4 ms·
But the government is closing down the nuclear power stations so we'll be back to gas and coal soon enough!
by schnitzelstoat 3y ago
But the government is closing down the nuclear power stations so we'll be back to gas and coal soon enough!
- mehdix 3y agoWhy is that a concern if already over 66% of energy is made of renewable sources?
- bosie 3y agoNuclear helps to reliably produce electricity when there is a peak demand or renewable has a problem producing (no sun, draught)
- jahnu 3y agoThere is no need for backup fossil power to account for more than a few percent of electricity production in the medium term. https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-sun-isnt-always-shining https://www.volts.wtf/p/what-the-sun-isnt-always-shining
- helboi4 3y agoNuclear is different to fossil fuel power. It comes from a renewable source. It is bad only because it produced waste, but we're working towards solving this issue.
- wffurr 3y agoUranium is not a renewable resource. All of the uranium on earth was formed in another star’s supernova and seeded in the proto planetary nebula before the earth coalesced.
- the_third_wave 3y agoThat's why you use a fast neutron (breeder) reactor to extract up to 90% of the potential fissionable "fuel" from that uranium instead of just a few percent. Another option is the use of thorium of which is there is ca. 3 times as much. By the time both uranium and thorium run out there'll either be practical fusion energy or one of those new battery technologies which are always popping up.
- adrianN 3y agoNow we just have to invest a few hundred billion for a few decades until er have practical commercial breeder reactors, while still burning coal and gas while we wait and see whether the engineers can figure it out.
- ta1243 3y agoSo you need nuclear to be scaled to the maximum demand?
- raphaelj 3y agoPeople always forget that a mostly nuclear grid also require a some kind of storage or demand scalability.
- adrianN 3y agoWith nuclear you have the option of running the reactors at 50% peak and produce energy at approximately twice the cost per kWh.
- ta1243 3y agoThat's it. If you need to have nuclear capacity for a grid for say 30GW, despite average usage being just 10GW, your price is now $300/MWh rather than $100/MWh if you can run them 24/7
- cm2187 3y agoWhy? All modern nuclear reactors do load following. I believe it’s even an EU requirement. And certainly the practice in France. Nuclear costs the same thing whether you use it or not. If you meet the peak energy demand with nuclear you might as well save the construction of intermittent renewables.
- ta1243 3y agoMeeting peak demand with Nuclear (including the maintenance time) increases the cost of nuclear to even higher levels than it currently is.
- adrianN 3y agoYeah nuclear costs the same, that’s the point. If you overbuild by two or three x to meet peak demand then per kWh you pay two to three times as much.
- ktzar 3y agoNuclear doesn't scale quickly. It already adapts from 4GW to 7GW in Spain, but it does it slowly and ahead of weather conditions. What is needed is more co-located battery storage, and more gravity (solid or water) storage.
- jorvi 3y agoNuclear is never meant to scale, you want to run the plant at 100% as much as possible to recoup costs. It is baseload power and you deal with peaks using peaker plants and batteries.
- binary132 3y agoMaybe I don’t understand the requirement, but can’t a constant-rate supply provide stored power for peak demand and support baseline consumption off-peak?
- adrianN 3y agoIf you build all the storage and peak capacity anyway you might as well use renewable power to fill the storage, it’s cheaper than nuclear.
- oneshtein 3y agoNuclear bomb can produce peaks of energy, while nuclear stations are good for base load only due to safety reasons.
- nozzlegear 3y agoA nuclear power plant does not suddenly give you the capacity to create a nuclear bomb.
- ed_balls 3y agosecurity e.g. massive sandstorm from Sahara blocking a lot of solar
- jahnu 3y agoNot until 2035 at least https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Spain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Spain That's 10 years to build alternatives assuming no further extensions or new nuclear.
- vasco 3y agoIf they approved a replacement nuclear project today it wouldn't be live in 10 years though.
- throw0101c 3y ago> If they approved a replacement nuclear project today it wouldn't be live in 10 years though. Why not? Japan was building nuclear plants in 4-5 years (sort by "Begin building"): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... Standardize on one design and you can churn them out like widgets: France built 56 reactors in 15 years. Want reliable power 24/7 without fossil fuels? Will it: make a policy decision and follow through.
- moystard 3y agoThey will import from the French grid like all French neighbours that abandoned their nuclear programs.
- sveme 3y agoSame old, same old. In an interconnected grid, everyone is importing and exporting from and to everyone. Germany (which you are referring to), is still an exporter of electricity.
- moystard 3y agoNot since 2023. https://www.energate-messenger.com/news/239393/germany-becomes-a-net-importer https://www.energate-messenger.com/news/239393/germany-becom... Additional article highlighting the role of electricity exporter of France: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is...
- bililoumboum 3y ago[dead]
- oneshtein 3y agoWhich is good for both France and those countries.
- the_third_wave 3y agoOnly until something brings down the French grid. Power generation should not be too centralised since that creates too many opportunities for failure, accidental (storm, fire) or intentional (sabotage, war).