5 ms·

Nuclear power can offer consistent base loads to power grids.

by ipaddr 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago
Renewables + storage can provide synthetic baseload, and likely will be able to do it more cheaply than new nuclear plants would. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/
- edelans 5y ago
  One problem of renewables is the energy density. 1 GigaWatt nuclear reactor takes 10 acres. 1 Gigawatt equivalent of solar panels is 2500 acres. All those solar panels require much more metals and cement than the nuclear plant. And the lifetime of solar panels is also twice shorter than the nuclear plant.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Utility scale PV doesn't require any cement/concrete at all. The mountings can be anchored to the ground with steel earth anchors. This is typically cheaper than using concrete, and faster to install. The area requirement ignores that land is extremely cheap, as little as 1% of the cost of a utility-scale PV field in the US. Building an expensive nuclear plant to save cheap land is deeply foolish.
    - edelans 5y ago
      > Building an expensive nuclear plant to save cheap land is deeply foolish. it depends. When it competes with other usage of the land (crops, biodiversity in forests...), that's not foolish. Agree with you that each country has a different situation though.
credit_guy 5y ago
I'm pro nuclear. But the fact is right now nuclear is too expensive. It just can't compete. With the new generation of small modular reactors, it might become competitive, or it might not. We just don't know. We simply can't bet the house on nuclear. But if the private sector wants to pursue nuclear (be it fission or fusion), I'm all for it.
- ryan93 5y ago
  Its not expensive. The US is racking up tens of trillion in debt. nuclearizing the whole country would have cost a fraction of that
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    "It's cheaper than the national debt!" is damning with faint praise.
    - ryan93 5y ago
      no its not
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        Yes, it is. It's an extremely weak statement in support of the idea. In particular, it doesn't argue that it is cheaper than alternatives. If that's the best you can come up with, the idea is unsupportable.
        ryan93 5y ago
        It can provide an incredible amount of green base load energy. what else can?
        pfdietz 5y ago
        Renewables, when paired with storage, can also supply baseload. And they can likely do it cheaper than nuclear, without proliferation concerns, and without running out of uranium.
- edelans 5y ago
  It's not. In France we have cheap energy (compared to our neighbors : https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/7382280/ https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/7382280/ ), it's mainly nuclear.

Nuclear power can offer consistent base loads to power grids.

by ipaddr 5y ago

Nuclear power can offer consistent base loads to power grids.

Renewables + storage can provide synthetic baseload, and likely will be able to do it more cheaply than new nuclear plants would. https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/

edelans 5y ago
One problem of renewables is the energy density. 1 GigaWatt nuclear reactor takes 10 acres. 1 Gigawatt equivalent of solar panels is 2500 acres. All those solar panels require much more metals and cement than the nuclear plant. And the lifetime of solar panels is also twice shorter than the nuclear plant.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Utility scale PV doesn't require any cement/concrete at all. The mountings can be anchored to the ground with steel earth anchors. This is typically cheaper than using concrete, and faster to install. The area requirement ignores that land is extremely cheap, as little as 1% of the cost of a utility-scale PV field in the US. Building an expensive nuclear plant to save cheap land is deeply foolish.
  - edelans 5y ago
    > Building an expensive nuclear plant to save cheap land is deeply foolish. it depends. When it competes with other usage of the land (crops, biodiversity in forests...), that's not foolish. Agree with you that each country has a different situation though.

credit_guy 5y ago

I'm pro nuclear. But the fact is right now nuclear is too expensive. It just can't compete. With the new generation of small modular reactors, it might become competitive, or it might not. We just don't know. We simply can't bet the house on nuclear. But if the private sector wants to pursue nuclear (be it fission or fusion), I'm all for it.

ryan93 5y ago
Its not expensive. The US is racking up tens of trillion in debt. nuclearizing the whole country would have cost a fraction of that
- pfdietz 5y ago
  "It's cheaper than the national debt!" is damning with faint praise.
  - ryan93 5y ago
    no its not
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      Yes, it is. It's an extremely weak statement in support of the idea. In particular, it doesn't argue that it is cheaper than alternatives. If that's the best you can come up with, the idea is unsupportable.
      - ryan93 5y ago
        It can provide an incredible amount of green base load energy. what else can?
        pfdietz 5y ago
        Renewables, when paired with storage, can also supply baseload. And they can likely do it cheaper than nuclear, without proliferation concerns, and without running out of uranium.
edelans 5y ago
It's not. In France we have cheap energy (compared to our neighbors : https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/7382280/ https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/7382280/ ), it's mainly nuclear.