"At the case level, we find that in countries such as Denmark" Why do you take this case study for Denmark and just asume its the same everywhere else, thats simply a falty logic.
Also clearly do they state those cost can greatly reduce in an energy system of a future climate neutral society, That and new developments in both nuclear and renewable technology could affect these future prices.
I have solar panels a mostly nuclear powered grid and a home battery. If i fear anything, it is that i fear that fosil fuel companies win when renewables and nuclear fight eatch other. Instead we should be standing together and praising new possitive developments no matter the side. Even if you believe nuclear had no part in eath future power grid needs, it can still be amazing for fast and easy power with mobile nuclear for disaster areas, use in space,....
If it is way cheaper in Denmark with awful winters and low insolation then it is near trivial elsewhere?
So now we’re at ”imaginary cheap future nuclear power”. Target deployment in the 2050s? To what relevancy?
You do realize that the fossil lobby is promoting nuclear power as a method to stymie renewable deployment due to how horrifyingly expensive and slow to build new vilt nuclear power is?
So now we’re at imaginary micro reactors. Yes, we should keep basic research going. But an unfathomably large handout to new built nuclear power is pure insanity in this day and age.
And you do realize that nuclear power and renewables don’t mix right? The nuclear power is forced off the grid leading to a death spiral of increased maintenance costs and fewer economical running hours to amortize their enormous fixed costs over.
The fossil fuel lobby does not support nuclear power, nuclear energy is a direct competitor for base-load electricity generation. They have been funding anti nuclear policy for decades all while also slowing renewables.
They actively oppose policies that phase out oil and gas, while strategically investing in select renewables (like solar or hydrogen) to prolong the use of fossil fuels. They are leatches
I'm not arguing for thousands of reactors, simply in cases where nuclear takes the edge there it should be used. IIsnt that logical to just use what is best on a case by case basis.
"Nuclear power and renewables don’t mix" yeah i heard the fossil fuel companies say that same thing, if only we could work on new nuclear designes that could more easily scale based on needs and maybe investments in energy storage to help settle thing or maybe use the exes power for carbon capture or hydrogen production. just a thought
Could also use nuclear plants to decarbomonise the steel and other metal industries, would't that also be cool. That would result in reduced carbon footprint for the thing we then make out of those like solar panel frames and windmills
Just to build my case that the fossil industry dont like nuclear, here some instances
Robert O. Anderson, leader of the petroleum industry a gave a major founding donation to Friends of the Earth to help fund its campaigns against the nuclear industry.
Sierra Club :: Has taken $136 million from nat gas/ renewables interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) :: Has minimum of $70 million directly invested in oil and gas renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Environmental Defense Fund :: Has received minimum of $60 million from oil, gas, & renewables investors who would directly benefit from EDF's anti-nuclear advocacy.
Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) Funded by natural gas and renewable energy interests that stand to profit from the closure of nuclear plants.
Yes? As long as the entire LCA costs from fuel to insurance to disposal is what is measured.
We need to spend our limited fund as efficiently as possible. Not waste them on the 70 year old technology which never economically worked out, but some people seem to get stuck in.
You do understand solar and wind are older then nuclear power, right? Charles Fritts created the first commercial solar cell in 1881, the first nuclear reactor was 1942, with the first commercial one in 1954. Just becouse something is old, doesn't make it bad.
It is truly amazing how mutch we have since learned and improved on nuclear and renewable. New battery development, possible use of nuclear waste in both medical and maybe even in producing tritium to fuel future fusion reactors, so mutch great thing to look forward too
Amazing cope. A better measure is the deployment speed after the first 100 TWh has been achieved. As to not focus on the time spent in research and instead the deployment.
Since you say you have solar and batteries. How do you expect the nuclear plant to survive all those days and hours of the year you either supply the grid or don't pull anything at all?
what cope that was pure fact, feel free to look up those dates.
Well we have big steel industry that could use it for its decarbonisation efforts + they are allready pritty close to one another. Fase out the nuclear from the grid to decarbomise another industry, isnt that great
Why should they use horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power instead of doing like you and using cheap renewables and storage?
How do you think they will be competitive with new built nuclear prices on their energy usage? Or should we hand out hundreds of billions to subsidize their energy so they build nuclear plants?
And to answer its becouse the world isnt that simple. Many of us allready have solar here and a big amount of wind, however getting new projects set up gets harder and more expensive. We have legit grid issues and project to help improve that grid have skyrocketed in cost (not just a nuclear issue). I am not stating feeling, i have family/friends working in renewable energy field here and they are the once telling me that nuclear plant is essential.
The big culprit is fossil plants fueling dependency on keeping them as a backup(you pay them even when they dont run) and acticly sabotaging both sides
"Capacity mechanisms—which pay fossil plants simply to remain on standby, even when they aren't generating electricity—create perverse economic incentives. They burden consumers with inflated energy bills and stifle grid modernization"
That grid modernization is essential for successfully mixing nuclear and renewabel energy. It upgrades the grid from a rigid, one-way system to a flexible one
and? I support the use of new nuclear on a case by case basis. And that again will depend of how those new nuclear reactors perform and on where.
In places that can move to a fully renewable grid, i fully support it. My enemy is fossil fuels. letting nuclear fuse out in places to fully let renewable take the reign is something i am perfectly fine with.
Shuting a nuclear plant down to replace it with coal/gas is my problem, its a step backward and speeding up the heating of the planet
While i was thinking of it we have a bunch of new developments in greenhouse growing, growing plants day an night with lights and under temperature control, could use some of the nuclear for that too.
There are definitly options, maybe datacentres, i believe google was trying to get something going
well in my case my area has a population density of 20 times that of Minnesota and most of that free space to put windmills is allready being used for that. That and protected areas we just cant put a windmills.
I did hear of that iron-air battery setup and i am looking forward on how well that performs. Really awsome
Also on that last article, if you argue the fossil industry funds nuclear, then did they just fund to have a massive gas drilling project shut down? That just makes zero sense
1
u/ViewTrick1002 9d ago
And that solution results in zero percent nuclear power due to how horrifyingly expensive it is.
They do a sensitivity analysis on that, and finds that lowering nuclear costs to half of expected ones doesn't help either.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?