and cheaper. Even if we continue to use nuclear to support the base load and decide to develop some level of capability beyond what exists today, the majority of investment should go to renewables.
We have there options:
-
Continue fossils and make earth uninhabitable for a medium (on the scale of humanity) duration of time.
-
Switch to renevables, even if it means changing our way of living, maybe overproducing less, having less ultra riches etc.
-
Switch to nuclear, which isn’t fast enough to stop the fossil problem but also contaminates earth for a ultra long amount of time and also is way harder to get rid of (we have at least in theory options to get co2 out of the atmosphere even if its not at all practical/usable e ough to help us with our current situation, for nuclear waste there is literally nothing you can to except wait.)
No sane person I met ever argued for 1, but since some time Americans seem to start arguing for 3 instead of 2 with literally no good arguments.
-
Thing is this has been said for longer than I’ve been alive, and will probably still be said after I’m dead, in the intervening 70-80 years we could have and could be actually building the damn things.
Thing is this has been said for longer than I’ve been alive, and will probably still be said after I’m dead
I’m not making this argument in the past, I’m making it now.
in the intervening 70-80 years we could have and could be actually building the damn things
Well, they are being built? It’s not like the world has abandoned nuclear power. We need the base load, there’s certainly an argument to use some nuclear, but the safety and waste issues mean it shouldn’t really ever be our only way to generate power, at least until some of those problems are solved. Modern reactors are much safer than they once were, but as I said before - the fossil fuel situation is immediate and pressing. I’m not sure I disagree with anyone who made this argument in the past - renewables are a faster way to convert away from fossil fuels. It’s more pressing now than ever, but it isn’t a new problem and it’s been urgent for a long time. Just because we failed to solve it before doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. What’s your reasoning to focus on nuclear rather than renewables today?
My reasoning is we should do both, nuclear and renewables both have useful properties in the short and long term and the idea we can’t afford both seems ridiculous when we can apparently spend huge amounts of money on things like space tourism and giving amazon more money back in rebates than they paid in taxes to begin with.
Well I agree there. I think we should be focusing on renewables, but like I said I think we also need nuclear unless we can solve the energy storage problem.
Wow, didn’t realize how anti-nuclear Lemmy is after looking at this comment thread.
Common on contrarian and alternative platform as this particular topic has been seeded by russia psyops against russian oil alternative.
This is why germany shut down all its reactors and went back to burning lignite coal when nordstream was blown up by a ln Ukrainian triggerman.
Germany’s exit from nuclear power was decided way back in the early 2010s. When the pipeline was destroyed the last three remaining plants were overdue for maintenance, didn’t have any more fuel and also no one to run the plant for significantly longer. They extended the shutdown until spring and that was it. Stop spreading the lie, that this was some kind of rushed decision or that it could have been prolonged much further.
Building new ones isnt economical and also wouldn’t produce any electricity until the late 2030s
If the exit was a mistake 15 years ago can be debated, but the discussion is worthless now, no matter how often this gets pushed by the party that fucked up the buildup of renewable alternatives in the 16 years they were in powerWe didn’t this is misinformation spread in USA. Yes we shut down nuclear plants (but the laws fasing out nuclear were made over a decade ago because we still haven’t found a solution for the waste, this was all looong before nordstream) and our investments in renewable are behind, but none is planning on going back to coal (except some crazy right wing fascists who are not in political power)
For the most part we are investing in gas heavily at the moment, which is fucking stupid in our climate situation, but the fracking gas from the USA with very competitive prices and lot of political hegemony from USA drive the government to do it anyway.
Coal is already reactivated
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-18-fall-2022/the-source-of-germanys-nuclear-aversion
https://theconversation.com/why-germany-ditched-nuclear-before-coal-and-why-it-wont-go-back-228212
https://www.base.bund.de/EN/ns/nuclear-phase-out/nuclear-phase-out_node.html
Not sure how good these sources are but russia bankrolling anti nuclear sentinent is something I often heard said.
I read the Reuters article and it backs up my point…
Reactivating a coal power plant which was kept in hold because of gas shortage… Has nothing to do with nuclear…
As I said: we ditched nuclear decades ago, were going with renevables, then conservatives slowed renewables aimed for gas and a a Slower transition out of fossils, thats why we still don’t have enough renewable and need to still rely on coal. But we don’t build new coal plants and no sane person thinks we are going back.
Edit: https://strom-report.com/img/strommix-entwicklung-deutschland-10-jahre.webp
Here is energy production over time, you can clearly see we are phasing out fossils an nuclear in favor gas of renewables
The russian backed anti nuclear operation was from the 2000s
Sure sure, if all your arguments fail blame the russians. You are from the states hm?
Not to say Russia isn’t lobbying for gas and oil, just funny that that’s the reaction on critic on a technology: you must be influenced by Russian propaganda!
Didn’t think people smart enough to use Lemmy would fall for american nuclear lobbying.
Guys come on you can’t really think nuclear is better then renewables and everyone who thinks differently is having an agenda.
If something like this ends up in my feed I wanna talk to the people and see how they ended up with such “interesting” positions, that’s all.
(For what I can tell most are Americans and influenced by local consent manufacturing)
I wouldn’t say nuclear is better than renewables. I would say it’s a good at providing base load as we transition from fossil fuels over to renewables. That’s all.
Ah yes, the great and powerful American nuclear lobby… That hasn’t sold a new reactor in 30 years.
Most people support nuclear because it’s the best base load generation method, and that can’t be replaced by renewables.
You’re literally less than a degree of separation from the “nuclear is a Chinese psyop” people.
Plutonium in nuclear waste has a half lifetime of 24 000 years
The first structure which is counted as begin of civilization is was like 11 000 years ago.
Advocating against them is not automatically russion propaganda bro.
Being weary of companies who assure the public this will all be taken care of, just let them profit now is basic human sense.
(And don’t come at me again with how bad fossils are, I advocate for stopping to use them to, it was just not the topic of the meme)
You trying to put me in a drawer with conspiracy theorists is saying more about you then about me
If people didn’t all turn their oven on at the same time but took more of a staggered approach this would supply a lot more people.
No, it’s already wrong even for realistic staggered dinners.
I think they are using an arbitrary GW-day of energy instead of power, so it can’t even come close to making as much turkey as claimed.
They’re over by a factor of 6 which would add up to 21 hours, not 24. I don’t know what they’ve done to get 2.5 million, it should be 417 thousand with those numbers.
Edit: Oh dear. They said each oven could completely cook 6 turkeys in a day so they rounded to that number. At least it no longer reads GW/day.
The source
Time zones probably help with that!
If you cook me a 15lb turkey in 3 1/2 hours that burnt dry shit is going in the trash.
- Dude standing by a smoker with 10 lbs of pork ribs for the past 4 hours
With Vogtle expansion costing over $15B per gw, that is $6000+ per fed person, before counting the cost of importing uranium from Russia.
Also without storing the nuclear waste.
or security costs, including the promised good time of civil war that get’s floated around.
6000$ to “feed” every X minutes that it takes to microwave to microwave a turkey. This plant cook 2.5 million turkey in parrallel.
Removed by mod
Now calculate how many generations of turkeys will be eaten till the waste stops killing people
Edit: can’t believe how many people here are falling for nuclear. Have you all learned nothing from what companies did with fossil fuels? Taking the profits and leaving humanity with a fucked up world? And now you are falling for the same stuff with nuclear again, I assume this is the discourse in america which is so scewed? Here in Europe people are not that naive… Even the ones in France, which is quite into nuclear are reasonable and see the waste problem normally.
And here on Lemmy people really come and say “nuclear waste isn’t dangerous, it didn’t kill anyone”
Wtf people?!
How many people has all the waste we’ve produced kill up to now?
deleted by creator
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
Quite a few (if you remember not even a fraction oft its life time is over by now)
Also: radiation doesn’t kill right away. Often you live 10 more years with weird symptoms and die from something like heart attack, so your death isn’t counted as “caused by radiation exposure” but as “died from cancer” or “heart attack”
Yes, radiation can kill people decades later, but so does pollution from burning fossil fuel. BTW, your link talks about nuclear accidents, not the number of people killed by nuclear wastes produced normally, which is what you claimed is killing people. A bit of a misdirection on your part, isn’t it?
No one is arguing for fossils lol That’s a strawman
And yes, I just gave you the first link I found, point given, but you wouldn’t argue that nuclear waste is safe to be around would you?
It’s not a strawman. It is 100% completely comparable to your point. You’re over here using deaths as a point against a technology when the current de facto standard society runs on us unimaginably worse.
But keep handwaving and calling actual legitimate arguments against what you’re saying, “Strawmen.” It’s great and doesn’t stifle healthy discussions in any way.
Dude, its a strawman because im not arguing pro fossil but pro solar, Wind, Walter and economical and social change.
To be arguing pro solar, wind, water, and social and economic change, you would have had to have mentioned them. The only things you said were isolated anti nuclear rhetoric, lol. Ultimately, I agree with you, but read back through the comment thread, perhaps.
tl;dr - It was not a strawman, but opposition to your comments as existing in a vacuum.
Nuclear waste is indeed a problem, however it is a contained problem that can be isolated. Oil’s byproduct are distributed into the atmosphere and are killing every living thing on earth. Do you know how many people die every year due to pollution from burning fossil fuels? It’s orders of magnitude worse. The fear of nuclear waste, while absolutely an issue, is so incredibly blown out of proportion compared to the silent killer that is fossil fuels.
You people always come and compare to oil.
THATS A STRAWMAN NOONE IS ARGUING FOR OIL
yes short term the rising temp by climate gases is prob worse, but you need to compare it to actual alternatives, like wind, water, sun -.-
Everyone fucking knowes that oil needs to be stopped from being used better yesterday then today, but this doesn’t make nuclear any better
You people always come and compare different energy sources to one another
Its saying Corona isn’t dangerous because cancer is worse.
When the actual comparison should be made between corona and getting a corona antibody shot.
Sure you can compare nuclear with fossils and will see: both lots of downsides bad, we shouldn’t use them. The problem is when you stop there, don’t compare it to wind, solar, water, and then go around hyping nuclear.
I specifically pointed out that nuclear energy has its issues. Holy crap, you just accused others of strawmanning when they aren’t, then strawman yourself.
We’re done with this conversation. Nothing productive will come of it. Learn to have a productive conversation instead of stifling others.
Cheers.
Removed by mod
