There was a time when investing deeper into nuclear would have made a lot more sense. That moment has passed, though. The economics are not on the side of nuclear and the numbers are getting worse by the day - nuclear is getting more expensive over time while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.
It’s basically impossible to get any nuclear built without heavy subsidization because of how poorly they function economically, not to mention how impossible it is to buy insurance for such a venture. This is not inherently bad, but it does definitely displace other areas we could be subsidizing instead. I would be in favour of this if nuclear didn’t have a completely natural replacement in renewables and batteries.
Which is why you add storage and wind to the mix. Overproduce energy when it’s available and store the leftovers for when you under-produce.
At this point, saying Solar doesn’t work at night is kind of like saying cars don’t work without wheels. No one is getting solar without storage, just like no one is driving a car without wheels.
Batteries plus solar is still cheaper than all other power systems.
Several of my friends live in states with energy provider choice. Buying from the 100% green power providers is more expensive. Natural gas is extremely cheap after all.
Yep, the unreliability is exactly why buying from 100% green energy providers is more expensive than buying from natural gas providers. Batteries are extremely expensive, natural gas is cheap.
Source: Several of my friends live in states with energy provider choice; the green providers cost more.
Yep, France has cheaper energy than Germany. France went nuclear, Germany went solar/wind (and even had to re-online some coal plants due to shortages).
The pushback on nuclear from anti-fossil advocates never ceases to amaze me.
Yeah. A series of fucktarted decisions caused Germany to fuck themselves:
Germany turned off all their nuclear plants (why?!)
Germany turned off all their coal plants (good)
Germany vastly increased natural gas imports and tied themselves at the hip to Russia (they were publicly told this was a bad idea. Germany laughed it off)
Germany ramped up solar/wind production (good)
Germany did not invest in grid-scale storage to go with that solar/wind (Just going whole-hog on trusting Russia)
Russia invaded Ukraine and held natural gas exports to Germany’s throat (boy, who would have guessed Russia would fuck over Germany?!)
Germany had to emergency expand their LNG imports amid record-high prices and with hastily-built LNG terminals (LNG is also the most expensive way to import natural gas)
Germany had to online coal plants due to shortages (boy, those nuclear plants would have been damn helpful!)
Germany now has some of the highest priced electricity anywhere
They really, really, really should have kept those nuclear plants like France…
The amount of high level nuclear is overstated and over-exaggerated it’s common for people to refuse the actual figures.
This is what 20 years’ worth of spent nuclear fuel looks like safely stored at the former Maine Yankee nuclear plant.
The plant generated 119 billion kilowatt hours of reliable power from 1972-1996, which is enough to power half a million homes each year.
20 years for half a million homes. And that’s an old generation reactor which is less efficient with fuel usage and not even considering that something like 98% of it can be reprocessed into useable fuel if the incentive was there. The reason its not is the same reason old solar panels aren’t reprocessed into new panels: It’s cheaper and easier right now to just produce new ones.
Nuclear waste is a problem for the most like any other. Given enough investment it can be solved, and no I’m not talking about finding better ways to store it.
China has made major advances in this regard, their newest reactors generate waste that is much less long-lived (hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years), and they can reduce the volume of that waste through recycling.
I’m not saying nuclear waste is not a hard problem to solve, it is and we must be careful as a society to make sure it is managed well.
In the meantime, we have a climate catastrophe which is much more pressing. Coal plants, which provide base-load electricity, are a prime target for conversion to nuclear, because their steam turbines can be reused. This could decarbonize a large part of the electricity mix of many countries.
The nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years isn’t going to be a problem.
It can be used to make betavoltaics.
We might actually run into the problem where we don’t have enough nuclear waste and we might need to spin up a reactor or two to keep making RTGs (for space) and betavoltaics.
Why not nuclear?
There was a time when investing deeper into nuclear would have made a lot more sense. That moment has passed, though. The economics are not on the side of nuclear and the numbers are getting worse by the day - nuclear is getting more expensive over time while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.
It’s basically impossible to get any nuclear built without heavy subsidization because of how poorly they function economically, not to mention how impossible it is to buy insurance for such a venture. This is not inherently bad, but it does definitely displace other areas we could be subsidizing instead. I would be in favour of this if nuclear didn’t have a completely natural replacement in renewables and batteries.
Only in us I think.
Because of decades of fear-mongering and under-investment (that gets redirected to fossil).
You can double check it but I think solar is cheaper now. I was shocked as well, I thought nuclear was the cheapest still.
But solar is unreliable. Night day, snow cover, dust cover. It also has to be local and supplemented by other sources
Which is why you add storage and wind to the mix. Overproduce energy when it’s available and store the leftovers for when you under-produce.
At this point, saying Solar doesn’t work at night is kind of like saying cars don’t work without wheels. No one is getting solar without storage, just like no one is driving a car without wheels.
Batteries.
Batteries plus solar is still cheaper than all other power systems. It’s remarkable but true.
Several of my friends live in states with energy provider choice. Buying from the 100% green power providers is more expensive. Natural gas is extremely cheap after all.
Yep, the unreliability is exactly why buying from 100% green energy providers is more expensive than buying from natural gas providers. Batteries are extremely expensive, natural gas is cheap.
Source: Several of my friends live in states with energy provider choice; the green providers cost more.
Why do you think solar has to be local?
Most expensive way of heating water
Russia is doing it and their electricity costs are cheapest on the planet
Yep, France has cheaper energy than Germany. France went nuclear, Germany went solar/wind (and even had to re-online some coal plants due to shortages).
The pushback on nuclear from anti-fossil advocates never ceases to amaze me.
Isnt Germany’s costs are absolutely outrageous? Like the most expensive in Europe
Yeah. A series of fucktarted decisions caused Germany to fuck themselves:
They really, really, really should have kept those nuclear plants like France…
Every German energy problem is entirely down to political self owns
Radioactive waste storage.
I do think that goal power plants need to be turned off before nuclear ones, but neither is sustainable.
The amount of high level nuclear is overstated and over-exaggerated it’s common for people to refuse the actual figures.
20 years for half a million homes. And that’s an old generation reactor which is less efficient with fuel usage and not even considering that something like 98% of it can be reprocessed into useable fuel if the incentive was there. The reason its not is the same reason old solar panels aren’t reprocessed into new panels: It’s cheaper and easier right now to just produce new ones.
Nuclear waste is a problem for the most like any other. Given enough investment it can be solved, and no I’m not talking about finding better ways to store it. China has made major advances in this regard, their newest reactors generate waste that is much less long-lived (hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years), and they can reduce the volume of that waste through recycling.
I’m not saying nuclear waste is not a hard problem to solve, it is and we must be careful as a society to make sure it is managed well. In the meantime, we have a climate catastrophe which is much more pressing. Coal plants, which provide base-load electricity, are a prime target for conversion to nuclear, because their steam turbines can be reused. This could decarbonize a large part of the electricity mix of many countries.
The nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years isn’t going to be a problem.
It can be used to make betavoltaics.
We might actually run into the problem where we don’t have enough nuclear waste and we might need to spin up a reactor or two to keep making RTGs (for space) and betavoltaics.