• Chetzemoka@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    But it’s also about cost. Nuclear is far more expensive upfront, more expensive to maintain, and more expensive to decommission. Cheap, agile renewables will be an easier option for the vast majority of the planet

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      We would be really stupid to worry about money when trying to save the planet. But, what did I know, I’m just some guy on the internet

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Financiers tend to worry about money, yes.

        First option: a wind/solar plant with costs that aren’t going to increase substantially, power being sold within a couple of years therefore repayments will begin quickly.

        Second option: a nuclear proposal - massive costs upfront, that will inevitably skyrocket while the completion date slips and slips, and power being sold 10-15 year in the future so repayments are a long way off.

        It’s not a difficult choice.

        If your argument is that we should nationalize the energy sector so government can get involved more directly to mitigate financing issues, sure. We both know that’s not going to happen.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          How does one provide power when the renewables don’t provide enough power (nights, etc)? Our current solution is natural gas. Nuclear is a huge step up as a carbon-free provider.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Storage, there are many options. Pumped hydro is great for places with elevation change, molten salt is great for desert climates. Batteries, green hydrogen, compressed gas, etc.

            We’ve been storing energy for thousands of years. It’s not difficult in the way nuclear fusion, SMRs, or thorium are difficult.

            We’re also moving towards EVs. I’d like to see investment in using a fleet of connected EVs as a giant battery. Your energy company can pay you for making 10-15% of your EV battery available for grid storage and you can opt out if you need that extra range for a trip.

            • gazter@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              The largest battery on the planet would power my workplace for less than two hours- if it could meet the instant demand, which it cannot.

              I’m all for energy storage, but I realise there’s a lot of work to do.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The article talks about the coming droughts and water shortages. Pumped hydro is nice, if you have water.

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s evaporation, which can be mitigated by floating solar panels, but pumped hydro is a closed system, it doesn’t consume water.

              • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You save the water in a hole, then pump it back and forth. You can cover it with PV to stop evaporation

                This is also good for the droughts as you have emergency water.

        • Azrael@fosstodon.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @N1cknamed @NocturnalMorning be carful about time scale when talking about rentrability. In short term a few reneable is certainly cheaper, but nuclear reactor will outlive the ENR. For governement, long term rentability may be more important than short term one. Also, governement consider other parameters (jobs, resillience, public opinion, ghg emmissions? …)

      • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We *rich countries would be really stupid to worry about money when trying to save the planet.

        There’s a lot of world outside the US, Europe, and China.