• Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Because there are nights there are winters there are cloudy and rainy days, and there are no batteries capable of balancing all of these issues. Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit. So we need to invest in nuclear and renewables and batteries. So we can start getting rid of coal and gas plants.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      50 minutes ago

      The batteries needed are a lot less than you might think. Solar doesn’t work at night and the wind doesn’t always blow, but we have tons of regional weather data about how they overlap. From that, it’s possible to calculate the maximum historical lull where neither are providing enough. You then add enough storage to handle double that time period, and you’re good.

      Getting 95% coverage with this is a very achievable goal. That last 5% takes a lot more effort, but getting to 95% would be a massive reduction in CO2 output.

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit.

      You better be bringing units if you’re going to be claiming this.

      Still less than half of the LCOE of nuclear when storage is added: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

      Given that both solar and storage costs are trending downwards while nuclear is not, this basically kills any argument for nuclear in the future. It’s not viable on its face - renewables + storage is the definitive future.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      You’re using factors of less than 10 to argue against a factor of 100.

    • Suzune@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      But Germany has no space for nuclear waste. They haven’t been able to bury the last batch for over 30 years. And the one that they buried most recently began to leak radioactivity into ground water.

      And… why give Russia more military target opportunities?

      • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I’m not a rabid anti-nuclear, but there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing. One is the exorbitant price of storage of spent fuel although I seem to remember that there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it’s fuel (Molten salt? Pebble? maybe an expert can chime in). There is also the human greed factor. Fukushima happened because they built the walls to the highest recorded tsunami in the area, to save on concrete. A lot of civil engineering projects have a 150% overprovision over the worst case calculations. Fukushima? just for the worst case recorded, moronic corporate greed. The human factor tends to be the biggest danger here.

        • Flatfire@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Not an expert, but molten salt reactors are correct. MSRs are especially useful as breeder reactors, since they can actually reinvigorate older, spent fuel using more common isotopes. Thorium in particular is useful here. Waste has also been largely reduced with the better efficiency of modern reactors.

          Currently, Canada’s investing in a number of small modular reactors to improve power generation capacity without the need to establish entire new nuclear zones and helps take some of the stress off the aging CANDU reactors. These in particular take advantage of the spent fuel and thorium rather than the very expensive and hard to find Uranium more typically used. There’s been interest in these elsewhere too, but considering how little waste is produced by modern reactors, and the capacity for re-use, it feels pike a very good way to supplement additional wind and solar energy sources.

            • Lumisal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              We don’t have vast swaths of Frozen Tundras. This isn’t Alaska.

              And it’s actually stored south not north.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Idk, Finland has a much lower population density vs Germany. France is something like 1/2 the population density, but they also have >50 reactors, so surely Germany can find room for a few…

              • wewbull@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago
                • Finland: 338,145 km² and 5.6 million people
                • Germany: 357,596 km² and 82 million people

                Where do you want to put your hazardous waste again?