While I'm pronuclear we really need to invest in better nuke power tech. Spending billions, mainly due to the risks with current water cooled reactors, is handicapping it. Systems that minimize waste, use passive failsafe systems, etc are needed.
this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
147 points (94.5% liked)
World News
35826 readers
323 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The ship has sailed on nuclear tech being worthwhile now if you haven't already committed to it and are well underway. Instead, renewables offer a cheaper, safer and much faster return on investment while being ultimately better for the environment. It'll take much more than what is offered by gen IV for that to change.
Paywall article
Ngl, this is 100% the sort of project that the EU should support in its member nations
Why?
Renewables are cheaper, faster to deliver and better over all for the environment. There's every reason to believe this will just be a money sink that may not even see the light of day eventually.
Renewables are also intermittent and strongly tied to geography. Geography is especially limiting in much of Europe which isn't particularly sunny, and where much of the low hanging fruit for wind, geothermal, and hydro has already been tapped.
And even if you were able to keep building it, you will soon run into the storage problem which is still potentially more costly, especially when trying to provide baseline power for the whole year, where it's buildout may have to be many times more expensive to save power for months than a baseline solution like nuclear which can provide steady power all the time.
So, some mix of baseline solutions like nuclear and intermittent solutions like renewables will be needed to completely phase out coal, oil, and gas which provide our baseline power today.
And even if you were able to keep building it, you will soon run into the storage problem which is still potentially more costly
I will tell you a secret: Nuclear power doesn't work without storage either. That's just something they will not tell you as that's their biggest pro-nuclear/anti-renewable argument.
Nuclear is expensive and running the amount necessary in winter is only viable because you have an overproduction most of the year to export. But when everyone runs either on nuclear, nuclear and renewables or renewables and storage, there is no demand most of year (as everyone is overproducing) and also nobody to import from in a few especially cold weeks in winter (so you need even more nuclear power you won't need most of the year). That's completely unaffordable unless you put in storage in place to cover some of your winter demand and export time-independent when there is demand in other countries (which is why French models for 2050+ plan with huge capacities of hydrogen production - not the most efficient way of storage, but good for export).
where it’s buildout may have to be many times more expensive to save power for months
Actually weeks. Wind and solar are quite complementary. So you only need to cover the rare circumstance of cloudy and windless... which doesn't happen more than may 3 weeks a year, barely more than a few days in a row (in a lot of countries even less if you geographically diversify).
Nuclear energy is backed by big business and a lot of money. It’s a big cash cow and there is a lot of money and effort spent to manufacture public support for it, and they use troll farms to push their agenda, no doubt. Am I the only one that finds it a little suspicious that it’s always the same few talking points whenever the topic is mentioned? Whenever there’s a discussion about investing in renewable energy, there are always nuke bros popping up, bombarding the thread, derailing the discussion.
Whenever there’s a discussion about investing in renewable energy, there are always nuke bros popping up, bombarding the thread, derailing the discussion.
but this isn't a discussion about renewables, the topic is Slovenia's new nuclear plant which they're building to end coal consumption for power generation.
in fact, what you describe is exactly what is happening here to nuclear
So "You support X so you must be in the pocket of big business! But I support Y and I'm innocent and pure."? I find the same talking points with solar and wind too.
Slovenia isn't a landlocked country and has all the same options that others do.
Why do you think renewables are better for the environment? Nuclear is very clean and produces next to no emissions. In comparison, solar panels have a production process which produces considerable emissions, once they fail (which is in around 25 - 30 yrs), they basically turn into toxic waste. Similar goes for wind turbines, but they also totally ruin the landscape, since roads have to be built in order to access and maintain them. Additionally they're not viable everywhere and look ugly af.
Well done Slovenia. Take the lead on proper choices.
So 10 years to build!? Is that realistic?
Nuclear power takes a long ass time to build which is one of the many downsides of it.