The “analysis” was done by “Centre for Net Zero”………definitely not biased at all…….lol
Offshore wind is one of the most environmentally destructive methods of power generation.
Also this is saying that they are making their own small power grid purely to power the data center - why? A nuclear plant would power this + half the country as well. Making nuclear plant just to power this, with it making 5x the power needed, is not how it would work.
Offshore wind is one of the most environmentally destructive methods of power generation.
Interesting claim (as compared with coal mining and its fly-ash ponds, Canadian tar sands, hundreds of bankrupt and leaking well sites in New Mexico and the Gulf of America, rivers stripped by nuclear heat waste, etc). What exactly does most mean?
“net zero” just means you don’t elect for the far more environmentally destructive method of burning fossil fuels
also, it seems the jury’s still out on offshore turbines’ environmental impact. some say it creates artificial reefs while some say its tons of noise disrupt marine life
Net zero organisations have shown a clear agenda against nuclear, which is ironic considering it’s the cleanest and most reliable power generation method, as well as taking up the smallest footprint with the least environmental disruption. “Net zero” in reality means “renewables” only.
Offshore turbines require insane amounts of concrete, steel, oil, and non renewable non recyclable materials not just to make, but to maintain. There’s also no doubt about them altering the ecosystems around them, and not for the better. They also aren’t even a viable option in most countries.
Nuclear power requires a lot of water for coolant. Usually they use river water and release the heated water back in the river, which quite heavily disrupts the ecosystem.
Additionally, during heatwaves (which we’re getting more and more of) the river water may get too warm to use, so the reactor has to shut down (happens in France almost every heatwave), which is bad as that happens when power usage tends to spike.
Nuclear is also extremely expensive, costs many years to build, not to mention we don’t have enough educated nuclear engineers nor build capacity to keep up with the demand for new power. It’s why investors generally don’t bother with nuclear much, outside of specific niche cases. Not to mention the carbon footprint of building a power plant.
It’s also likely going to get more expensive to run in the future. As renewables keep contributing more power to the grid (since they’re so cheap and getting cheaper still), power generation will also fluctuate more. Meaning, other power sources need to be very flexible in when they output power themselves. Nuclear is famously quite inflexible, it takes time to spin up and wind down. There are reactor designs that are better at it, but even for those shutting down the reactor for a couple hours tends to be economic suicide as well. This exact reason btw is why gas is still used a lot; it’s cleaner than coal at least, but also very easy to spin up or wind down without creating much extra cost. And it’s much cheaper than nuclear (leaving more money to invest in renewables).
Nuclear could be great, if it was A) cheaper, B) faster to build and C) more flexible. And no, so far SMRs have not proven to be any of those things yet.
I’ve heard this as well, but in doing this they would either make a significantly smaller and cheaper one that isn’t outputting 5x the power required, or they’d do a deal with the local councils/government to provide lower for them as well.
This “study” is comparing the cost of 80 units of power generation for “renewables” to over 400 units for nuclear. Is just yet another dishonest agenda driven “study” for the anti-nuclear groups.
Nuclear is the most expensive with long term waste, and is an existential threat.
As if we could trust industry and the government right now, ha.
We already have 4 reactors on active fault lines, others in storm surge areas of ocean, increasingly severe storms. A meltdown is when not if, as is improper disposal of waste and the ones making it sticking society with it’s cost.
The “analysis” was done by “Centre for Net Zero”………definitely not biased at all…….lol
Offshore wind is one of the most environmentally destructive methods of power generation.
Also this is saying that they are making their own small power grid purely to power the data center - why? A nuclear plant would power this + half the country as well. Making nuclear plant just to power this, with it making 5x the power needed, is not how it would work.
Interesting claim (as compared with coal mining and its fly-ash ponds, Canadian tar sands, hundreds of bankrupt and leaking well sites in New Mexico and the Gulf of America, rivers stripped by nuclear heat waste, etc). What exactly does most mean?
deleted by creator
“net zero” just means you don’t elect for the far more environmentally destructive method of burning fossil fuels
also, it seems the jury’s still out on offshore turbines’ environmental impact. some say it creates artificial reefs while some say its tons of noise disrupt marine life
Net zero organisations have shown a clear agenda against nuclear, which is ironic considering it’s the cleanest and most reliable power generation method, as well as taking up the smallest footprint with the least environmental disruption. “Net zero” in reality means “renewables” only.
Offshore turbines require insane amounts of concrete, steel, oil, and non renewable non recyclable materials not just to make, but to maintain. There’s also no doubt about them altering the ecosystems around them, and not for the better. They also aren’t even a viable option in most countries.
Nuclear power requires a lot of water for coolant. Usually they use river water and release the heated water back in the river, which quite heavily disrupts the ecosystem.
Additionally, during heatwaves (which we’re getting more and more of) the river water may get too warm to use, so the reactor has to shut down (happens in France almost every heatwave), which is bad as that happens when power usage tends to spike.
Nuclear is also extremely expensive, costs many years to build, not to mention we don’t have enough educated nuclear engineers nor build capacity to keep up with the demand for new power. It’s why investors generally don’t bother with nuclear much, outside of specific niche cases. Not to mention the carbon footprint of building a power plant.
It’s also likely going to get more expensive to run in the future. As renewables keep contributing more power to the grid (since they’re so cheap and getting cheaper still), power generation will also fluctuate more. Meaning, other power sources need to be very flexible in when they output power themselves. Nuclear is famously quite inflexible, it takes time to spin up and wind down. There are reactor designs that are better at it, but even for those shutting down the reactor for a couple hours tends to be economic suicide as well. This exact reason btw is why gas is still used a lot; it’s cleaner than coal at least, but also very easy to spin up or wind down without creating much extra cost. And it’s much cheaper than nuclear (leaving more money to invest in renewables).
Nuclear could be great, if it was A) cheaper, B) faster to build and C) more flexible. And no, so far SMRs have not proven to be any of those things yet.
generally agree but tech firms are looking into small modular reactors sized for datacenters.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobeccles/2024/08/31/microsoft-can-take-the-lead-in-small-modular-reactors-for-powering-ai/
I’ve heard this as well, but in doing this they would either make a significantly smaller and cheaper one that isn’t outputting 5x the power required, or they’d do a deal with the local councils/government to provide lower for them as well.
This “study” is comparing the cost of 80 units of power generation for “renewables” to over 400 units for nuclear. Is just yet another dishonest agenda driven “study” for the anti-nuclear groups.
Nuclear is the most expensive with long term waste, and is an existential threat.
As if we could trust industry and the government right now, ha.
We already have 4 reactors on active fault lines, others in storm surge areas of ocean, increasingly severe storms. A meltdown is when not if, as is improper disposal of waste and the ones making it sticking society with it’s cost.
Removed by mod
I know I’m right when your only reply is insults.