4 ms·
It would take a long time to build new reactors, so not sure that would help. Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).
by RandomLensman 1y ago
It would take a long time to build new reactors, so not sure that would help.
Germany could also do more wind, solar, tidal, geothermal (fossil fuels aside).
- bluefirebrand 1y agoIt is going to take a long time and a lot of resources no matter what so maybe we should be building effective longterm solutions like nuclear instead of stopgap solar and batteries
- RandomLensman 1y agoWhy would, e.g., solar and chemical or physical storage be a stopgap? Why spend 20 years of building a fission reactor these days (other than for research, medical, or defense purposes) which also make awful targets in a conflict? Maybe just wait till fusion reactors are there.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoBecause the reactor will still run 20 years after that while the solar and storage will need to be replaced by then
- RandomLensman 1y agoReactors need ongoing maintenance, repairs, replacement.
- kulahan 1y agoWhy would fusion reactors magically appear when the entire field of nuclear energy production is, in this scenario, essentially dead??
- RandomLensman 1y agoNot sure why pursuing fusion needs building fission reactors for energy production.
- kulahan 1y agoBecause nuclear engineers, plant operators, radioactive mining facilities, and other types of workers that will be needed across both, need to be employed from today until fusion reactors are made.
- yellowapple 1y agoNot even “instead”. We need all of the above: nuclear for base loads, solar for peak loads, batteries for surplus capture.
- robotnikman 1y agoThis right here. It's not one or the other, its a diverse combination of all of them that makes for the best results.
- fundatus 1y agoBase load is a concept of the past, grids around the world are being redesigned to be flexible to reap zero-production-costs renewable energy. Nuclear (which is impossible to run economically as a flexible asset) simply does not fit into that new world anymore.
- yellowapple 1y agoIt'd be way easier to build a few nuclear plants than it would be to build an equivalent constant energy source from solar+wind and batteries. The nuclear plants would also consume far less land area.
- kulahan 1y agoDamn, so we’re left with nothing, because nuclear is by far the most viable moving forward.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoYou need solar and batteries for peak loads, not just solar In many places in the world, peak load does not occur during daylight hours, especially during winter And yes, further north the days are longer but the solar capture efficiency is also much lower
- yellowapple 1y agoTrue. I'm biased by living in a place where the peak load does happen during daylight hours (because that's when you need to run the A/C) and where heating usually happens via gas. Electric heating would indeed shift that dynamic (though municipal water heating would shift it the other way).
- raverbashing 1y agoI'm not sure how tidal and geothermal fare in Germany It seems that some geothermal works have caused mini-earthquakes and soil shifts in Germany and the Netherlands
- RandomLensman 1y agoMy baseline expectation is some opposition to any new energy infrastructure.
- kulahan 1y agoI was under the impression tidal was mostly tapped out because any half-decent location has already been turned into a power plant.