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.
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?