That's kinda the problem. Money that should be going to renewables is going to nuclear, which won't be effective for many years. Renewables don't have the high cost and requirements and ramp up time nuclear requires.

[–] skulblaka@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Nuclear could be extremely effective right now, if only someone put money into it and people stopped jumping at ghosts. We have the technology, it's not like we have another 2 decades of research to make it viable. The general public is just uninformed and when someone says "nuclear" they hear "Chernobyl" and this has caused quite a lot of general mass panic, despite the fact that nuclear is one of the safest and most environmentally friendly power production technologies that exist today.

[–] Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Except that clearly isn't true, if nuclear was a viable solution then we'd be building power plants but we're not because they make no sense economically or practically.

Look at all the plants in France losing more money every time they have another problem, shutting down in the summer because the rivers get low... Oh someone said the word terror attack let's spend a whole boat load of euros on security because they're such a massive and vulnerable target...

They keep saying the new nuclear will be great and we just need ten more years of oil and gas plus a billion in research and development grants then it'll do everything they promised a decade ago.

For a lot of people it seems to have turned into a sports team tribalism. They feel like they're supposed to support nuclear because it's science which kinda overlooks that PV is far cooler science, we need to look at reality and see we can have renewables now or the hope for a decent micellar ten or twenty years down the line, maybe.

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No one has mentioned Chernobyl here. And burying the waste for 240000 years and hoping it doesn't leak is not a solution.

Renewables are safer and cheaper and more environmental. There is no case for nuclear.

[–] SwedishFool@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Chernobyl happened because of a multitude of reasons that just aren't capable of happening today in the western world. This is just pure fear-mongering, it's like saying we need to ban planes because of world trade center, or ban all research on narcotic medications because the opiod epidemic.

A wind farm costs in the range of 32 - 62 dollar per megawatts (Judith Gap/Spion Kop wind farms), compared to the 29 dollars per megawatt for nuclear power (average in USA year 2021).

In USA there are 92 reactors totaling 809 terawatt hours. To compensate for that with wind turbines you would require roughly 33.000 wind turbines all running 24/7 at max capacity with no down-time assuming a rated limit of 3 megawatt. Together those wind turbines would collectively take up 260 square kilometers.

Building them would likely be close to impossible as there isnt any infrastructure to make 33.000 in a timely manner. Since 2005 about 3000 has been built per year, assuming current production that would mean 11 years without producing parts for servicing current turbines to simply just replace the nuclear energy.

Lets make it a little more interesting and compare wind turbines to Browns Ferry nuclear plant. It has 3 reactors producing in total 3600 megawatt, to compensate for just that plant alone it would require 1200 turbines. To make it even more interesting, fossile fuel plants produces in total 2554 terawatt hours, and is the worst energy source we have, and would require roughly 104.000 turbines to offset, or 34 years of wind turbine production. That means the old turbines will have to be replaced before theyre all even fully built assuming the 20-30 year life expectancy.

Are you starting to grasp the problems with wind turbines now? To stop the usage of fossile fuel for powerplants you need other complementary systems. We need to get rid of fossile plants -now- and there's literally no way wind turbines could ever realistically fill that role alone. You're barking up the wrong tree.

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again, no one but you mentioning Chernobyl.

You're ignoring solar and hydro. No one said everything has to be wind.

Nuclear costs in the US are at that price because the industry is mature and subsidised by the government significantly. As in France, as reactors age, things get a lot costlier. Maintaining the surplus industries for storage, maintenance, supplies and infrastructure for nuclear are only getting more expensive. And you still haven't solved the waste problem. Renewables have some obstacles, but none that can't be resolved with money. And the end result is cleaner and cheaper.

[–] SwedishFool@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You mentioned chernobyl in the very comment I replied to, you being the first person in this entire comment section to do so.

You're also oversimplifying the problems and arguing in bad faith by simply ignoring the viability and reality. You can't just throw money at a problem and it'll magically resolve itself. Instead of arguing against one of our safest energy sources you should turn your eyes towards fossile power plants which is genuinely killing our planet as we speak. To end that madness in any sort of reasonable time frame you need a combination of all options.

I also want to add that the production costs for nuclear power I mentioned above, doesn't count in subsidizes, it's based on the actual average costs among these 92 reactors without withdrawing government spendings.

My source is Statista, "the production costs equal the sum of operations and capital costs and fuel costs".

You still are just spouting fearmongering that's going to kill our planet before any "worst case scenarios" you can dream up about nuclear power has any chance to.

[–] Quatity_Control@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

At this point you're either trolling or arguing with yourself and for some reason replying to me.

I'm not "fearmongering" when I point out the indisputable fact that renewables don't produce nuclear waste. You're also not including the supporting industries that nuclear requires in your costs. And more importantly, you're only looking at the US. Even then, your figures are arguable.

Wikipedia "In 2019 the US EIA revised the levelized cost of electricity from new advanced nuclear power plants going online in 2023 to be $0.0775/kWh before government subsidies"

Wikipedia "The global weighted average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of new onshore wind projects added in 2021 fell by 15%, year‑on‑year, to USD 0.033/kWh, while that of new utility-scale solar PV fell by 13% year-on-year to USD 0.048/kWh and that of offshore wind declined 13% to USD 0.075/kWh."

Nuclear may make current economic sense when you ignore the storage issues and the cost of new reactors and the unavoidable increase in uranium importation. Long term it doesn't. Renewables don't have that issue and are already cheaper.

Again, renewables globally are cheaper and safer. Byeeeeeee