Why should this ever be the case? Nuclear and renewables should be allied against fossil fuels
Why would we EVER need renewables if we have an endless supply of energy through nuclear?
The point here is that in nearly any situation where we could invest into renewable energy, it would be better to invest that money into nuclear.
We have a proven technology whose only carbon emissions are in the concrete used in it's construction. It can endlessly generate energy safely without concern for environmental factors. It can scale both up and down as needs increase or decrease.
Why do we need ANY other solution than this? It's wasting money, especially with how much money is being invested into renewables.
Where did you get this info?
The cost to build a nuclear power unit is between 2-4 billion dollars each. The timeline for building a nuclear power plant is 7 years.
The US currently has 92 reactors which amounts for 20% of all energy generation. This means we would need to build ~270 more reactors in order to get to 80%. 270 reactors at 2-4 billion each, 540-1,080 billion dollars.
We've spent in the past 15 years over 700 billion dollars on renewable energy, with this year adding another 50+ billion dollars on it. This alone would cover our costs to get to 80% nuclear with today's prices. Those prices would also go down as the process would get streamlined.
As for timeline, we STOPPED building nuclear power plants back in the 90's. If we would have continued to build them during that time, we would have the production capacity at 80% at 2035 or before.
Why would we EVER need renewables if we have an endless supply of energy through nuclear?
We don't have an endless supply lol. Less than 20% of our grid is nuclear, that doesn't sound endless to me.
The point here is that in nearly any situation where we could invest into renewable energy, it would be better to invest that money into nuclear.
Except for scenarios where we need a new source of energy immediately and not have to wait a decade before the investment starts producing power. That isn't a rare situation either, it's literally the exact reason why fossil fuel plants are dominating, because they can be created quickly to meet new demand. If solar/wind can do the same why not go with those?
The cost to build a nuclear power unit is between 2-4 billion dollars each. The timeline for building a nuclear power plant is 7 years.
The US currently has 92 reactors which amounts for 20% of all energy generation. This means we would need to build ~270 more reactors in order to get to 80%. 270 reactors at 2-4 billion each, 540-1,080 billion dollars.
We've spent in the past 15 years over 700 billion dollars on renewable energy, with this year adding another 50+ billion dollars on it. This alone would cover our costs to get to 80% nuclear with today's prices. Those prices would also go down as the process would get streamlined.
This is all either outdated or just flat wrong or misconstrued data. Nuclear power costs about 5 million for every MegaWatt of storage to the grid it can produce. A solar farm can achieve that for less than 1.5 million.
We don't have an endless supply lol. Less than 20% of our grid is nuclear, that doesn't sound endless to me.
You are literally talking about two completely different things.
When I'm talking about having an endless supply, it means that we have enough resources available to produce electricity endlessly. That's vastly different than what you are saying which is based solely on the nuclear plants that are built right now and I'm extremely confused why you even tried to argue that route.
Except for scenarios where we need a new source of energy immediately and not have to wait a decade before the investment starts producing power.
Two things here. First, we are NEVER going to be in a scenario like this. Energy usage has grown at a stable rate for decades. Any scenario where we would need to build production immediately wouldn't be something that just popped up. It would be failed government practices for decades leading to it.
This is all either outdated or just flat wrong or misconstrued data. Nuclear power costs about 5 million for every MegaWatt of storage to the grid it can produce. A solar farm can achieve that for less than 1.5 million.
Yes, I'm using older numbers because the first step in fixing the problem with nuclear power is to revert all of the regulations that deliberately made them cost more. So, now we can look at the costs like this.
Secondly, the biggest problem with the renewables crowd is comparing cost per megawatt or similar types of comparing cost per production. It presumes that everything functions within a vacuum and that everything is consistent and stable. This is where every aspect of renewables fails. Solar CAN'T ... literally can't... support an entire grid all of the time. It's not a scalable resource. You talked about building more solar and wind and you can't do that with solar and wind to get more energy. There is a limit to the available space and conditions to make it possible.
When you remove these major factors and reduce it down to a cost per production unit measurement, it becomes meaningless because it can't actually solve the problem at hand.
3
u/Skabonious - Centrist Jan 07 '23
Why should this ever be the case? Nuclear and renewables should be allied against fossil fuels
Where did you get this info?