you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 56 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (76 children)

Why go nuclear when renewable is so much cheaper, safer, future proof and less centralised?

Don't get me wrong. Nuclear is better than coal and gas but it will not safe our way of life.

Just like the electric car is here to preserve the car industry not the planet, nuclear energy is still here to preserve the big energy players, not our environment.

  • source
  • hideshow 76 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (19 children)

    Renewable instead of nuclear, but nuclear instead of coal.

    We need a mix. Centralization isn't the biggest problem. Literally anything we can do to reduce emissions is worth doing, and we won't be going 100% on anything, so best to get started on the long term projects now so that we can stop turning on new plants based on combustion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (15 children)

    Even if it takes 2 decades to get a new plant going, it's a nuclear plant's worth of fossil fuels we don't need any more, and therefore worth doing.

    If it isn't fossil fuels, it's automatically better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (14 children)

    The main problem with nuclear power plants isn't the radiation or the waste or the risk of accident. It's that they cost so damn much they're rarely profitable, especially in open electricity markets. 70-80% of the cost of the electricity is building the plant, and without low interest rates and a guaranteed rate when finished it doesn't make economic sense to build them.

    The latest nuclear plant in the US is in Georgia and is $17 billion over budget and seven years later than expected.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago* (8 children)

    It’s that they cost so damn much

    The cost of continued fossil fuel use is far higher.

    rarely profitable

    Profit should not be the motivation of preventing our climate disaster from getting worse. If the private sector isn't able to handle it, then the government needs to do so itself.

    And besides, the only reason fossil fuels are so competitive is because we are dumping billions of dollars in subsidies for them. Those subsidies should instead go towards things that aren't killing the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    Would it be better to dump billions into nuclear power plants that won't come online for a decade at least, or to dump billions into renewables that can be online and reducing emissions in under a year?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Isn't a lot of that due to organization structures in US power Markets? I remember reading that a lot of times costs on electrical power go nuts due to near fraudulent managers.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    We can and should be doing both. Use the money our governments are giving to fossil fuels in subsidies. $7 trillion PER YEAR (that's 11 million every minute) in public subsidies go to fossil fuels. Channel that to nuclear and renewables and there's more than enough to decarbonise the grids with both short- and long-term solutions.

    What we definitely should not be doing is closing perfectly working nuclear power plants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Power generation and power use need to be synchronous. Renewables generate power at rates outside of our control. In order to smooth out that generation and bring a level of control back to power distribution we would need a place to store all the energy. Our current methods are not dense enough and are extremely disruptive/damaging to the environment. Nuclear gives us a steady and predictable base level of generation that we can control. Which would make it so we don’t need to pump vast quantities of water into massive manmade reservoirs or build obnoxiously large batteries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    Nuclear (with the exception of France because they're special) is limited to being a base load as you alluded, but power demand varies throughout the day. Nuclear can't vary on a 24 hour scale to follow the load so we need renewables and energy storage or hydroelectric to make up the difference. That's what "nuclear OR renewables" misses

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (12 children)

    I can't imagine a future without solar, wind, and nuclear power.

    not unless we find out we are wrong about thermodynamics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Wind and Solar are "renewable" to a certain scale. If you dump gigantic wind farm in the middle of a jet stream, for example, you can impact downstream climate cycles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    that's why we could be aware of all the externalities.

    solar could be deployed on the ocean but that will certainly lower sea temperatures.

    let's terraform intentionally rather than just accidentally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Yeah, the cost is the real downside to Nuclear. However, for every Nuclear plant running, that’s a lot of batteries it other energy storage that don’t have to be built today in order to have clean energy. Because even if we were utilizing nuclear like we should, we would still need to be building a shit ton of batteries to keep the cost of energy coming down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (16 children)

    Because it gets dark and the wind stops blowing and industry still operates when those things happen. Nuclear is not a forever solution, but a necessary stop-gap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    It's not actually required at all though, thats all FUD from the big energy monopoly that hate anything that can be owned and run by people that aren't them - there are endless options for making a stable grid using renewables and they're all considerably cheaper, quicker to make and a lot more resilient.

    Nuclear gets pushed so hard because it protects the billionaires monopoly that's the only reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    Yes renewables need to come with storage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    And where do you think all the materials for that come from? Eind turbines, solar panels and batteries require huge amounts of (rare) earth materials that need to be dug up in very -let's say ugly- mines.. lithium for example, is now the core component for most of our batteries and lithium mines are polluting as hell. If we want to have all the lithium we need for all of our storage capacity, well need to destroy beautiful places like the Atacama desert because if we don't we won't have enough lithium.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    The rare in 'rare earth' is not related to scarcity, many of the most common elements in the crust are 'rare earth materials' lithium is a great example because it's hugely abundant especially in salt water where it can be extracted at the same time as desalination - which is especially good paired with wind and solar because it can rapidly switch power usage so excess energy at peek times can be used which helps stabilise the grid, then when generation is low it can pause to conserve power. Also ideal for placement directly tied to solar where sun and saltwater are plentiful, such as the equator.

    The other good thing is that lithium is infinitely recyclable and battery tech keeps evolving to require less of it in its chemistry. Theres endless other battery technologies and energy storage methods available too, lithium is great for cars and phones because of the energy density but for grid tied storage that's not really an issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    For what I’ve read, it’s beats nuclear tech exists and is ready to be built at scale now. Renewables are intermittent in nature and need energy storage to work at scale. We don’t have the tech for a grid wide energy storage.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (14 replies)