I'm Australian, we have most of the world's uranium, I am very pro science and was always for nuclear.
However now the cost of renewables at least here is significantly cheaper than nuclear. The CSIRO our head science agency costed if last election when it was proposed to start nuclear.
Could still work for other countries but basically sailed for us here.
It's only apparently cheaper because of the way energy markets work.
That's the scam.
It drives up operating costs for reliable sources and prices consumers by making it more likely that the last bit of energy produced is produced by a really ecpensive backup.
An honest assessment would assign renewables the same cost as the market pricing mechanism to the costumer per unit of time, in addition to covering the increased upkeep and maintenance of reliable sources.
Levelized Cost of Electricity is like Hollywood account for energy.
That will completely change once sufficient grid-scale storage is in place. Then surplus, cheap solar energy produced during peak sunlight hours can be stored and then released during evening peaks.
Why do you think storage is any different from building another powerplant? Why not build that second power plant the first time and store the energy across the seasons in the form of uranium?
Storage is the opposite of a solution to the problem. Reliable sources are reliable because have storage solved.
It's literally like saying walking is cheaper than driving if you just drive someone else's car for free. Same logic.
That makes no sense. "Storage is the opposite of a solution to the problem" then the next sentence "Reliable sources are reliable because they have storage solved." Okay? Way to contradict yourself. Solar becomes reliable once you pair it with battery storage. Look at Australia. This combination already works at scale.
There's no contradiction: The problem is cost. The reason solar appears cheap is because storage is paid by other sources right now. Solar adds to their cost because they don't get to run efficiently. Solar+storage just makes that honest, and when you do the honest comparison you will see that it is non-competitve.
It's not just tge short tetm daily fluctuations, but the seasonal and annual ones that really bite hard. Think US strategic reserve of oil. Kept in a big old barrel. Cheap as it can be. Now do that in battery form.
Yeah but batteries are getting cheaper all the time, plus there are extremely low-tech solutions like closed-system hydro pump storage that should also be roped into the mix. Also, if you have solar and wind distributed across a whole continent, intermittency becomes a far smaller issue and you can rely less on storage.
Pump storage is not renewable. Most good sites are already used. Cost of transmission losses is also very high at those scales. Battery storage is getting cheaper, but nowhere near competitive for anything but short term, if that.
We have not even begun to use up the potential pump storage sites on Earth. You're thinking of ones paired with existing hydro-dams. I'm talking about closed loop systems that are completely independent from hydro dams. All you need is a sufficient natural gradient between top and bottom reservoirs.
Aside from the environmental devastation that entails, you mean?
Why do you think pumped storage is typically paired with existing hydro dams? Could it be that those are the best sites? What kind of reservoirs were you thinking of, if not hydro dams?
It makes no sense at this point to even bother with the cost and logistics nightmare of nuclear if any of the renewables are possible in a certain area.
I studied that stuff for years and nuclear is and was always interesting for people like us. But then you walk through all the reasonable options we have nowadays and realise, nuclear is more of a relic of the „nothing is impossible nukepunk“ 60s mindset.
It works. Sure. But why should you? You can just build 100 offshore wind turbines in no time and make up for a big nuclear power plant that would take years to build.
The future is a decentralised grid made of wind, solar, hydro backing up each other. Plus more and more storage of different kinds. Let it be batteries, electrolysis or genuinely use the thermal capacity of the people’s home and heat/cool when there is over production.
But who am I kidding? Nothing will happen. We will use fossiles until we all die.
It won’t be enough, bro. You need at least 20–25 solar panels per house to cover all their energy expenses, and I’m only talking about houses. Now let me introduce you to “industry” we’re talking at least 15,000 solar panels for a single one
Worst a solar panel and a wind turbine especially in sea are shit to maintain they last 30 years and are barely recyclable
while a good nuclear central manage to produce egnouth for everyone without destroying 20 gazillion tree and it can last many centuries AND is completely recyclable
54
u/RealisticDebt9380 29d ago
The real tragedy is we said no to nuclear, it's way better than solar and wind