You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
94 points

There are downsides to nuclear these days. Incredibly high cost with a massive delay before they’re functioning. Solar + wind + pumped hydro + district heating is where it’s at in 2024.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

district heating is where it’s at in 2024.

You don’t have those in 2024? Commies built central heating in every city.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Iceland, where I’m from, has had it for ages in pretty much every house.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well that’s unfair, all you have to do is take a corkscrew to the floor and stick a pipe in it!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

You can make Thorium reactors much smaller and cheaper, basically a 50MW unit is not much larger than a shipping container, while being much more safe than standard nuclear plants. The largest issue is over-regulation of the nuclear power in general.

A 50MW of solar installation is HUGE, and thats 50MW at the sunniest part of the planet: https://newsaf.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-15/Kenya-launches-Chinese-built-50MW-solar-power-plant-MqC575l6Te/index.html, We are basically talking about close to a square kilometer installation…

there is simply no way to call a 50MW solar plant cleaner than nuclear and its probably not even that much cheaper in the end. Compare that to a shipping container sized reactor… Only thing in the way, is the nuclear scare and government regulations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The cost is less from the design and more from the safety regulations. Best case scenario the state just starts making nuclear power plants, it’s just not a good idea to mix profit incentive with nuclear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

Still not a reason to not build them, the entire point is for nuclear to handle the load when solar/wind can’t provide due to weather. Other renewables will still be producing the bulk of the power we need, but at night nuclear will be handling any demand spikes, each of them would greatly reduce the number of batteries required to satisfy the demand. They can stay until our solar output is so high we can just start electrolyzing water into hydrogen as energy storage.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

If you’re suggesting using Nuclear as a peaker plant or to turn it off and on whenever wind/solar is not up for it then I’m sorry to say that it’s not viable. Nuclear generators don’t handle well being turned off and on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

My good friends Xenon and Samarium.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

That’s why they mentioned “pumped hydro

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Though pumped hydro is sometimes opposed by environmental groups because it does absolutely decimate local environments.

I have high hopes for sodium batteries. The ones that have been released on the market are simply perfect (if scaled up) for local grid storage in countries with a lot of space and will hopefully get better energy density in line with Lithium Iron Phosphate with time.

Salt batteries have been the cold fusion of battery tech for like 10 years, but now it is finally coming to fruition. I hope to install a solar installation with salt batteries in 5 years or so, myself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

This.

Also, tie together more countries’ power grids to even out production and demand of renewables, and reduce the need for other backup sources.

For a fraction of the cost of nuclear, increase the storage capacity as well. We’ve had days where the price per MWh was negative in many hours, because of excess production.

The barriers to carbon free energy aren’t technical, they’re purely political.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You don’t need to tie grids to transfer energy between them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Please understand that negative prices are the market for electricity breaking down! That is not a good thing. It should mean that if you have solar panels on your roof you have to pay to participate in the national grid because you are dumping energy into the grid when it can’t use it, but special rules have been made for renewable plants. Literally, imagine a contract-to-supply for wind or solar…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I understand very well the implications of the negative price, which is why I advocated NOT to spend trillions in nuclear, when issues of balancing demand and production can be solved for a fraction of what nuclear costs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Yeah, back in 2010 and before nuclear was the way to go but with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

Still shame on Germany for decommissioning nuclear reactors and deciding to build Nordstream 2 and burn coal as a replacement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You probably also didnt heard about Thorium based molten salt reactors, they are much safer than conventional nuclear, also cheaper, and you can have a 50MW installation in space not much larger than a shipping container. A 50MW solar installation is close to 1km2 and thats without any storage included. It even can be modified to run on spent fuel of conventional nuclear power plants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

I haven’t heard of any advancement that makes solar generate energy when the sun doesn’t shine and wind generate energy when the wind isn’t blowing.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 9.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.5K

    Posts

  • 48K

    Comments