3 ms·

Wish it was invest and expand and not please don't decommission. It's a win, win, win when played right...

by rob_c 5y ago

legulere 5y ago
That would be unwise though, considering that building nuclear power plants is slower and more expensive than wind and solar in Europe.
- asdff 5y ago
  Wind and solar in europe aren't going to get them off of fossil fuels anytime soon, while nuclear has had that capability since its inception.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    Soon isn't a thing that happens with power grids in any normal sense. The big capex in creation means that you need big differences in cost to justify an early shutdown. You also have to the new working before turning off the old, contrary to political preferences to destroy the old and then try to make the new work. Plant modifications are smaller in cost usually - so swapping a coal plant to burn natural gas because fracking made it cheaper (not without its own costs) is a small step. If wind and solar remain cheapest per MW*hr they will grow to saturation.
    - asdff 5y ago
      What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Where does the energy come from? Today, when that happens, the energy comes from natural gas and coal during these times when European renewables are unable to generate much power. All this expectation that we will be on renewables by X date hinges upon developments in battery storage capabilities by X date that have yet to materialize. On the other hand, we have nuclear energy which could have solved this problem 70 years ago.
      - rob_c 5y ago
        Not too mention the problems with various batteries such as longevity, capacity, location and safety. Applies to gravity, ion and gas energy storage unfortunately, not as easy as lower and raise the control rods in a predictable manner unlike our eastern European friends.
  - legulere 5y ago
    That is factually incorrect. Even though politics blocked a faster increase of renewables Germany was able to greatly reduce fossil fuels usage for electricity production even while exiting nuclear: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland... Nuclear currently is not able to that because of cost: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_C... Also new nuclear reactor projects are getting finished too slow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Plants_under_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Plants_u...
- rob_c 5y ago
  That's a very poor argument against a very viable low carbon power source

Wish it was invest and expand and not please don't decommission. It's a win, win, win when played right...

by rob_c 5y ago

Wish it was invest and expand and not please don't decommission. It's a win, win, win when played right...

That would be unwise though, considering that building nuclear power plants is slower and more expensive than wind and solar in Europe.

asdff 5y ago
Wind and solar in europe aren't going to get them off of fossil fuels anytime soon, while nuclear has had that capability since its inception.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  Soon isn't a thing that happens with power grids in any normal sense. The big capex in creation means that you need big differences in cost to justify an early shutdown. You also have to the new working before turning off the old, contrary to political preferences to destroy the old and then try to make the new work. Plant modifications are smaller in cost usually - so swapping a coal plant to burn natural gas because fracking made it cheaper (not without its own costs) is a small step. If wind and solar remain cheapest per MW*hr they will grow to saturation.
  - asdff 5y ago
    What happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine? Where does the energy come from? Today, when that happens, the energy comes from natural gas and coal during these times when European renewables are unable to generate much power. All this expectation that we will be on renewables by X date hinges upon developments in battery storage capabilities by X date that have yet to materialize. On the other hand, we have nuclear energy which could have solved this problem 70 years ago.
    - rob_c 5y ago
      Not too mention the problems with various batteries such as longevity, capacity, location and safety. Applies to gravity, ion and gas energy storage unfortunately, not as easy as lower and raise the control rods in a predictable manner unlike our eastern European friends.
- legulere 5y ago
  That is factually incorrect. Even though politics blocked a faster increase of renewables Germany was able to greatly reduce fossil fuels usage for electricity production even while exiting nuclear: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland... Nuclear currently is not able to that because of cost: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_C... Also new nuclear reactor projects are getting finished too slow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Plants_under_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Plants_u...
rob_c 5y ago
That's a very poor argument against a very viable low carbon power source