• Stinkywinks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hell yeah, tell me the best future isn’t nuclear power and electric rail like an old space Lego set.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But that’s just the generated per kwh cost, not taking into account when the energy is generated. To compare a full renewables grid to a renewables nuclear mixed grid you need to take into account massive energy storage systems and their inefficiencies and possible material shortages. We can’t just compare the currently favorable cost per kwh without taking into account problems as we scale into less reliable energy sources.

        • Serpent@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You will need long term storage in both cases. Nuclear can’t act as a peaker because you can’t quickly ramp up or down the generation. Nuclear can only perform as baseload which, in theory, could be provided by a renewable energy mix if the install base is high enough.

          I don’t disagree with your point that it isn’t a simple direct comparison but any sensible energy mix will still require storage. I find it difficult to see the economic case for nuclear if renewables can be installed in sufficient quantities, given that nuclear is roughly 4 times as expensive as solar and wind.

          • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Nuclear can only perform as baseload

            That’s only true for NPPs built decades ago. Modern designs can also do load-following power. For peaks you have renewables, of course, they complement each other. Diversity makes a healthy grid.

            • DerGottesknecht@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Niclear has high investment cost and very low production cost which incentivises runnig at max output for as long as possible. This might block out renewables from the grid if their production cost is higher and make it less profitable to build them. So its really not a Symbiosis between nuclear and regenerative

  • Sneaky Bastard@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t get why people here are so hyped. Why is it a good thing to completely dump renewables?

  • szczuroarturo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dosent sweden already have a fairly high and fairly stable energy production through their hydroelectiric power plants . Wouldnt it be better to just build more of those.

    • Iceblade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do, but enviromental regulations pushed through during the past two decades is essentially preventing any new or expanded hydro projects. In fact, a lot of smaller hydro plants are instead being demolished due to being incompatible with these laws.