4 ms·

I fail to understand why people like nuclear so much. Risks aside, renewables are cheaper. So why use an outdated technology like nuclear? (Now, fission would

I fail to understand why people like nuclear so much. Risks aside, renewables are cheaper. So why use an outdated technology like nuclear? (Now, fission would be a different story. I am all for researching this intensively).

AnonCoward4 5y ago
I guess you mean fusion. Fission is what we currently have/use for power plants. Even there research might end up in a better solution, because nuclear energy is actually a good source of energy because it is so dense. But current implementations of fission are really hard to recommend over even coal power plants.
RealityVoid 5y ago
I can not see, technologically, how we could have a functioning 100% renewable world today. I can see this with nuclear. It's that simple. That is why I'm backing anything that brings more nuclear power online. Regardless, it's not either nuclear or renewables. It should be a combination that works.
wolfhumble 5y ago
You need to back up Sun and Wind with either some type of Battery or Nuclear/Carbon based solution. If not you have no energy reliability when sun/wind conditions are bad. More sun and wind renewables won't help in this case as they have this built-in problem. Apart from that, it is not like big windmills and sun farms have zero impact on the environment. In this case a nuclear factory might be big and ugly, but globally its immediate impact on nature might be a lot less than the aforementioned renewables. 1 kg of natural uranium gives 45,000 kWh of electricity; so the extraction of raw materials for nuclear has less impact on nature as well compared to many other solutions (e.g. for the same amount of electricity you would need nearly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal). [1] Of course with nuclear you have problems with storage of waste and possible accidents, but its positive impact on climate change, great capacity for producing electricity and lower impact on nature than many other solutions, might make it the best solution we have at the time being? [1] https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/
eric-hu 5y ago
Because renewables alone don’t replace nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Renewables with enough battery backup could, but then it’s no longer as available or cheap. Nuclear is much better suited for base load power than solar and wind. Take a look at this graph of German energy by source and Tw/H. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File%3AEnergy_mix_in_Germany.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/Fil... For all their good intentions of replacing nuclear with something cleaner and safer, you can see wind and solar grow, but not enough to offset the nuclear decrease. Natural gas consumption grows more to replace it. “Solar and wind instead of nuclear” is a false dichotomy because one can’t just swap out one with the other, at least not until grid batteries are far more available.
nwallin 5y ago
Nuclear works now. A 100% renewable grid will require energy storage. We have small scale options for energy storage, but none of the current energy storage technology we have now scales large enough to meet the demands of a 100% renewable grid. Remember that heating in most of Europe is provided by natural gas. The primary need for heat is during the nighttime. Solar works only during the day, wind works great at dawn and dusk but not particularly well at night, and both of these systems have inherent unpredictability. You never know that there isn't some weather pattern that's going to take all your solar/wind down to 30% of its normal capacity for a week. Hydro and geothermal may fit the bill, but AFAIK Germany and Europe in general doesn't have the capacity. The ultimate goal is a 100% renewable grid consisting of an energy storage system which will work all night, and will be recharged by solar and wind when those systems are operating at peak capacity. Natural gas heating will be replaced by heat pumps with a fallback to electric resistive heating when temperatures drop too low for a heat pump to be effective. Right now, there is no such energy storage system that will scale to meet these needs. We'll get there one day, but until then, we need an energy generation technology that works all day every day with no dependencies on weather, and scale to the size of a continent. The only -- the only -- technologies that currently exist which do this are coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Pick one. You must pick one -- platitudes about renewable energy and technology which may or may not exist in a decade will not prevent the pipes from freezing tonight. Right now, Germany has chosen coal and natural gas, and has phased out nuclear. IMHO this was the wrong choice. (Before anyone says Germany has phased out coal, they have not phased out coal. Germany mines coal, selling coal to Poland, Poland uses coal to produce electricity, Germany buys electricity from Poland.) > (Now, fission would be a different story. I am all for researching this intensively). I suspect you meant fusion; I don't normally point out typos, but in this case, I think it's important.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  There is also https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/datteln-4-coal-fired-power-plant/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/datteln-4-coal-fir... , delivering about 400MW into the 16 2/3Hz electricity net of the Deutsche Bahn. Though apparently it uses most modern, efficient and environmentally friendly technology. At least they say so. /me thinks of the green instead read stripe of some Inter City Expresses and giggles :)

AnonCoward4 5y ago

I guess you mean fusion. Fission is what we currently have/use for power plants. Even there research might end up in a better solution, because nuclear energy is actually a good source of energy because it is so dense. But current implementations of fission are really hard to recommend over even coal power plants.

RealityVoid 5y ago

I can not see, technologically, how we could have a functioning 100% renewable world today. I can see this with nuclear. It's that simple. That is why I'm backing anything that brings more nuclear power online. Regardless, it's not either nuclear or renewables. It should be a combination that works.

wolfhumble 5y ago

You need to back up Sun and Wind with either some type of Battery or Nuclear/Carbon based solution. If not you have no energy reliability when sun/wind conditions are bad. More sun and wind renewables won't help in this case as they have this built-in problem. Apart from that, it is not like big windmills and sun farms have zero impact on the environment. In this case a nuclear factory might be big and ugly, but globally its immediate impact on nature might be a lot less than the aforementioned renewables. 1 kg of natural uranium gives 45,000 kWh of electricity; so the extraction of raw materials for nuclear has less impact on nature as well compared to many other solutions (e.g. for the same amount of electricity you would need nearly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal). [1] Of course with nuclear you have problems with storage of waste and possible accidents, but its positive impact on climate change, great capacity for producing electricity and lower impact on nature than many other solutions, might make it the best solution we have at the time being? [1] https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/

eric-hu 5y ago

Because renewables alone don’t replace nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Renewables with enough battery backup could, but then it’s no longer as available or cheap. Nuclear is much better suited for base load power than solar and wind. Take a look at this graph of German energy by source and Tw/H. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File%3AEnergy_mix_in_Germany.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/Fil... For all their good intentions of replacing nuclear with something cleaner and safer, you can see wind and solar grow, but not enough to offset the nuclear decrease. Natural gas consumption grows more to replace it. “Solar and wind instead of nuclear” is a false dichotomy because one can’t just swap out one with the other, at least not until grid batteries are far more available.

nwallin 5y ago

Nuclear works now. A 100% renewable grid will require energy storage. We have small scale options for energy storage, but none of the current energy storage technology we have now scales large enough to meet the demands of a 100% renewable grid. Remember that heating in most of Europe is provided by natural gas. The primary need for heat is during the nighttime. Solar works only during the day, wind works great at dawn and dusk but not particularly well at night, and both of these systems have inherent unpredictability. You never know that there isn't some weather pattern that's going to take all your solar/wind down to 30% of its normal capacity for a week. Hydro and geothermal may fit the bill, but AFAIK Germany and Europe in general doesn't have the capacity. The ultimate goal is a 100% renewable grid consisting of an energy storage system which will work all night, and will be recharged by solar and wind when those systems are operating at peak capacity. Natural gas heating will be replaced by heat pumps with a fallback to electric resistive heating when temperatures drop too low for a heat pump to be effective. Right now, there is no such energy storage system that will scale to meet these needs. We'll get there one day, but until then, we need an energy generation technology that works all day every day with no dependencies on weather, and scale to the size of a continent. The only -- the only -- technologies that currently exist which do this are coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Pick one. You must pick one -- platitudes about renewable energy and technology which may or may not exist in a decade will not prevent the pipes from freezing tonight. Right now, Germany has chosen coal and natural gas, and has phased out nuclear. IMHO this was the wrong choice. (Before anyone says Germany has phased out coal, they have not phased out coal. Germany mines coal, selling coal to Poland, Poland uses coal to produce electricity, Germany buys electricity from Poland.) > (Now, fission would be a different story. I am all for researching this intensively). I suspect you meant fusion; I don't normally point out typos, but in this case, I think it's important.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
There is also https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/datteln-4-coal-fired-power-plant/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/datteln-4-coal-fir... , delivering about 400MW into the 16 2/3Hz electricity net of the Deutsche Bahn. Though apparently it uses most modern, efficient and environmentally friendly technology. At least they say so. /me thinks of the green instead read stripe of some Inter City Expresses and giggles :)