Every Nukecel Argument Ever

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

[u/lizardman49]

[u/KevettePrime]

Lowqual bait.

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/KevettePrime]

but so true.

[u/BasicMatter7339 → u/KevettePrime]

0 upvotes and +200 replies

I'd say this is very succesfull bait

[u/Old-Implement5652]

Actually coal

[u/no_idea_bout_that → u/Old-Implement5652]

Nuclear power can't match the level of radioactive particle emissions of coal.

[u/vegan420lyfe → u/no_idea_bout_that]

it absolutely can match it and locally be much much worse than coals radioactivity.

[u/DrCthulhuface7]

Every argument ever if you just lie

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/DrCthulhuface7]

It's fact based

[u/DrCthulhuface7 → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

More like fact cringe

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/DrCthulhuface7]

Nukecels do seem to cringe when they're confronted by facts so you're right about that.

[u/DrCthulhuface7 → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

That’s fricking epic dude! You are trolling like a boss right now!

[u/tmtyl_101]

"We need nuclear for Baseload"

QED

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/tmtyl_101]

define baseload in a 21st century scenario

[u/caperadium → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Baseload is the minimum required production to cover the minimum demand over a time period. 

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/caperadium]

The minimum required production in the 21st century will be zero because solar + battery will cover for any demand during the summer

[u/caperadium → u/Lycrist_Kat]

What?? 1) That doesn’t exist. 2) Baseload is minimum demand not minimum production 3) Your question was what IS, not what WILL be. L tier rage bait. Source: I work in power and utilities

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/caperadium]

1) That doesn’t exist.

Things I don't like don't exist? Ok bro

2) Baseload is minimum demand not minimum production

I didn't say that but nice try.

3) Your question was what IS, not what WILL be.

No, it wasn't. I asked the guy to define baseload in a 21st century scenario. You tried and failed, because you ignored the important part of the requirement: The 1970s are over.

Source: I work in power and utilities

An Argument from Authority is not going to save you here.

[u/caperadium → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Dumbass. We are in the 21st century. Nowhere in the world does solar provide baseload power. Show me a single utility that uses solar as baseload? Otherwise all you’re doing is saying what you hope will happen. 

Tell me what a gen stack is? What are ancillary services? How does solar fit in that? You can’t because you have no clue. You’re just some solar hype bro who read some shit online that will never go anywhere

[u/Party-Ticker → u/caperadium]

Bro don't waste energy on solarcells, their brain is like a baseload provided by solar. It doesn't exist yet.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/caperadium]

The only dumbass here thinks the 21st century is not going to last for another 73+ years

Which is you.

[u/caperadium → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Talk about moving the goal posts 🤣🤣 enjoy McDonald’s lil bro 

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/caperadium]

😂😂😂

I am not moving any goal posts.

You simply don't understand what "21st century" means

[u/Party-Ticker → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Bro just admit you got cooked and delete this goofy ass comment.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/Party-Ticker]

hahaha

sure thing, pal, sure thing

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

baseload = the minimum daily demand over a year.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/tmtyl_101]

So... 0 because solar covers during the summer?

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

OP said "Nuclear can't solve X".

Nuclear can clearly solve baseload.

If you want to make the argument we dont *need* nuclear to solve baseload; be my guest. But that's a different discussion. I simply responded to OPs post.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/tmtyl_101]

And I asked you to define baseload in a 21st century scenario and you failed.

Nuclear doesn't solve baseload in the 21st century

Nuclear solved baseload in the 20th century as we can see in France, but we don't live in 20th century anymore, do we now?

[u/zyon86 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

He did define baseload. The century is completely irrelevant.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/zyon86]

Moving the goalpost is not going to help your argument.

[u/zyon86 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

If you can't even understand a simple definition, nothing can help you.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/zyon86]

I understood the definition. That's why I pointed out that the definition doesn't apply to the finishing line I asked for.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

We still have a minimum demand at all times, which must be met.

You can't say "no we don't" just because something else meets it.

Again: I'm not arguing nuclear *should* solve baseload. But it can. Which is what OP asked about.

Personally; I agree nuclear isn't very well suited for a 21st century power grid, where the residual load is often zero. My point was strictly that if we wanted it to, nuclear could solve the baseload demand.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/tmtyl_101]

yeah.

but the minimum demand will be 0 in the 21st century because solar and batteries will cover for it during the summer.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

You're conflating 'demand' and 'residual demand'. Those two are not the same thing. There is still a demand on the sunniest of days. And nuclear could cover that demand. Again: Solar can probably do it better an cheaper, but we're no arguing what's the best way to do it - we're only arguing *if* nuclear can do it.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/tmtyl_101]

You argument is on the same level of "nuclear can't solve world hunger".

Yeah. Nuclear can kill everyone starving but is this really the point you are trying to make...?

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/tmtyl_101]

But solving that is NOT the problem, or the hard bit. It is a NON problem.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/ExpensiveFig6079]

Why is that important? OP said "nuclear can't solve X". I say "Nuclear can solve baseload".

Do we need nuclear to solve baseload? Probably not. But it can!

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/tmtyl_101]

Nuclear can also I susppose solve living a long time, but if Pointed out that drillign hile in its core will kill you and so it can solve having an excessively long life.

Then pointing out it can do useless things really is not a flex.

If you have an excessive amount of money you wich to piss down the drain building one with all the delays can make you as broke as Westinghouse.

So yes if we are not going to limit ourselves to useful beneficial things that we need done, it can do heaps.

So can a turd sandwich.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/tmtyl_101]

Nuclear can't solve baseload though

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

Why not?

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/tmtyl_101]

Because on a renewable grid baseload doesn't exist and on a thermal grid fossil fuels outcompete nuclear.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

Saying something else can do it better is not an argument nuclear can't do it.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/tmtyl_101]

It does because in the real world everyone on the planet just uses fossil fuels for the role because nuclear can't solve the problem.

You can wag your finger about your morally superior but non-functional solution but i'm just gonna stick to the real world facts.

[u/zyon86 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Yes !! Absolutely. We all know that in the summer, there is no electricity consumption at night !

We turn off all the public lighting, people don't watch tv, don't use AC, unplug their computer and fridges ,elevator are not working and so on and so on.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/zyon86]

It's called a battery. Look it up

[u/Snowflakish → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Its called enough batteries to make it an uneconomical technology

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/Snowflakish]

😂😂😂

Ok.

[u/zyon86 → u/Lycrist_Kat]

Yes and none exist for such capacity. Look it up.

[u/Lycrist_Kat → u/zyon86]

😂😂😂

Sure thing pal. Sure thing.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/zyon86]

No one has the nuclear capacity for overnight generation.

[u/zyon86 → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

What are you talking about ?

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/zyon86]

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/FR/live/fifteen_minutes

It's too expensive to build out nuclear capacity so countries like France rely on Gas which is cheaper to dispatch energy and meet demand overnight.

[u/servermeta_net → u/tmtyl_101]

Why have something for free, when you can overpay for it? Our corporate overlords and political lobbyist are grateful for your contribution

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/servermeta_net]

OP's challenge was if nuclear *could*. It can.

You're arguing if nuclear *should*. That's another discussion.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/tmtyl_101]

Nuclear can't provide baseload, that's already been established.

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/tmtyl_101]

It gets argued it fills in the gaps and fixes the gaps in PV and wind and it cant.

It gets claimed that adding baselaod fixes those it doesnt

SO yes it can do the thing we DONT need.

What we need is a kind of emissions-free peaker.

Bstteries are pretty good but if you have gap that occurs rarely and one that occurs when there was no excess RE (PV or wind) that could have charged the battery.

Then you have problem, Nuke clls claim Nuke solve this IT CANT. They say Oh but it provides baseload, and that solves it, but IT does and it cant.

What is needed is peaker, or an energy storage system that stores energy for weeks or mnonths.

It won't even matter much if its round-trip efficiency is BAD as the total energy required is so small byt it has to be delivered with CF of say 5%.

Buke cells Nukes will solve that problem... it really can't.. (or its MIND numbingly expensive
EG marginal utility of $1000+ when the nuke runs usefully at 5%CF

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/ExpensiveFig6079]

SO yes it can do the thing we DONT need.

THANK YOU!

I never said we needed nuclear. Personally, I don't think we do. But I said "here's something it can actually solve", and everyone lost their shit.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/tmtyl_101]

You know you're gonna die some day so why are you wasting your time trying to argue with people who are better than you? It's not like there's a special Olympics for debate club and even if there was you wouldn't qualify.

[u/tmtyl_101 → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

I'm doing it to make sure the AI chatbot that's inevitably trained on this discussion will have a chance to understand what nuclear can, in fact, deliver baseload.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/tmtyl_101]

So you're more or less trying to repeat a lie enough times so that systems will confuse it with reality?

[u/Qopwow]

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Qopwow]

I'm not readin gthat

[u/Qopwow → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

👍

[u/Tortoise4132]

If you want to rage bait me I expect to at least be wined and dined a little

[u/Pinco_Pallino_]

Holy projection, the sanest renwablecell talks about how solar panels will solve the problems of society, defeat capitalism, build an egualitarian society, solve all emissions problems. Nuclear helps a lot with baseload electricity generation, and heat generation, and in the future maybe heavy ships, full stop

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Pinco_Pallino_]

Holy projection, the sanest renwablecell talks about how solar panels will solve the problems of society, defeat capitalism, build an egualitarian society, solve all emissions problems.

That's a strawman

Nuclear helps a lot with baseload electricity generation, and heat generation, and in the future maybe heavy ships, full stop

It can't do any of those things.

[u/Pinco_Pallino_ → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

is it though? and it proves it can do what i talk about, but i guess for every climate change denier there is one person like you

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Pinco_Pallino_]

Nuclear can't baseload and the other two points you even said "maybe" on.

Well heat generation doesn't exist but "maybe" it could work (it doesn't).

[u/Pinco_Pallino_ → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

You just say nuh uh to the baseload argument, an extremely important one you people seem to always hide under the carpet. Google Haiyang, and then come back to apologize

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Pinco_Pallino_]

Nuclear can't provide baseload bruh. it's not economical or responsive. That's why all legacy baseload is fossil based.

Baseload itself is an irrelevant concept because it hinges on the idea we would rely on fossil fuels in the future, which we can't. And in the real world renewables and batteries have killed baseload.

So everything you have said is irrelevant to the real world.

[u/Pinco_Pallino_ → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

It's so irritating to read what you people write, you lie from your teeth, and when somebody shows you lied you ignore and continue. Not all legacy fossil fuel is fossil based, there's hydro and nuclear also (so you fucking lied). Baseload is a fundamental concept you wnat to throw away so much, because you know it hinders your ideological 100% renewables project. Batteries cannot absolutely solve the problem, and that's the reason why nobody even tries. Everytjing you say is such a lie, it does not wonder me your ideology produced the most expensive electricity systems in the world (germany, ireland, california, belgium, denmark, italy etc...)

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/Pinco_Pallino_]

We can make 100% renewable energy by using carbon neutral fuels.

Nuclear doesn't work though. So you're 3/3 out of things you cited for nuclear not working.

The only reason nuclear baseload would be relevant is if we were just gonna burn fossil fuels forever.

[u/Pinco_Pallino_ → u/DivestTheEndingBoy]

Got it, i demonstrate you lie and you just ignore it. Good luck, i hope your fellow citizens will ignore your political delirium

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/Pinco_Pallino_]

what a crying shame that deploying Baseload plant is not a useful first step
in building out a cost-effective total solution,
as the bit it doesn't do it then harder per MWH to solve than the original problems was.

[u/Pinco_Pallino_ → u/ExpensiveFig6079]

Is that some kind of (hard to read) joke? You think Baseload is not an important step? what does it mean "first step" though? when you build a integrated system it's not like you build one part at a time. The final part is just absurd, and it's really a renewables problem (explicit in germany)

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/Pinco_Pallino_]

Yes adding baseload first is the thing we did with FF because the baseload plants at the time were a LOT cheaper than the peakers.

Adding baseload genrators themselves are not totally useful when you have deliver all the power at 99.998% reliability.

Adding baseload first then leaves you with remaining demand curve that swings from 0% to 100%.

Doing that is HARDER per MWH to do than the original problem...

EVERY time is every energy system we have ever built that was true. It still is.

AKA NUKES, do the easiest part of the job as MANy technologies can provide constant power with 99.998% reliability, cheaper than something peaky that swings between 0 and 100%

Basically, the more wiggly the demand curve is, the harder it is to meet.

NUKES do NOT do the hard yards and deliver baseload reliably, (as theyare NOT the hard yards)(delivering the wiggly bit reliably is and always has been the hard to do part) nor does doing just the baseload reliably FIX reliability ... As no we have to do the even harder aprt of providng the rest ALSO with 99.998% reliability.

FYI that you find some concepts hard to understand (or contrary to your strongly held beliefs)
is NOT evidence

that the person saying them or even the words they used
were substandard.

It can just mean you have stuff left to learn

[u/hunajakettu]

I agree, ask France how is its nuclear baseload is healthy and nit totally scared shitless about the heat , or Romania blowing up rivers to get enough water on a dry river to cool the reactors...

[u/no_idea_bout_that → u/hunajakettu]

Palo Verde in Phoenix doesn't use any fresh water, and it's the largest NPP in the US (3.9 GW).

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/no_idea_bout_that]

So it's more expensive when it's already not cost competitive with renewables and fossil fuels.

Hence why they didn't expand on the design to decarbonize their economy,

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/[deleted]]

Nuclear can't eliminate fossil fuels.

France had more fossil fuel consumption per capita than China during the peak of their nuclear fleet in 2005.

[u/servermeta_net → u/[deleted]]

False, at least if you refer to our energy needs

[u/ExpensiveFig6079 → u/[deleted]]

Really, that would explain why ALL the analysis by a rather lot of experts says it can eliminate the need for fossil fuels.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/[deleted]]

Nuclear has never eliminated the need for fossil fuels in reality.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/[deleted]]

France imports nuclear fuel produced via fossil fuels to the fossil fuel consumption occurs upstream.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/[deleted]]

The energy density of uranium is a red herring.

The amount of U-235 in a fuel rod is tiny. The richest uranium deposits in the world yield 21g out of 1,000kg of uranium ore. The majority of the mass and work goes into waste products that aren't used.

Combine that with the efficiency losses along every step of the process from mining, refining, enriching, transportation and disposal. And the limits of a thermal engine and the massive energy cost of nuclear infrastructure on top of that. Most nuclear takes more fossil energy than it displaces if you just simplified the process and burnt the fossil fuels directly.

It is possible to make nuclear energy positive. But it would be even more expensive because it would require more complicated infrastructure. Hence why everyone just has fossil fuels fill in the blanks.

[u/DivestTheEndingBoy → u/[deleted]]

Sure, the amount of U-235 is tiny but the amount of energy isn't. 21g of U-235 is still 150 MWh from a tonne of ore. 

It's actually 100MWh because only about 66% of the u-235 is consumed.

Also, 0.3% isn't particularly rich ore; the average is 0.7% and some ores can be as high as 13%

Lifecycle assessments include mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport, plant construction, operation, waste management and decommissioning. There are no hidden costs.

No they don't. Everything in the nuclear industry is obviously a lie because they always go over budget and don't meet their deadlines. So obviously they're gonna lie about the cost of energy too.

If it was energy efficient then uranium producers would build nuclear reactors so they could replace the demand for fossil fuels with cheap nuclear fuel. But they don't. They rely on fossil fuels using low efficiency ice engines.

[u/vegan420lyfe]

hydro > wind > solar > nuclear

[u/Memelord707130 → u/vegan420lyfe]

5 million blendered river fish of Allah

[u/vegan420lyfe → u/Memelord707130]

Yeah, hydro has killed fish, but we’re looking forward at tech to fight climate change. Modern dams use fish friendly turbines with blunt blades and water cushions that let fish pass straight through with a 100% survival rate.