this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2526 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sneaky_b45tard@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't get why people here are so hyped. Why is it a good thing to completely dump renewables?

[–] Stinkywinks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hell yeah, tell me the best future isn't nuclear power and electric rail like an old space Lego set.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear's probably not a great long term choice since it's a lot more expensive than renewables.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] derGottesknecht@feddit.de 0 points 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

[–] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dosent sweden already have a fairly high and fairly stable energy production through their hydroelectiric power plants . Wouldnt it be better to just build more of those.

[–] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We do, but enviromental regulations pushed through during the past two decades is essentially preventing any new or expanded hydro projects. In fact, a lot of smaller hydro plants are instead being demolished due to being incompatible with these laws.

[–] agarorn@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

What? They are demolishing hydro plants? Do you have a source for that?