this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
49 points (93.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
807 readers
66 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it's better but outdated and silly compared to renewables.
Advocating for wide spread nuclear is like unironically advocating for muskets as weapons. They had a place as a stopgap when the current tech wasn't there but it's outdated beyond niche purposes. Technology has caught up now so there's no real need for nuclear beyond making generation more stable. Keeping a few plants as backup, maybe even expand it a little, but 95% of your climate plan should be renewables.
Nuclear isn't competing with solar and wind though; it's not in the same load category. Nuclear, coal and oil together manage the base load because they can run cheaply at maximum capacity around the clock; bio, methane and hydro manage the mid and peak loads because they respond to fast demand changes very well, and wind and solar are injected with priority when they are available. Renewables mostly reduce the demand in methane and hydropower when there is sunshine and wind, while nuclear competes with heavy thermal such as coal, oil, and waste. A nuclear power plant can almost never be replaced with renewables, and closing it is a bad idea until storage is sufficient to smooth out the duck curve
I would assume any energy plan for a habitable earth would not rely on coal, oil and waste. You are describing how nuclear is used today, which is fine and I generally agree. But the context is the future of energy infrastructure.
This is more or less what I said in my original comment, nuclear should be expanded in small quantities, as needed, but the bulk of any new energy infrastructure should be renewables. I do disagree that the only way to smooth the duck curve is with nuclear. Infrequent brownouts, rationing, and enough redundancy and storage, each with their own issues granted, could do the same thing.
My comment was more directed towards a subset of people who think nuclear should become the major source of energy production.