Kon5ole

28 ms·

391.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Spain will surely replace the capacity with mostly solar and storage, which is cheaper, faster and more reliable than nuclear.
392.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Sellafield also handles all waste from UK's nuclear plants. A site like that is needed whenever you have nuclear plants, bombs or not. In the US, the defence budget covers the storage of waste. In Sweden the nuclear fund currently hold
393.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
This is great news, Spain should be able to match the best solar installations in the US at 1.5 cents per kwh, which means that they can generate hydrogen and use hydrogen for electricity at a lower total cost than French nuclear power! An
394.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
The distasteful part is that you leave a huge bill to future generations (best case) or leave their land uninhabitable (worst case). Take Sellafield in the UK, costs over 2 billion pounds per year for the foreseeable future and generates no
395.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Finland recently lost 14% of it's national electricity generation for days due to a turbine failure. This is of course a huge problem. Having 14% of the nations electricity transported from just 1 location is another problem all by its
396.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
It's easy if you add electrolysers to your imagination. :) There are solar plants that deliver electricity for around 2 cents per kwh and the price is dropping. Hydrogen can be generated from electricity at 80% efficiency, and gas can
397.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
You could generate hydrogen. Install a few hundred MW's worth of hydrolyzers around the continent and direct all excess there. If there is no excess, they simply don't produce. I feel that this basically has to happen sooner or la
398.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
There's a catch-22 in your wish. Nuclear is safe because of the regulations, and if you remove the regulations its not safe. The regulations make it expensive, but the lack of regulations is very likely to make it much much much much
399.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Renewables still help without storage. Every TWh of electricity produced from wind and solar is a TWh that was not produced by burning coal. If you reduce the coal consumption in the existing coal power plants by 50% it's as beneficial
400.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
The basic idea is to produce enough power when the sun shines to last when it doesn't shine, by using some kind of energy storage. Batteries are one option. How long batteries last is controlled entirely by how long you want them to la
401.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
There are many TWs of capacity available from rooftops. They are already covered.
402.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Finland recently had to offline 14% of it's national electricity production due to a single incident. Not only is that unreliable, the effects of the lack of reliability are much worse than with any other power source. Nuclear only exi
403.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>where does all the copper and lithium come from to enable this mass electrification and storage of energy? Let's hope we don't need too much cobalt too? We will save copper since electricity can be produced close to where it&#
404.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
I disagree. Making hydrogen and batteries is already so cheap that companies that need lots of energy are doing it for entirely financial and self-serving reasons. You can make hydrogen gas from water using things you have in a typical kitc
405.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Of course it is an argument! It shows that humans can’t be trusted to keep dangerous things safe over a long period of time, and also shows that the cost of nuclear power has been much higher than any published estimates have ever taken int
406.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>vehement hatred most other green people display towards nuclear (whether it is fission or fusion) is mind-boggling. The hatred is understandable when you read stuff like this: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20
407.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>If storage is solved, then I think we would've heard about it. Here's one of many many ways how the storage problem has been solved: https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/home/products-servi..
408.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
You don't need new square mileage for solar, you can add it to areas already used for other things. The Netherlands for example have the largest percentage of rooftop solar of all the EU countries, getting over 14% of their yearly elec
409.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>Since you ignore the question of whether Europe even has space for 100 or 200GW of solar power That's a question that can safely be ignored though, Germany alone has installed rooftop solar on a small percentage of homes and is alr
410.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
2 billion GBP in yearly maintenance for a site that hasn't produced electricity since 2003. And the consequences of not paying are so severe that neighboring countries are talking about volunteering money to the upkeep. And the consume
411.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Solar with battery storage seems to have passed nuclear on price 4 years ago, when it was 2-3x more expensive than it is today and perhaps 10x more expensive than it will be before a new nuclear plant can be finished. https://www
412.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
Flying is still dangerous though, no matter how many passengers land safely. If flying was inherently safe (in the same way that solar power is safe), the WTC twin towers would still be standing today.
413.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>The type of catastrophe that solar and wind need to prevent are "There's no sun/wind for more days than we planned for" which absolutely can be devastating Absolutely, and with renewables that's part of the cons
414.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>So comparing solar and nuclear is a bit like saying a broom is safer to the user than a gun, while ignoring the user is in a gunfight. I appreciate the simile! My argument was aimed against the claim that nuclear is safe because it hasn
415.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>If we stop subsidizing fossil fuels, then the energy markets will be fair, nuclear will win I can't see nuclear winning, it is at least the second most subsidized energy source we have and already more expensive than solar+storage,
416.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>Could you elaborate on why this investment is an argument against nuclear? It is not an argument against nuclear, it is an argument against the claim that nuclear is safe . If something requires a large staff of skilled workers and ver
417.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>You should at least accept less by the amount of your commuting costs, If that's the case then we should also demand more by the same amount that the employer pays in office leases, right? If the employer gets money that I save, th
418.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>Solar and wind are great but they don’t provide a continuous source of energy. This is a solved problem through various forms of storage (synthetic gas, pumped hydro, batteries etc). Nuclear is a solid baseline for sure but I don't
419.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>Nuclear, solar and wind are the cleanest and safest forms of energy. The metric to use is deaths/TWH This common flawed claim ignores the metric "How much effort is required to keep the number of deaths low?" which is an
420.
by Kon5ole 3y ago
>Why do areas with nuclear power around the world have cheaper than average electricity costs, then? Frankly it's because much of the cost of nuclear energy is not labelled "electricity costs" and is instead paid for using

More ›