4 ms·

Except that wind/solar works only when sun shines and wind blows. So you have cheap power or you have nothing. So whole comparation of wind/solar vs nuclear is

Except that wind/solar works only when sun shines and wind blows. So you have cheap power or you have nothing. So whole comparation of wind/solar vs nuclear is like comparing sail ship to a cruise ship. I will tell you a secret - people are willing to pay more for power, if it means that it will be available 24/7

AtlasBarfed 4y ago
... except grid storage is going to get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. Sodium Ion at $40/kwhr is coming no lithium cobalt nickel needed. Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains. You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that. A functioning community when big disasters hit, like the once-in-a-centurty-that-happens-every-year we see with global warming. Floods, hurricanes, etc. That isn't dependent on the whims of politically-motivated regulators, that won't have some post-Enron sociopath call up a power plant to tell them to shut down to create artificial scarcity. So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper than any nuclear plant by the time a nuclear plant goes online, will handle, say 80%? 90%? of weather shortfalls? Now, can nuclear beat geothermal, existing hydroelectric, or <gasp> gas turbine that will still be in abundance for several decades due to petroleum extraction and would be burned off anyway? Unfortunately, with nuclear as it is now with gigantic pressurized domes, crappy solid rods, meltdown danger, waste rods + transport, security + antiterroristm, government regulation, etc, the answer is unequivocably no. There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now. There is a good argument for keeping the existing ones running. Let's wave a magic wand where a MSR/LFTR exists that breeds fuel, "burns" all the fuel rather than makes waste with online reprocessing, scalable down to a shipping container or two, can be mass manufactured for low cost, can simply be stacked or lined up to scale up power needs, is meltdown proof with the plug and design, AND the government starts regulating it differently and lots of other good things. That might have potential. But for "old nuclear" that means the same thing as no nuclear, because every incumbent economic interest and business involved in nuclear has no role in that reactor strategy. No rod reprocessing, no transport and storage of waste, building of big dome reactors. All the pro-nuclear stories want EXISTING flawed designs and dead-end economics. They want to keep their jobs. Somewhere out there is a safe, affordable, scalable, use-all-fuel/no waste design. The physics of nuclear power are so power dense it's ludicrous. Certainly for industrial applications there should be something, and especially in space. I fully advocate continued investment in nuclear reactor design and research. But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42qmFHNM-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42qmFHNM-M
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  > Sodium Ion at $40/kwhr is coming Sodium batteries are coming since 1980s, no product in sight. They are almost like a fusion. Always few years away. > Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains. It won't. Where it was possible to be built, it already is build. There is not much space to build it, unless you are Switzerland. > You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that So how do you get solar power on high rise with 100 apartments? I would like to remind you, that in EU 50% of people live in such apartments. So keep your "community" fairy tales for yourself. > So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper... That depends on your non-existent products, which only lives in your imagination. > There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now. Increasing power consumption because we are trying to migrate all transport from fossil fuels to electric? That's probably just a detail which slipped through when you were dreaming about non-existent batteries. > But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy: So massively increasing our energy consumption, while not increasing amount of sources is logical according to you? Got it.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

... except grid storage is going to get cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. Sodium Ion at $40/kwhr is coming no lithium cobalt nickel needed. Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains. You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that. A functioning community when big disasters hit, like the once-in-a-centurty-that-happens-every-year we see with global warming. Floods, hurricanes, etc. That isn't dependent on the whims of politically-motivated regulators, that won't have some post-Enron sociopath call up a power plant to tell them to shut down to create artificial scarcity. So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper than any nuclear plant by the time a nuclear plant goes online, will handle, say 80%? 90%? of weather shortfalls? Now, can nuclear beat geothermal, existing hydroelectric, or <gasp> gas turbine that will still be in abundance for several decades due to petroleum extraction and would be burned off anyway? Unfortunately, with nuclear as it is now with gigantic pressurized domes, crappy solid rods, meltdown danger, waste rods + transport, security + antiterroristm, government regulation, etc, the answer is unequivocably no. There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now. There is a good argument for keeping the existing ones running. Let's wave a magic wand where a MSR/LFTR exists that breeds fuel, "burns" all the fuel rather than makes waste with online reprocessing, scalable down to a shipping container or two, can be mass manufactured for low cost, can simply be stacked or lined up to scale up power needs, is meltdown proof with the plug and design, AND the government starts regulating it differently and lots of other good things. That might have potential. But for "old nuclear" that means the same thing as no nuclear, because every incumbent economic interest and business involved in nuclear has no role in that reactor strategy. No rod reprocessing, no transport and storage of waste, building of big dome reactors. All the pro-nuclear stories want EXISTING flawed designs and dead-end economics. They want to keep their jobs. Somewhere out there is a safe, affordable, scalable, use-all-fuel/no waste design. The physics of nuclear power are so power dense it's ludicrous. Certainly for industrial applications there should be something, and especially in space. I fully advocate continued investment in nuclear reactor design and research. But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42qmFHNM-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F42qmFHNM-M

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
> Sodium Ion at $40/kwhr is coming Sodium batteries are coming since 1980s, no product in sight. They are almost like a fusion. Always few years away. > Hydro pumped storage will be built in mountains. It won't. Where it was possible to be built, it already is build. There is not much space to build it, unless you are Switzerland. > You know what people also like? Power in emergencies when the power lines go out. Home solar + storage will provide that So how do you get solar power on high rise with 100 apartments? I would like to remind you, that in EU 50% of people live in such apartments. So keep your "community" fairy tales for yourself. > So grid storage, which will be unambiguously cheaper... That depends on your non-existent products, which only lives in your imagination. > There is literally no reason to build new nuclear plants now. Increasing power consumption because we are trying to migrate all transport from fossil fuels to electric? That's probably just a detail which slipped through when you were dreaming about non-existent batteries. > But building a massive number of nuclear plants? That's Johnny Canal levels of idiocy: So massively increasing our energy consumption, while not increasing amount of sources is logical according to you? Got it.