3 ms·

> Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/p

> Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage- https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing here will help for a winter spike, those won't even cover a full day of bad production. > It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. That's kind of taking the consumption of a 60s car with the known petrol fields of the time and doing a multiplication, it's bad maths and bad economics. > Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project. Those costs are included in the nuclear but not on the renewable part sorry, to get a full comparison you would need to add maintenance, waste management, backup costs and diplomatic & environmental costs for renewables which I don't think anybody is counting now.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing here will help for a winter spike, those won't even cover a full day of bad production. It's still doubling in under a decade. And that's just the pumped storage. Not all hydro. "You might need backup 5% of the time, stop and wait 30 years instead" isn't the slam dunk you think it is. Weirdly it would be the optimal thing for the fossil fuel industry though. > That's kind of taking the consumption of a 60s car with the known petrol fields of the time and doing a multiplication, it's bad maths and bad economics. That's assuming modern 65MWd/kg reactors. And that's just to meet the first one or two fuel loads. It's not some far future scenario where exploration has time to pay off -- the mines need to be being developed today. At the tail end of those reserves, the raw Uranium alone costs more than half the present day all-in cost for solar or wind. > Those costs are included in the nuclear but not on the renewable part sorry, to get a full comparison you would need to add maintenance, waste management, backup costs and diplomatic & environmental costs for renewables which I don't think anybody is counting now. Waste management, backup, diplomatic, and environmental costs are not included on the nuclear side either. And O&M alone is enough to pay for the renewable generation in a good area and a backup gas plant to sit idle.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing here will help for a winter spike, those won't even cover a full day of bad production. It's still doubling in under a decade. And that's just the pumped storage. Not all hydro. "You might need backup 5% of the time, stop and wait 30 years instead" isn't the slam dunk you think it is. Weirdly it would be the optimal thing for the fossil fuel industry though. > That's kind of taking the consumption of a 60s car with the known petrol fields of the time and doing a multiplication, it's bad maths and bad economics. That's assuming modern 65MWd/kg reactors. And that's just to meet the first one or two fuel loads. It's not some far future scenario where exploration has time to pay off -- the mines need to be being developed today. At the tail end of those reserves, the raw Uranium alone costs more than half the present day all-in cost for solar or wind. > Those costs are included in the nuclear but not on the renewable part sorry, to get a full comparison you would need to add maintenance, waste management, backup costs and diplomatic & environmental costs for renewables which I don't think anybody is counting now. Waste management, backup, diplomatic, and environmental costs are not included on the nuclear side either. And O&M alone is enough to pay for the renewable generation in a good area and a backup gas plant to sit idle.