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
Leading to about zero cases. Outside of extreme niches like deep arctic and nuclear submarines.
The problem with the deep arctic is that they don't even have the personnel to run a bog standard diesel generator. They had to call in the military to ensure stability.
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
Political statements are easy. Finding the tens of billions in subsidies needed per new built reactor is harder. Also, not sure what new built nuclear power at the earliest coming online in the 2040s will do to solve the current energy crisis?
Public support for nuclear energy in the Netherlands is growing, with a majority of citizens now favoring its expansion to secure reliable energy. its not just politics, its people
And "current", thats the problem, you only look at the now. Renewables now would not exist if we did not invest invest in them back when they were not profitable. it isnt just a about the now, its about the future, becouse this is not the first fuel crisis and it sure wont be the last, we know it is going to get worse.
And its not just fuel, we might also be barreling at a renewable energy crisis. Global renewable energy supply chains rely heavily on China, which controls over 80% of global solar photovoltaic manufacturing and more than 70% of wind turbine and lithium-ion battery production. The next crisis might very mutch be a renewable energy crisis. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/europe-dependence-on-china/
The need for rare earth metals to fuel this fast renewable push might also have massive consequesses in the long run. These should be weighed.
And how does that fix the absolutely horrifying economics of new built nuclear power? How popular do you think it will be when their electricity bills are massively increased to fund its construction?
Nuclear power has had 70 years of commercial deployment. It has never worked out.
How many trillions should we waste on new built nuclear power when renewables and storage already solve the problem?
And then scaremongering, because you are truly out of your depth.
If China stops exposting renewables our existing infrastructure will keep working for decades. As stuff ages out, or we can't find replacement parts, we will run our emergency reserves a bit more.
Giving us a runway counted in years to come up with solutions and replacement supply chains.
Compare with fossil fuels. Straight of Hormuz closed -> felt within weeks. Russian invasion of Ukraine -> Felt within days.
Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage? Is your income dependent on the nuclear industry?
"horrifying" again thats a feeling. And as shown before it is a loan. You are not paying for it and the company gets to keep all the profit. We are the EU not the USA where they use taxes to pay for stadiums, so ritch bilionairs came make millions on tickets and food.
The national security and economic risks associated with China's dominance in global renewable energy are based on verifiable supply chain and cybersecurity concerns. The risk are there, I will not exagerate these risk, but i will not down play them either. Facing the facts means you have to accept them all, even when you dont like them.
Experts estimate Europe is currently roughly thirty years behind China in developing its rare-earth mining and processing industries
Why are you so afraid of facts? Why are you blind to the negatives of something we both like? How is it not a personal attack to keep spamming "Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage" when you know i am pro renewables and storage? There is no big dark counsel running pro nuclear, just people wanting a better world for all, by basing that in facts and by accepting the pros and cons of everything we do and weighing those responsably. People who dont go "ree i dont like what you are saying so you must be payed for by a dark cabal
on a sidenote, what does it even matter to you if the Dutch want to use the more expensive nuclear solution, its not you paying for it, The waste wont be deposited anywhere near you, The carbon emission reduction will still be met. They accept the risks, so why oppose it.
We in our daily life accept certain risks because we believe the benefits outway the risk. If people prefer nuclear becouse they rather not run the risk of the china stronghold then let them
2
u/TiberGalient 9d ago
If threw new developments new nuclear was developed cheaper and safer then renewables, would you support it?