• JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    But that’s just the generated per kwh cost, not taking into account when the energy is generated. To compare a full renewables grid to a renewables nuclear mixed grid you need to take into account massive energy storage systems and their inefficiencies and possible material shortages. We can’t just compare the currently favorable cost per kwh without taking into account problems as we scale into less reliable energy sources.

    • Serpent@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You will need long term storage in both cases. Nuclear can’t act as a peaker because you can’t quickly ramp up or down the generation. Nuclear can only perform as baseload which, in theory, could be provided by a renewable energy mix if the install base is high enough.

      I don’t disagree with your point that it isn’t a simple direct comparison but any sensible energy mix will still require storage. I find it difficult to see the economic case for nuclear if renewables can be installed in sufficient quantities, given that nuclear is roughly 4 times as expensive as solar and wind.

      • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Nuclear can only perform as baseload

        That’s only true for NPPs built decades ago. Modern designs can also do load-following power. For peaks you have renewables, of course, they complement each other. Diversity makes a healthy grid.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The plants that can allegedly do this almost never do, and most of them have had maintenance issues which cost more to fix than replacing them with renewables.

        • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Niclear has high investment cost and very low production cost which incentivises runnig at max output for as long as possible. This might block out renewables from the grid if their production cost is higher and make it less profitable to build them. So its really not a Symbiosis between nuclear and regenerative

        • Serpent@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Modern designs can also do load-following power.

          I think this is a maybe in terms of what the grid needs. Will be great if nuclear is built that genuinely supports system demands.

          Diversity makes a healthy grid.

          Couldn’t agree more.

      • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        With 100% renewables you would need almost 100% storage and potentially for multiple days, with a nuclear baseload you’d only need storage for the peaks, you could even use excess renewables to charge up the storage for these peaks.

        • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you mean with 100% Storage? And why would you need it for multiple days if you have a grid that transports energy all around the continent and in future possible worldwide?

          • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I guess we can talk about transmission then, yes if you can get enough renewable energy across a continent then in theory you can transmit it to where it is needed, however you would need a LOT of transmission capability that is not currently available. The current interconnects can handle an impressive amount of load but you’re not going to transmit enough power for all of sweeden from spain. There are some massive transmission projects underway that should help address this but they’re still not going to be enough to cover a 100% outage for most places. So a cost analysis would have to be done to determine if massive transmission projects are better than building nuclear plants. Keep in mind, these same transmission lines can transmit nuclear power as well so they should be built regardless of what energy source you use.

            • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What do you mean with 100% Storage?

              you would need a LOT of transmission capability that is not currently available

              can be build faster and cheaper than nuclear, doesn’t need fuel and needs to be build anyway. We get the cheapest, strongest and least dangerous grid if we invest in more renewables, storage and better transmission. And that’s something we can get done fast and start harvesting the profits in a few years.

              • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mostly agree except transmission is not cheap, and further I’m not convinced transmission across a continent is even possible even with crazy high voltage DC lines which currently don’t exist. The current massive projects are going to take several years for just a few lines, it would take an insane ramp up in production to do the entire continent. While we’re working on that nuclear can be built reasonably fast without political hurdles blocking every step of the way. That’s not to downplay the need for recycling the waste which will need to be invented regardless because the waste already exists. I’m also not convinced renewables can ramp up production on a scale that would be able to replace in excess of 100% of the demand within a few years, but I guess I’ll have to look that up. Your concerns about nuclear are valid, but rebewables won’t magically solve all the problems of reliability and scale, we’re going to need a baseload and nuclear has proven for decades that it can do the job.

        • Serpent@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not sure about the 100% point but you will certainly need long term storage which is an unsolved problem. A point I wanted to make was that with enough renewables installed you have the baseload. You would also have an excess of production at peak times that would be useful to store long term.

          My personnal view is that a sensible energy mix should have some nuclear but I don’t think it is the key to solving our future energy requirements and should be minimal as it isn’t good value.

        • Richard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Entirely unsubstantiated. Renewables require storage only for the peak demands, otherwise, they function as a baseload, provided that there is a sensitive balance of wind and solar power generation installations.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you want 99.9999% uptime with no backup then the nuclear fleet will need months or years of storage due to the prevalence of correlated unplamned outages.

          Back in reality, a good enough renewable system with >95-99% uptime has less than 10% of the storage that will be found in the accompanying country’s EV fleet. Even if you are too allergic to nuance to understand the real solution for the remainder, simply planning a renewable rollout and assuming existing fossil fuel peakers for down periods over 12 hours will take 20-100 years to release as much carbon as delaying one of the years waiting for late, over budget nuclear reactors.

          • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even if you are too allergic to nuance to understand the real solution

            And thus you have shown that your mind is made up and no amount of evidence will sway your decisions. Good day.

            • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m plenty open to evidence, it’s just every time I look at some it shows a new lie that nukebros tell. Every single talking point isnutter bullshit to the pooint where if you look it up you find that nukes are significantly worse by whatever hair-splitting metric is being used ti try and distract from their main downsides.

              There is a fully renewable solution for the 2-5 >100 hour events a year where battery storage is unsuitable, but it requires holding more than one thought in your head at a time (thermal storage, dispatchable load and w2e is one combo).

              • WagnasT@iusearchlinux.fyi
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                l’m plenty open to evidence, it’s just every time I look at some it shows a new lie that nukebros tell.

                That’s not very open minded. I’m all for vetting your sources and skepticism, but going in with your mind made up is close minded.

                it requires holding more than one thought in your head at a time

                Look my dude, you’re clearly here to fight not discuss, and that’s fine we absolutely need to fight against the establishment, activisim is important. Fighting against your allies is a pro gamer move though.

                • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That last bit is the rub though. I’m fighting to decarbonize and reduce exploitation kf resource rich countries and you’re fighting to stop it.

                  The constant tirade of insane lies is tolerable. Pretending you’re not on the side of fossil fuels is the incredibly insulting bit.