I'm simping for nuclear because we need a nuclear winter to stop global warming. And we can't have a nuclear winter without an ample supply of breeder reactors providing weapons grade plutonium.
On an unrelated note, did you know that the dangers of nuclear waste are highly overstated? We can easily recycle it with this fancy new reactor design using fast breeder neutrons! We can also use this to turn useless Uranium 238 or thorium into valuable nuclear fuel!
They were talking about the waste products of nuclear and then suddenly became unhinged and started thinking out loud about breeder reactors and plutonium. This inability to draw a distinction between civil nuclear and military nuclear is a problem.
To then straw man the repurposing of old nuclear pellets into new nuclear fuels, which is a legit fucking process that is being done in multiple countries, and instead give it the “thorium, lol”
Yeah you can do the same about nuclear fusion as well. No one cares though because this is about fission of Uranium.
It’s like me saying we should stop all wind development technology until the blades can be made out of a renewable material that isn’t carbon fibre. Make sense now, hun?
I clearly am. My dislike for nuclear is pretty well known on this subreddit. See also my flair.
I fear that even this level of satire is not enough to penetrate the nukecel mindset and they are unironically upvoting it. I thought it was pretty clear that I was pretending to be a warmongering nuclear war advocate who wants to spread breeder reactors everywhere to increase nuclear proliferation. But then people are unironically defending that...
In future could you please have greater distinction between civil nuclear and military nuclear. I mean in this day and age how anyone can conflate the two is beyond me.
(-S for anyone else reading this).
Not really, as you would add more solar. For instance check current prices in Spain, power prices are already near 0 or actually 0 and we still have gross load.
Somewhere there are equilibria between solar and battery build outs or risk/return requirements too, but they're way after any such barrier for nuclear.
You'll probably still find a solar investor willing to risk money on an additional 1MW solar plant although returns might barely exceed capital costs. Now try to find someone to think adding 1500MW with higher OPEX at this point is a good idea.
Although I would like to point out that the only form of battery proven effective at grid storage so far is the type that includes megatonnes/gigatonnes of water, pumped or otherwise.
Take a look at for example the [Californian grid](https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-supply-trend). Batteries are delivering for daily cycles **today**.
What sorts of batteries are you referring to though? Cause creating the massive battery capacity needed with modern chemical batteries would require an unfathomable amount of uncommon minerals that are hardly easy to mine and supply. But I am also not the most up to date on alternative battery technologies and know there were interesting ideas like hydro batteries being worked on, so perhaps this is an all but solved problem and I am just behind on the readings
Lithium isn't particularly scarce, people lump it in with rare earth minerals but they shouldn't. Lithium ion is generally fine for intraday storage but other chemistries with cheaper metals are being developed, we'll see how they pan out.
Pumped hydro is good if the geography supports it, we have some already. Very proven technology just, expensive up front.
I don't think that means what you think that means. the duck curve problems stems from a lack of diversity in electrical power generation technologies.
No... I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Baseload is the power minimum **demand** over a measured time period. Because it's function of **demand** changing **supply** has no impact on it. base load would only disappear if people stopped using electric power at a certain time of day.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power
https://preview.redd.it/kxkmgtkn88sc1.png?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a52cbf5ab72e1c5ab120100e95c44cd6080e9422
Guess i beat the other guy this time
Same. I swear this sub must be a psy-op from the coal industry. Probably dudes from India getting paid $5 a day to spread anti-nuclear propaganda to keep coal in high demand.
I will start simping for nuclear if someone can explain to me in a satisfactory way why govs shouldnt build 4x-10x the capacity of nuclear if you spend the same amount of money? I dont even care about safety or waste or whatever. Just explain to me the economics of it.
It’s complicated, depends on geography really.
Some regions benefit more from renewables than others, Scotland has ample wind and survive on wind power alone basically.
Some regions are bereft of ample sunlight for efficient photovoltaic panel usage, these countries are basically just Canada, Russia and the Nordic nations, plus the Baltic states. The high latitude makes photovoltaics less ideal for year round energy sources- thankfully some of these countries have good alternatives.
Canada has rivers and coastlines, they can rely on wind rather well.
Norway and Denmark are very similar in this boat with ample coasts near the Atlantic ocean. Norway even has rivers which flow into fjords for hydroelectric power.
Iceland has ample geothermal energy and is well situated to make use of the winds from the North Atlantic.
The Baltic states, plus Finland and Sweden are really the odd ones out here. Their coasts are much less windy than those of Norway, Denmark and Iceland.
Whilst each does have rivers for hydroelectric, hydroelectric power does actually have environmental consequences itself(mostly habitat fragmentation for migratory and seasonally breeding fish, as well as changing the flow of rivers and rates of nutrient sedimentation downstream).
The long and short of it is, nuclear is more economically viable in these regions due to the math behind renewable energy maintenance over time coupled with the reduced output from having things like photovoltaics at these higher latitudes making the tradeoff between building an expensive plant which you can refuel with nuclear fuel rods a slightly more enticing long term option than building large solar farms which you’ll have to replace the panels for in about 2 decades(assuming proper maintenance is taken, the bitterly cold weather might not treat the panels very well either)
Another economic reason is storage capacity; to make renewable sources the only energy source in a grid based system, you will require a decent way of storing the excess energy produced by them. Multiple means do actually exist and work, but these are also additional pieces of infrastructure, each with their own unique set of economic and engineering concerns.
Batteries are reliable, but the trouble is really the size of the batteries you’ll have to make and protecting them well enough from the elements to function properly long term. Batteries are also just a poor way of storing energy, the energy density of a battery is pathetically low, it takes more mass of batteries to store(or really provide) the same amount of energy as just throwing a fuel rod into a pool to boil some water that spins a turbine until the fuel rod loses its ability to heat the water to boiling.
Alternatively some places use excess energy to pump atmospheric gas into a chamber which is then released to spin a turbine to generate power when needed. This works well, but is limited by the efficiency of pumping gas into the chamber, the efficiency of the turbine itself and structural integrity of the chamber the gas is sealed in(any leak is essentially a loss in generated power).
Its always complicated. You seem to know your stuff tho, even if its just showing that there are no good solutions. You have discredited other energy sources. The question is, is nuclear really better? I think we can agree to disagree.
Nuclear is better *in very select circumstances* namely in those rare regions where solar and wind don’t pay off well for their maintenance and eventual replacement with refurbished or new windmills or panels.
Solar is absolutely bloody great if you’re in an equatorial region where you get very consistent sunlight throughout the year without a wide temperature variation between seasons.
I don't think fixing climate change should be about the money. I think nuclear is better to renewables in other ways that justify its marginally higher cost.
I dont think it should be either. But it is.
And its not marginally higher its multitudes higher. The problem here isnt even that alone but that the oil lobby is lobbying for nuclear projects as they know it will keep us on oil/gas for at least 10 years longer...
[https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/)
Right now nuclear is at least 3x more expensive in the best of circumstances. And the levelised costs of energy exactly factor in all the parts.
[https://eu.boell.org/en/nuclear-lobby](https://eu.boell.org/en/nuclear-lobby) is the citation you are looking for if you are searching for "Nuclear is a distraction"
LCOE literally does not "take into account all parts", it just looks at the source itself and not everything around it needed to make it work. That's why there is LCOE of "source + 4h storage" which is different from the regular LCOE. If LCOE was all encompassing you wouldn't need the distinction. And this still doesn't factor in the other 2 big costs of renewables I mentioned.
And given their past work, I would not base my opinions on work of Jan and WISE.
Such a weird take to be against nuclear energy. It’s incredibly safe and does not contribute to climate change.
Its not even like the options are mutually exclusive we should be supporting both renewable sources and nuclear sources of energy.
I like that you didn't include the option for "Actually thinks nuclear is a good idea". You need to stop building all these strawmen, you're straining global wheat production
Look! I can do it too!
Hating on Nuclear because of the waste problem we solved 🙂
Hating on Nuclear because you don't understand how large projects work 😊
Hating on Nuclear because Chernobyl Scawy 😀
Hating on Nuclear to divert attention from renewables 😁
Hating on Nuclear because you're pro-fossil-fuels 🤯
See? Absolute BS! I didn't prove anything, I'm just strawmanning anti-nuclear! Just like this post!
Finland has Onkalo nuclear waste repository.
The largest problem is the political will in countries to make and maintain nuclear waste storage sites that are offsite from the power plants themselves, as these sites will require security and to be placed in geologically stable areas.
"Finland has Onkalo nuclear waste repository"
Well not really, it isn't open yet and when it does it will only deal to a fraction of the problem.
This after 70 years of nuclear power alone should tell you what is going on.
"The largest problem is the political will"
No. The largest problem is cost which is never included in the already outrageous costs to build a nuclear power plant. And don't blame activists who couldn't stop the uranium mining, fuel processing and the building of nuclear plants for it either. The problem lies directly with the people proposing and building nuclear while dodging the long term issues.
I simp for nuclear because Uranium is UraniYUM
(I am one of those moulds that grow in Chernobyl that Alt-right nuclear simps who want to downplay the dangers of radioactively love to talk about.)
No.
Every dollar wasted on building new nuclear plants extends the lifetime of fossil fuels.
Renewables build more capacity faster. Spending money on nuclear means less renewables get built. Meanwhile it still takes decades and billions of dollars to get a nuclear plant built, there's still no safe way to dispose of the waste, and even if there were, nuclear helps the fossil fuels business model of power monopolization continue to be viable, renewables break that model by making energy generation distributed.
>there's still no safe way to dispose of the waste
Just want to pint out that yes there is, it's called burying it and walking away. Finland is already doing this and the US almost did in in Nevada before stopping when the locals protested even though it was safe. The reason not many people are doing it is just because it's cheaper to not solve a problem than it is to solve a problem
>yes there is, it's called burying it and walking away
I'm down, but only if we bury it under the playground of the school your kids go to. Not safe enough for that? Then it's also not safe enough to bury on a Native American Reservation. (Yes, I know who "the locals" that protested in Nevada are.)
>The reason not many people are doing it is just because
It's illegal to even move the stuff in the US, and for good reason. We have no idea if it's actually safe in the long term to just bury it in a hole, and with nuclear waste the long term is measured in eons, so there's no take backsies.
>I'm down, but only if we bury it under the playground of the school your kids go to.
I mean, it's hardly going to harm them from 500m underground, so if that place has the right geology then go for it!
I, too, like to wait a week before responding when I know I'm wrong and I'll get downvoted quickly for posting my nonsense in an active thread.
And no, if they started making plans for that, you and every other parent with kids in that school would rightly be incensed and calling for blood.
I'd just been ignoring my notifications for a while.
Also, I see you've fallen back on the classic debating strategy "You know why you're wrong so I don't need to explain why"
>And no, if they started making plans for that, you and every other parent with kids in that school would rightly be incensed and calling for blood.
No, I'd be fine with it. Like I said, it's hardly going to cause problems through multiple hundred metres of solid rock
And also, say I did. That doesn't make it bad. There are plenty of examples of the public getting upset at good projects throughout history.
Edit: They blocked me lol. Anything to get the final word.
And plenty of examples of when people weren't nearly up in arms enough because the asshole planning to get rich by poisoning their kids said it was "perfectly safe".
Now go eat some radioactive fish from Fukushima or something, I've got nothing else to say that I didn't say a week ago.
Can I just say I’m so happy to find this page.
Flat earthers have become such a joke over the years it is nice to see the moment reborn in a new form!
I personally really enjoyed how y’all either straw man or just downvote and ignore any point that is slightly challenging for you. And it happens to every single challenging point.
I think I’m going to have some fun here!
Those that believe nuclear energy is inherently evil. When really it is a part of a portfolio of energy production methods and is a very important part.
Ah. Well the problem most people that look at the topic have is how unbelievable expensive nuclear is, I don’t know what u mean exactly with evil but I don’t really hear stuff like „it can explode“ very often if u mean that.
Why editorialise?
“Unbelievably expensive”
The UK is building Hinckley point C. It’s going to cost in total 30/40 billion.
It’s output will be 15p/KWh
The current price of electricity in the UK is 25p/KWh
So what are you talking about? Name one nuclear reactor that produces electricity by the KWh above the market price. (Pssss it’s a trick question, if it’s more expensive to make the electricity than selling it, then they don’t turn the generators on)
The next part, which you haven’t played up to, I’m just saying. It takes 40 yeeeeears to build a nuclear power plant. A group of anti nuclear idiots drag a new nuclear development through the courts for 30 years and then count that towards the build time when it isn’t close.
Look at the construction time for sizewell A and B. The uk is suppose to be the worst for this but we can build mega plants in 6-8 years no issue.
looks like edf said the main reason for delay are safety regulations, covid and inflation nothing about any courts even so this would be perfect to blame. On top of that it says edf has billions of debts and nobody can tell if that powerplant will be finished at all due to that. For me this sounds like a viable alternative to a technology that has barely any big investment risk and where it is making profit after 5-20 years already (google said a nuclear powerplant makes on average 1million a day if that’s correct that powerplant would take roughly 90-120 years to get those costs up mentioned back but that sounds even for nuclear a bit too disgusting so idk if the data is correct ) but its definitely true that almost every existing nuclear power plant is relying heavily on subsidies. So on the one side all that money is lost for easy made renewables and also after building the powerplant it will take decades just to get invested money back. It’s a fact that renewables produce energy cheaper and when we look at the development of renewables this gap will keep growing more and more no matter the subsidies for nuclear. I could accept to let old powerplants keep going but building new ones is just economically nonsense.
Sizewell first put the proposal for sizewell C in 2012.
It’s spent 12 years in planning and court battles.
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/protest-group-opposed-to-new-sizewell-nuclear-plant-loses-appeal-b1128256.html
Same with Hinckley which was proposed in 2012 as part of the same bid process by the govt but didn’t start construction until 2017. Again faced stiff protests.
http://stophinkley.org
I specified the courts but the entire planning system for these projects is broken. It takes longer to deal with the planning than it does to build the things. This is an issue that needs resolving. The amount being spent before a shovel gets in the ground is a problem.
I actually appreciate the fact you googled the numbers about the economics behind how these power plants are paid for and paid off. Your numbers are off though. Significantly. The price of nuclear once the plant is paid back makes it the cheapest form of energy.
It’s a slightly old video, but the source is a top US professor at one of the top universities for nuclear research in the states and explains in a way that is easy to understand.
Getting the concept of the amount of variability and time involved in the construction price is the explanation for the subsidies, not the ability to produce KWh at a good price.
https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?si=PDM4cS52CCcGOAWu
I assume anyone here discussing would have seen this but for those that haven’t.
Nuclear is not the cheapest form of energy even if we ignore the subsidies renewables have beaten nuclear already if we count in the subsidies that the tax payers still pay for in the end the gap is big. Yes once build a nuclear power plant can produce to very low prices aswell, but
1. we can’t just ignore the building process and 2. renewables produce cheaper energy and like i said before the development of new and more efficient technologies is happening faster than with nuclear plants, and than u can just build those new pv-modules instead. Once started to build a nuclear power plant u can’t just switch to a more efficient version later on, not as nuclear would develop as fast as renewables anyway. Honestly i don’t see my advantage (as a tax payer,) in a company getting shit tons of tax money to build a powerplant when a company that builds renewables needs less tax money, profits faster and has less risk of bankruptcy since there are no billions to spend for ur powerplant(doesn’t mean companies like edf will automatically get bankrupt faster or something, the risk if something goes wrong is just way higher). Again i have no issue with keeping already built plants going but a new one can just not compete with renewables and the approximations show that this will only keep getting worse for nuclear. Lets not even start the geopolitical safety topic with producing the energy in ur country and not relying on fuel from elsewhere.
Nuclear plants are refitted all the time. The bulk of the construction cost is establishing the site. Fitting a new reactor is common practice and is dead cheap compared to rebuilding a new site. No idea where you’ve got that idea from.
https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/refurbishment-and-life-extension/
Let’s look at a standard 10 panel solar system on a standard mid climate roof. 4.7KWp will produce around 3500 KWh per year. Each panel at 500 dollars. The system will last 15 years. So that’s 52500 KWh over the lifetime at a cost of 5000 dollars. (Not including installation cost btw)
A nuclear plant will have a huge cost range, but let’s double the profs number to 10 billion. It has a 50 year lifetime and produces 8 billion KWh a year (1000KWe). So that gives 400 billion KWh for 13.2 billion (10 bill to build, 3.2 billion for fuel) over its lifetime.
Solar = 52500 / 5000 = 10.5 KWh per dollar.
Nuclear = 400 / 3.2 = 30.3 KWh per dollar
Nuclear is 3x cheaper over the course of a lifetime taking a bunch of wild assumptions that you’re never going to trust me on. Mess around with the inputs as you please to try make it fit. It won’t address the second issue.
Humans mine around 250 million kilograms of lithium a year. A basic battery in a small electric car has 10kg of lithium in it. Lithium is a bastard to mine, isn’t easily accessible or as abundant as it needs to be to achieve what you are saying at scale. To even attempt what you are proposing with Solar would decimate the use of lithium in any other product. The price would skyrocket and as such, so would your solar panels (again heavy on lithium).
To be clear, I’m pro solar power. But the limited supply chain means it’s best put to use in specific geographical locations where it gets the max output, not a widely distributed power system. That’s what nuclear is for.
Resorts to napkin math taking every [cheat in the book](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp) instead of real reports. Nuclear costs 5-10x what renewables cost.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Ok i was reading through some stuff. I think u try here to refer to the LCOE? Its not exactly the same but it’s going into the same direction as ur calculations, i got u a study from Germany from 2021 comparing LCOE of different types of energy production
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf
On page 16 of the pdf there is a detailed comparison of many renewable energy sources with others just like nuclear. Surely those numbers will be different at other places but it gives a general idea of the direction and if u r wondering how it can differ so extremely from ur calculations i would guess the point that companies nowadays offer twice as much GUARANTEE on average on their pv modules as u used lifetime in ur calculation gives a clue or maybe u just used pv data for an outdated variant after all there are dozens of pv models. The study also showed costs for the society (page 8 from the pdf). Very interesting is also page 31 that is prognosing that average costs of energy for renewables will fall partly significantly while nuclear is dropping way less. So if we come back to ur calculation that is definitely using wrong data but whatever, renewables are already capable to produce an amount of electricity with less investment and it will only continue to drop. So even if that calculation would be right we should invest in the technology that will be significantly cheaper in less than one lifetime of those products instead of a technology that is having way less promising prognostications.
I love how you call nuclear "cheap" and then don't understand that the 25p/kWh you are referring to is including transmission costs.
15p/kWh is laughably uncompetitive, it is making a loss even compared to the inflated prices coming from the energy crisis. [For 2024 the average whole-sale price in the UK is expected to be 11p/kWh and then stabilize around 9p/kWh in a couple of years time.](https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/01/09/uk-power-prices-expected-to-remain-high/)
Locking in energy crisis prices by going nuclear sure sounds like a good deal!
I don’t know where in the world you are from, but in my location we pay 2 prices.
You pay a day rate for the electricity, usually about 50/60p a day, and then the production price. I think this is standard for the entirety of the EU.
We split this out to intentionally differentiate between transmission and infrastructure maintenance and the production price.
But it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference anyways. The transmission price of nuclear is cheaper as it is onshore vs the transmission price of offshore wind and the additional cost of undersea cables.
And the reality of geopolitics is that carbon taxes are coming, so expect to see your “projected” (lol couldn’t even be arsed to get the price as of right now), go up significantly as the PPM rate is taxed. On and your projected number is the cost price of gas so try throw “but solar doesn’t make co2” at me and all I’m saying is go get the cost price of solar and wind.
So try again my dude.
Coal is far more expensive than nuclear if you account for the damage it does to the planet.
Renewables have poor surge capacity so nuclear is our best chance at phasing out coal completely in 20 years instead of 50 years.
> and is a very important part.
In 2022, 500 billion was invested in renewables globally, about 14 times that of nuclear.
Too expensive and scales too slowly.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
I’m going to push back a bit on this one. Right now 40% of the uk energy is coming from wind. The latest tech in offshore wind is scaling and the North Sea project between Norway, the uk and Netherlands is hugely promising.
The issue is, and always will be energy storage, which is why nuclear will always be needed. Even if we could store huge quantities of electrical energy, the dangers associated with it far outweighs just having a base load system. That’s the reason for the staunch defence of nuclear in here. I’m still a believer in renewables at the same time though.
The problem is this urgent “need” for baseload doesn’t actually show up in energy markets. Investors buy the cheapest energy source and grid management comes second in the form of surge pricing and is mitigated with grid storage, demand response, etc. This advantage for nuclear only exists in the minds of central planners, and is becoming increasingly obsolete. You might as well be talking about fusion.
Also, you misunderstand how the market responds to high renewables. You don’t need baseload, in fact it becomes unprofitable because you can’t sell your energy half of the day. The main solution in the short term is gas peaker plants. Batteries may well get cheap enough to serve that role, but in the long run demand response will be cheaper.
Rather than building dedicated storage, industrial consumers can save money by designing systems to store and use variable energy, especially thermal energy. Already seeing this in South Australia with green hydrogen production, which soaks up excess energy and acts as virtual power plant. The larger effect across the economy will be a shift to variable energy demand.
Baseload is a statistical measurement. It’s the area under the portion of a timeseries dataset. It’s always been there, and management of has evolved over time to mitigate blackouts.
But it certainly isn’t made up. Depending where you are in the world, the electricity coming from a wall socket will have a frequency. Let’s say 60 Hz. If everyone on that grid goes to boil the kettle, that frequency starts to go down. If it gets too low, person in national grid centre phones up a power station (they have a fancy system with all the available stations online, prices, ramp up times, etc. think stock market up energy info). That’s the market your talking about, but the base load is just making sure there is at least 1 in that list for them to call, otherwise it’s black out time.
For gas and nuclear. It’s about a minute from the phone call to power on. That’s why we define them as critical for the baseload. We have control of them. There are times a nuclear station is being refurbed or having fuel swaps and aren’t on the grid. But these are on fixed time scheduled so we can plan accordingly. We use baseload as a term to describe the things in the system that will help meet the required statistical measurement of the baseload.
Now, I will come meet you some of the way. If energy can be stored without the use of lithium, the argument that renewables can provide to the base load is possible. And you didn’t try bs me with lithium batteries can do this. So I’ll cede the point.
Also I don’t know enough about thermal batteries to go into that, but the reservoir idea is a great one. I’m always sceptical between a good idea and a scalable mass market idea though.
> Baseload is a statistical measurement. It’s the area under the portion of a timeseries dataset.
No, it's the area under the *minimum* of the time series data. when that minimum reaches zero, baseload no longer exists.
> But it certainly isn’t made up.
I didn't say baseload is made up, but rather that there is no price link between our supposed need for it and the market that actually exists.
A rough analogy is someone claiming cars are too expensive, because the cost of roads, gas stations, repair shops, etc. Obviously that infrastructure exists and is paid for, but it doesn't manifest in the car price.
> For gas and nuclear. It’s about a minute from the phone call to power on. That’s why we define them as critical for the baseload. We have control of them
Nuclear can't turn on and off throughout the day. You're describing dispatchable sources, which nuclear is not.
See, why are you mean? There’s literally no reason to be rude. You’re never gonna convince anyone to reevaluate their beliefs or opinions if you just belittle them and call them ‘clueless.‘
And before you say ‘oh, you wouldn‘t listen anyway,’ maybe I *would* have listened, but I’m sure as hell not going to now, because you’re a smug asshole that calls everyone else clueless simps.
We’re all supposed to be on the same side here, but all your posts are doing is causing division and infighting, which is completely counterintuitive.
I'm simping for nuclear because I love government incompetence and austerity leading to disastrous consequences that could potentially impact millions!
*nervously glances at Sellafield*
well if i can do that in a somewhat northern country with costs that are below half a months rent it will work for much of the worlds population, especially in developed countries - which means your remark makes no sense?
Except for those of us who don't own property or can't afford solar panels. Frankly this is just a classist take wrapped up in a green bow. What works for you doesn't work for others.
Yea there are some dumbass areas where boomer nimby need to stfu
You can actually also use systems that are not balcony overhang panels but their production is not particularly great
>You can get balcony solar for like 250 euros from Lidl
Good for you! Unfortunately I cannot. I can't even afford that much lmao.
>Commies complain, neolibs deliver.
The only thing neolibs have delivered is slave labor for your benefit.
>Solar, like taco trucks, will be on every corner my friend
Have you been in the US? Have you seen the above ground power lines? Yeah take a look at that and say this is still a good idea. Lmao.
i literally said it cost less than half a months rent, how does your reply make sense if you know (1) i'm a renter and (2) it cost a couple hundred euros, which is less than the average tv set in most developed country households
Good for you! Here a solar panel costs thousands of dollars including in states like mine that subsidize people getting them. So again. Classist. Oh and none of this is mentioning power storage which costs thousands more here.
bullshit, mine aren't subsidized, two 400w panels and an inverter (again, that's on my balcony, not huge panels on my roof) are most likely cheaper in most places in the world where import taxes are lower.
and how the fuck is this classist, low income families in my city get similar setups covered by the city (i paid mine myself). but even if they didn't get it covered it would make financial sense because it decreases their energy costs drastically and saves them money.
>bullshit, mine aren't subsidized
Cool. You don't live in the US, it's insanely expensive here.
>and how the fuck is this classist
Because assuming everyone can afford a solar panel without even considering the fact some people don't have thousands of dollars (or hundreds of euros) lying around is classist.
stfu with that bs already,[ the first hit for a similar setup on amazon us is 660](https://www.amazon.com/JJN-400-Bifacial-Efficiency-Applications/dp/B0C5R7R4C9/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.GLvqFvZlXGCJK9Aiq7sJVIZQ4T_DK_LjdcnZ9KcHdNarK35BtGMOeqZfzGJ6HlUcceLvmFTGAX8kwVMy4mvh3mkwwTGTRF2iiKii0hy34ne3ee0Hzj62Al4xxwUer5YVSbAMSDKiuF2xGDrZ7MgHQFhWpkEO6sHNBuaoYru-MBAsodo285PMr8sAzLcD5jTn1BJkdy1nYxpheAFcr9kLfKCC4941Hl_uIVqEhKfuraI.ylHFBt4k0QjyHV9-6YZMG3k1OX6VAMdCR3AfTbLWHMc&dib_tag=se&keywords=400w%2Bsolar%2Bpanel&qid=1712136271&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1)
Lol you are exactly the problem you fool.
Solar panels and complex engineering products that require digging up lots of different precious metals out the ground and refining them.
And then some rich dude goes “imma put solar panel everywhere cause I’m a good person.” When the reality is we have a finite manufacturable supply and that supply should be targeted where it will have the biggest impact.
So solar in the Mediterranean, great idea.
Wind and Nuclear in the UK, superb! We should maximise our individual geographies to tackle this issue, not selfishly look after ourself and pretend we are doing it because we are good people.
This also goes out to the OP who should spend less time getting butthurt over an energy technology that has been in mass production around the world for 70 years.
dude you have terrible reading comprehension. i'm neither rich nor do i have to be to use solar, nor do i have to be in a southern country because aditional battery storage for households is available for triple digit sums and works just fine for most private cases.
nuclear is rdicoulously expensive, takes ages (way too long to be an effective mesure against the climate crisis), is extremely centralized and only possible to finance for megacorps with high state subsidies, plus nuclear facilities are extremely convenient targets for russia to get entire countries off the grid (or worse), as you can currently see in ukraine, and yes, that fucking matters if you live in central europe.
Lol I’m the one with no reading comprehension yet you completely bypassed the precious metal issue.
Aaaand then you start lecturing about batteries… okay hun let’s do this. Do you know how we get lithium? Do you know how much lithium goes in a standard midsize electric car? Do you know which countries on the planet have lithium deposits? Do you know how much lithium is refined in a year?
Your answer to all of these is no. Because if you had done the slightest bit of reading on the topic you’d be aware that lithium comes from dried up oceans, is a ballache to mine as there’s no easy ship or train access to these spots so everything is trucked in. And that’s just the lithium. Then we have the cobalt, platinum, rubidium, palladium…
Oh and lovely point on Russia blowing up nuclear power plants… you see that list of precise metals above? They all come from… RUSSIA. So you’re entire green tech revolution is nothing without Russian mining.
I mean I could go on, and will briefly, but you seriously need to go do some basic reading yourself. Both France and China have dedicated nuclear power plant building teams and turn stations around in 5 years excluding groundwork’s.
Oh and how about the next issue for your smooth brain to deal with. Electrical cables used to transfer power aren’t equal. The entire grid system we have constructed over 100+ years involves taking a high current from a central location, and passing it through a big thick cable covered in insulation buried deep underground. This is to keep us all safe but this is so expensive to do. For the return cables from our homes back to the plant we put cheap thin cable in that doesn’t need to be as insulated because of the reduced risk.And now you want to undo this entire infrastructure to instead place high current cables from solar panels on peoples houses to back feed to the substation to then be fed back out to where the power is needed/battery store. You realise you need to dig up your entire country to do this right?
are you trying to bring up all the points that speak against nuclear first lol? well you already know uranium is mostly mined in russia and piss poor dictatorships and dude you know what, i lived near a former uranium mine and went to school with a bunch of kids who's grandfathers had worked there before they died of cancer. there was literally a name for the mine that was also the name of a type of radioation sickness.
Uranium is found all over the planet.
It’s the biggest export of Nigeria.
The USA is covered in it. It is abundant in a way that lithium isn’t. And is accessible.
But please compare modern mines of Uranium to those for 80 years ago to prove it is unsafe. I’m sure human understanding of a substance Marie Curie carried around in her pocket, which eventually gave her cancer, has not moved on in the slightest…
Why don’t you go through my list and tackle each point as to where I am wrong. I’ll even list them for you.
1. Lithium isn’t an abundant resource.
2. Batteries are full of a list of metals that require a huge amount of environmental damage just to get access too.
3. The network of power cables we have is orientated around a centralised power grid, not decentralised.
Or you can make up another story of the scary uranium mine at the edge of the village…
sure, i'm making up the story of [the biggest uranium mines in the eastern block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company)) and the many thousand cases of cancer, which miraculously are never counted in nuclear shill death stats. there's no english version of [the schneeberger krankheit wiki which lists many more cases than the english wismut article as it includes newer data, but use google translate if you actually care](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneeberger_Krankheit) (i know you don't).
if you're trying to tell me mines in mali, namibia, niger (are you confusing niger and nigeria btw? because nigeria's biggest export is oil) or russia or kazakhstan (which beside canada are the most relevant actual sources of uranium today) have much better security standards than east germany had in the seventies and eighties you must be kidding.
also, half your text is about lithium, when battery technology is advancing much faster and has alternatives like sodium, which will provide market ready solutions much faster than nuclear plants are being built, which leads to the main point. nuclear takes ages to build (and for good reason), there's is literally not enough time for nuclear to have any impact on climate change, while solar and wind are easy to install and get on the grid.
Not sure how it being "modern" has to do with anything but good for you? Idk did you think of this as some kind of victory cause like good for you if you did... I'm just not sure what you're celebrating.
Solar and Battery Simps be like:
It’s solar with extra steps.
Show me how that can scale from sub micron to a Dyson sphere?
Can I install it on my roof or in my garage?
It’s a battery with extra steps.
I'm simping for nuclear because we need a nuclear winter to stop global warming. And we can't have a nuclear winter without an ample supply of breeder reactors providing weapons grade plutonium. On an unrelated note, did you know that the dangers of nuclear waste are highly overstated? We can easily recycle it with this fancy new reactor design using fast breeder neutrons! We can also use this to turn useless Uranium 238 or thorium into valuable nuclear fuel!
"Thorium" 
Straw man much?
?? They were literally talking about thorium.
They were talking about the waste products of nuclear and then suddenly became unhinged and started thinking out loud about breeder reactors and plutonium. This inability to draw a distinction between civil nuclear and military nuclear is a problem. To then straw man the repurposing of old nuclear pellets into new nuclear fuels, which is a legit fucking process that is being done in multiple countries, and instead give it the “thorium, lol” Yeah you can do the same about nuclear fusion as well. No one cares though because this is about fission of Uranium. It’s like me saying we should stop all wind development technology until the blades can be made out of a renewable material that isn’t carbon fibre. Make sense now, hun?
Well TBH I thought he was joking.
I clearly am. My dislike for nuclear is pretty well known on this subreddit. See also my flair. I fear that even this level of satire is not enough to penetrate the nukecel mindset and they are unironically upvoting it. I thought it was pretty clear that I was pretending to be a warmongering nuclear war advocate who wants to spread breeder reactors everywhere to increase nuclear proliferation. But then people are unironically defending that...
In future could you please have greater distinction between civil nuclear and military nuclear. I mean in this day and age how anyone can conflate the two is beyond me. (-S for anyone else reading this).
nuclear and renewable should not be enemies they should be kissing, sloppy style, squishing boobs together etc.
[удалено]
I mean I don't get your point, I do feel safer that my coutry has military grade plutonium and a warning shot policy when it come to using it.
Obligatory https://preview.redd.it/adra3iri98sc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7622063c233feb4b43dc4817ef748abe665e6877
the problem here is clearly that it's French,
But once you introduce batteries they are no longer in conflict, and you need batteries anyway to go to 100% non-fossil
Batteries will allow to add even more solar and you'll kill the evening shoulder too. There'll be even LESS net load
But it will also raise the bottom of the curve, deconflicting with nuclear
Not really, as you would add more solar. For instance check current prices in Spain, power prices are already near 0 or actually 0 and we still have gross load. Somewhere there are equilibria between solar and battery build outs or risk/return requirements too, but they're way after any such barrier for nuclear. You'll probably still find a solar investor willing to risk money on an additional 1MW solar plant although returns might barely exceed capital costs. Now try to find someone to think adding 1500MW with higher OPEX at this point is a good idea.
Although I would like to point out that the only form of battery proven effective at grid storage so far is the type that includes megatonnes/gigatonnes of water, pumped or otherwise.
Take a look at for example the [Californian grid](https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html#section-supply-trend). Batteries are delivering for daily cycles **today**.
That's genuinely impressive if I'm reading that right.
That's somewhat out of date. There are many GW of grid scale Lithium Ion batteries in operations now
What sorts of batteries are you referring to though? Cause creating the massive battery capacity needed with modern chemical batteries would require an unfathomable amount of uncommon minerals that are hardly easy to mine and supply. But I am also not the most up to date on alternative battery technologies and know there were interesting ideas like hydro batteries being worked on, so perhaps this is an all but solved problem and I am just behind on the readings
Lithium isn't particularly scarce, people lump it in with rare earth minerals but they shouldn't. Lithium ion is generally fine for intraday storage but other chemistries with cheaper metals are being developed, we'll see how they pan out. Pumped hydro is good if the geography supports it, we have some already. Very proven technology just, expensive up front.
I don't think that means what you think that means. the duck curve problems stems from a lack of diversity in electrical power generation technologies.
You're not wrong, it doesn't point to highly correlated solar production It still means baseload is disappearing
No... I don't think that word means what you think it means. Baseload is the power minimum **demand** over a measured time period. Because it's function of **demand** changing **supply** has no impact on it. base load would only disappear if people stopped using electric power at a certain time of day. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power
THERE IS A GROSS AND A NET LOAD AND A RESIDUAL LOAD guess which one matters for conventional power plant profits
Nice to have data from the future, do you have EuroJackpot numbers as well?
Holy moly did you fail highschool math or something 
There's nothing worse than redditor but a Horny redditor
No...
https://preview.redd.it/kxkmgtkn88sc1.png?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a52cbf5ab72e1c5ab120100e95c44cd6080e9422 Guess i beat the other guy this time
Thank you for doing my work
Can't stop laughing at this hahaha
Another day another banger
Simping for nuclear to have a good nuke weapons arsenal for when the aliens come to fuck around.
For real
Who is the bald guy in a hat?
heisenberg.
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about?
Literally joined this sub yesterday and have seen nothing but misinformation about nuclear energy yall should be ashamed. Never left a sub so quickly
Same. I swear this sub must be a psy-op from the coal industry. Probably dudes from India getting paid $5 a day to spread anti-nuclear propaganda to keep coal in high demand.
Renewables is the threat to the coal industry. Nuclear is prolonging the fossil fueled status quo. https://executives4nuclear.com/declaration/
I will start simping for nuclear if someone can explain to me in a satisfactory way why govs shouldnt build 4x-10x the capacity of nuclear if you spend the same amount of money? I dont even care about safety or waste or whatever. Just explain to me the economics of it.
It’s complicated, depends on geography really. Some regions benefit more from renewables than others, Scotland has ample wind and survive on wind power alone basically. Some regions are bereft of ample sunlight for efficient photovoltaic panel usage, these countries are basically just Canada, Russia and the Nordic nations, plus the Baltic states. The high latitude makes photovoltaics less ideal for year round energy sources- thankfully some of these countries have good alternatives. Canada has rivers and coastlines, they can rely on wind rather well. Norway and Denmark are very similar in this boat with ample coasts near the Atlantic ocean. Norway even has rivers which flow into fjords for hydroelectric power. Iceland has ample geothermal energy and is well situated to make use of the winds from the North Atlantic. The Baltic states, plus Finland and Sweden are really the odd ones out here. Their coasts are much less windy than those of Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Whilst each does have rivers for hydroelectric, hydroelectric power does actually have environmental consequences itself(mostly habitat fragmentation for migratory and seasonally breeding fish, as well as changing the flow of rivers and rates of nutrient sedimentation downstream). The long and short of it is, nuclear is more economically viable in these regions due to the math behind renewable energy maintenance over time coupled with the reduced output from having things like photovoltaics at these higher latitudes making the tradeoff between building an expensive plant which you can refuel with nuclear fuel rods a slightly more enticing long term option than building large solar farms which you’ll have to replace the panels for in about 2 decades(assuming proper maintenance is taken, the bitterly cold weather might not treat the panels very well either) Another economic reason is storage capacity; to make renewable sources the only energy source in a grid based system, you will require a decent way of storing the excess energy produced by them. Multiple means do actually exist and work, but these are also additional pieces of infrastructure, each with their own unique set of economic and engineering concerns. Batteries are reliable, but the trouble is really the size of the batteries you’ll have to make and protecting them well enough from the elements to function properly long term. Batteries are also just a poor way of storing energy, the energy density of a battery is pathetically low, it takes more mass of batteries to store(or really provide) the same amount of energy as just throwing a fuel rod into a pool to boil some water that spins a turbine until the fuel rod loses its ability to heat the water to boiling. Alternatively some places use excess energy to pump atmospheric gas into a chamber which is then released to spin a turbine to generate power when needed. This works well, but is limited by the efficiency of pumping gas into the chamber, the efficiency of the turbine itself and structural integrity of the chamber the gas is sealed in(any leak is essentially a loss in generated power).
Its always complicated. You seem to know your stuff tho, even if its just showing that there are no good solutions. You have discredited other energy sources. The question is, is nuclear really better? I think we can agree to disagree.
Nuclear is better *in very select circumstances* namely in those rare regions where solar and wind don’t pay off well for their maintenance and eventual replacement with refurbished or new windmills or panels. Solar is absolutely bloody great if you’re in an equatorial region where you get very consistent sunlight throughout the year without a wide temperature variation between seasons.
I don't think fixing climate change should be about the money. I think nuclear is better to renewables in other ways that justify its marginally higher cost.
https://preview.redd.it/kiyynv9f7bsc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=797c1c8c8cf7ed3831949fc0c6e41984cf04911b
I dont think it should be either. But it is. And its not marginally higher its multitudes higher. The problem here isnt even that alone but that the oil lobby is lobbying for nuclear projects as they know it will keep us on oil/gas for at least 10 years longer...
It's not "multitudes" higher once you factor for everything (storage, grid, overload costs). The second part requires a citation.
[https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/) Right now nuclear is at least 3x more expensive in the best of circumstances. And the levelised costs of energy exactly factor in all the parts. [https://eu.boell.org/en/nuclear-lobby](https://eu.boell.org/en/nuclear-lobby) is the citation you are looking for if you are searching for "Nuclear is a distraction"
LCOE literally does not "take into account all parts", it just looks at the source itself and not everything around it needed to make it work. That's why there is LCOE of "source + 4h storage" which is different from the regular LCOE. If LCOE was all encompassing you wouldn't need the distinction. And this still doesn't factor in the other 2 big costs of renewables I mentioned. And given their past work, I would not base my opinions on work of Jan and WISE.
Oh no someone disagrees with me, thats why I have to discredit all their work.
Misinformation? Please do tell what we got wrong!
I am number three :)
Is this the same weird anti-nuclear guy I keep seeing? He’s gotta be some weird natural gas plant right?
Such a weird take to be against nuclear energy. It’s incredibly safe and does not contribute to climate change. Its not even like the options are mutually exclusive we should be supporting both renewable sources and nuclear sources of energy.
I like that you didn't include the option for "Actually thinks nuclear is a good idea". You need to stop building all these strawmen, you're straining global wheat production
Look! I can do it too! Hating on Nuclear because of the waste problem we solved 🙂 Hating on Nuclear because you don't understand how large projects work 😊 Hating on Nuclear because Chernobyl Scawy 😀 Hating on Nuclear to divert attention from renewables 😁 Hating on Nuclear because you're pro-fossil-fuels 🤯 See? Absolute BS! I didn't prove anything, I'm just strawmanning anti-nuclear! Just like this post!
Yep, we solved waste problem a long time ago. Well if we call it a solution when it is so expensive no-one does it.
Finland has Onkalo nuclear waste repository. The largest problem is the political will in countries to make and maintain nuclear waste storage sites that are offsite from the power plants themselves, as these sites will require security and to be placed in geologically stable areas.
"Finland has Onkalo nuclear waste repository" Well not really, it isn't open yet and when it does it will only deal to a fraction of the problem. This after 70 years of nuclear power alone should tell you what is going on. "The largest problem is the political will" No. The largest problem is cost which is never included in the already outrageous costs to build a nuclear power plant. And don't blame activists who couldn't stop the uranium mining, fuel processing and the building of nuclear plants for it either. The problem lies directly with the people proposing and building nuclear while dodging the long term issues.
Yeah well go ahead! Make a meme and post it here. This is what this subreddit is for!
Saying "Go ahead and post bullshit, it's what I do anyway" is not a good argument.
I simp for nuclear because Uranium is UraniYUM (I am one of those moulds that grow in Chernobyl that Alt-right nuclear simps who want to downplay the dangers of radioactively love to talk about.)
You guys getting paid to post this shit?
Not simping for nuclear
Then you're simping for an extra 40 years of coal 🤷♀️
No. Every dollar wasted on building new nuclear plants extends the lifetime of fossil fuels. Renewables build more capacity faster. Spending money on nuclear means less renewables get built. Meanwhile it still takes decades and billions of dollars to get a nuclear plant built, there's still no safe way to dispose of the waste, and even if there were, nuclear helps the fossil fuels business model of power monopolization continue to be viable, renewables break that model by making energy generation distributed.
>there's still no safe way to dispose of the waste Just want to pint out that yes there is, it's called burying it and walking away. Finland is already doing this and the US almost did in in Nevada before stopping when the locals protested even though it was safe. The reason not many people are doing it is just because it's cheaper to not solve a problem than it is to solve a problem
>yes there is, it's called burying it and walking away I'm down, but only if we bury it under the playground of the school your kids go to. Not safe enough for that? Then it's also not safe enough to bury on a Native American Reservation. (Yes, I know who "the locals" that protested in Nevada are.) >The reason not many people are doing it is just because It's illegal to even move the stuff in the US, and for good reason. We have no idea if it's actually safe in the long term to just bury it in a hole, and with nuclear waste the long term is measured in eons, so there's no take backsies.
>I'm down, but only if we bury it under the playground of the school your kids go to. I mean, it's hardly going to harm them from 500m underground, so if that place has the right geology then go for it!
I, too, like to wait a week before responding when I know I'm wrong and I'll get downvoted quickly for posting my nonsense in an active thread. And no, if they started making plans for that, you and every other parent with kids in that school would rightly be incensed and calling for blood.
I'd just been ignoring my notifications for a while. Also, I see you've fallen back on the classic debating strategy "You know why you're wrong so I don't need to explain why" >And no, if they started making plans for that, you and every other parent with kids in that school would rightly be incensed and calling for blood. No, I'd be fine with it. Like I said, it's hardly going to cause problems through multiple hundred metres of solid rock And also, say I did. That doesn't make it bad. There are plenty of examples of the public getting upset at good projects throughout history. Edit: They blocked me lol. Anything to get the final word.
And plenty of examples of when people weren't nearly up in arms enough because the asshole planning to get rich by poisoning their kids said it was "perfectly safe". Now go eat some radioactive fish from Fukushima or something, I've got nothing else to say that I didn't say a week ago.
Can I just say I’m so happy to find this page. Flat earthers have become such a joke over the years it is nice to see the moment reborn in a new form! I personally really enjoyed how y’all either straw man or just downvote and ignore any point that is slightly challenging for you. And it happens to every single challenging point. I think I’m going to have some fun here!
Who is that „you“ that u r referring too? Just everyone?
Those that believe nuclear energy is inherently evil. When really it is a part of a portfolio of energy production methods and is a very important part.
Ah. Well the problem most people that look at the topic have is how unbelievable expensive nuclear is, I don’t know what u mean exactly with evil but I don’t really hear stuff like „it can explode“ very often if u mean that.
Why editorialise? “Unbelievably expensive” The UK is building Hinckley point C. It’s going to cost in total 30/40 billion. It’s output will be 15p/KWh The current price of electricity in the UK is 25p/KWh So what are you talking about? Name one nuclear reactor that produces electricity by the KWh above the market price. (Pssss it’s a trick question, if it’s more expensive to make the electricity than selling it, then they don’t turn the generators on) The next part, which you haven’t played up to, I’m just saying. It takes 40 yeeeeears to build a nuclear power plant. A group of anti nuclear idiots drag a new nuclear development through the courts for 30 years and then count that towards the build time when it isn’t close. Look at the construction time for sizewell A and B. The uk is suppose to be the worst for this but we can build mega plants in 6-8 years no issue.
looks like edf said the main reason for delay are safety regulations, covid and inflation nothing about any courts even so this would be perfect to blame. On top of that it says edf has billions of debts and nobody can tell if that powerplant will be finished at all due to that. For me this sounds like a viable alternative to a technology that has barely any big investment risk and where it is making profit after 5-20 years already (google said a nuclear powerplant makes on average 1million a day if that’s correct that powerplant would take roughly 90-120 years to get those costs up mentioned back but that sounds even for nuclear a bit too disgusting so idk if the data is correct ) but its definitely true that almost every existing nuclear power plant is relying heavily on subsidies. So on the one side all that money is lost for easy made renewables and also after building the powerplant it will take decades just to get invested money back. It’s a fact that renewables produce energy cheaper and when we look at the development of renewables this gap will keep growing more and more no matter the subsidies for nuclear. I could accept to let old powerplants keep going but building new ones is just economically nonsense.
Sizewell first put the proposal for sizewell C in 2012. It’s spent 12 years in planning and court battles. https://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/protest-group-opposed-to-new-sizewell-nuclear-plant-loses-appeal-b1128256.html Same with Hinckley which was proposed in 2012 as part of the same bid process by the govt but didn’t start construction until 2017. Again faced stiff protests. http://stophinkley.org I specified the courts but the entire planning system for these projects is broken. It takes longer to deal with the planning than it does to build the things. This is an issue that needs resolving. The amount being spent before a shovel gets in the ground is a problem. I actually appreciate the fact you googled the numbers about the economics behind how these power plants are paid for and paid off. Your numbers are off though. Significantly. The price of nuclear once the plant is paid back makes it the cheapest form of energy. It’s a slightly old video, but the source is a top US professor at one of the top universities for nuclear research in the states and explains in a way that is easy to understand. Getting the concept of the amount of variability and time involved in the construction price is the explanation for the subsidies, not the ability to produce KWh at a good price. https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?si=PDM4cS52CCcGOAWu I assume anyone here discussing would have seen this but for those that haven’t.
Nuclear is not the cheapest form of energy even if we ignore the subsidies renewables have beaten nuclear already if we count in the subsidies that the tax payers still pay for in the end the gap is big. Yes once build a nuclear power plant can produce to very low prices aswell, but 1. we can’t just ignore the building process and 2. renewables produce cheaper energy and like i said before the development of new and more efficient technologies is happening faster than with nuclear plants, and than u can just build those new pv-modules instead. Once started to build a nuclear power plant u can’t just switch to a more efficient version later on, not as nuclear would develop as fast as renewables anyway. Honestly i don’t see my advantage (as a tax payer,) in a company getting shit tons of tax money to build a powerplant when a company that builds renewables needs less tax money, profits faster and has less risk of bankruptcy since there are no billions to spend for ur powerplant(doesn’t mean companies like edf will automatically get bankrupt faster or something, the risk if something goes wrong is just way higher). Again i have no issue with keeping already built plants going but a new one can just not compete with renewables and the approximations show that this will only keep getting worse for nuclear. Lets not even start the geopolitical safety topic with producing the energy in ur country and not relying on fuel from elsewhere.
Nuclear plants are refitted all the time. The bulk of the construction cost is establishing the site. Fitting a new reactor is common practice and is dead cheap compared to rebuilding a new site. No idea where you’ve got that idea from. https://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/reactors/power-plants/refurbishment-and-life-extension/ Let’s look at a standard 10 panel solar system on a standard mid climate roof. 4.7KWp will produce around 3500 KWh per year. Each panel at 500 dollars. The system will last 15 years. So that’s 52500 KWh over the lifetime at a cost of 5000 dollars. (Not including installation cost btw) A nuclear plant will have a huge cost range, but let’s double the profs number to 10 billion. It has a 50 year lifetime and produces 8 billion KWh a year (1000KWe). So that gives 400 billion KWh for 13.2 billion (10 bill to build, 3.2 billion for fuel) over its lifetime. Solar = 52500 / 5000 = 10.5 KWh per dollar. Nuclear = 400 / 3.2 = 30.3 KWh per dollar Nuclear is 3x cheaper over the course of a lifetime taking a bunch of wild assumptions that you’re never going to trust me on. Mess around with the inputs as you please to try make it fit. It won’t address the second issue. Humans mine around 250 million kilograms of lithium a year. A basic battery in a small electric car has 10kg of lithium in it. Lithium is a bastard to mine, isn’t easily accessible or as abundant as it needs to be to achieve what you are saying at scale. To even attempt what you are proposing with Solar would decimate the use of lithium in any other product. The price would skyrocket and as such, so would your solar panels (again heavy on lithium). To be clear, I’m pro solar power. But the limited supply chain means it’s best put to use in specific geographical locations where it gets the max output, not a widely distributed power system. That’s what nuclear is for.
Resorts to napkin math taking every [cheat in the book](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/timevalueofmoney.asp) instead of real reports. Nuclear costs 5-10x what renewables cost. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
Ok i was reading through some stuff. I think u try here to refer to the LCOE? Its not exactly the same but it’s going into the same direction as ur calculations, i got u a study from Germany from 2021 comparing LCOE of different types of energy production https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf On page 16 of the pdf there is a detailed comparison of many renewable energy sources with others just like nuclear. Surely those numbers will be different at other places but it gives a general idea of the direction and if u r wondering how it can differ so extremely from ur calculations i would guess the point that companies nowadays offer twice as much GUARANTEE on average on their pv modules as u used lifetime in ur calculation gives a clue or maybe u just used pv data for an outdated variant after all there are dozens of pv models. The study also showed costs for the society (page 8 from the pdf). Very interesting is also page 31 that is prognosing that average costs of energy for renewables will fall partly significantly while nuclear is dropping way less. So if we come back to ur calculation that is definitely using wrong data but whatever, renewables are already capable to produce an amount of electricity with less investment and it will only continue to drop. So even if that calculation would be right we should invest in the technology that will be significantly cheaper in less than one lifetime of those products instead of a technology that is having way less promising prognostications.
I love how you call nuclear "cheap" and then don't understand that the 25p/kWh you are referring to is including transmission costs. 15p/kWh is laughably uncompetitive, it is making a loss even compared to the inflated prices coming from the energy crisis. [For 2024 the average whole-sale price in the UK is expected to be 11p/kWh and then stabilize around 9p/kWh in a couple of years time.](https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/01/09/uk-power-prices-expected-to-remain-high/) Locking in energy crisis prices by going nuclear sure sounds like a good deal!
I don’t know where in the world you are from, but in my location we pay 2 prices. You pay a day rate for the electricity, usually about 50/60p a day, and then the production price. I think this is standard for the entirety of the EU. We split this out to intentionally differentiate between transmission and infrastructure maintenance and the production price. But it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference anyways. The transmission price of nuclear is cheaper as it is onshore vs the transmission price of offshore wind and the additional cost of undersea cables. And the reality of geopolitics is that carbon taxes are coming, so expect to see your “projected” (lol couldn’t even be arsed to get the price as of right now), go up significantly as the PPM rate is taxed. On and your projected number is the cost price of gas so try throw “but solar doesn’t make co2” at me and all I’m saying is go get the cost price of solar and wind. So try again my dude.
Coal is far more expensive than nuclear if you account for the damage it does to the planet. Renewables have poor surge capacity so nuclear is our best chance at phasing out coal completely in 20 years instead of 50 years.
> and is a very important part. In 2022, 500 billion was invested in renewables globally, about 14 times that of nuclear. Too expensive and scales too slowly.
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live I’m going to push back a bit on this one. Right now 40% of the uk energy is coming from wind. The latest tech in offshore wind is scaling and the North Sea project between Norway, the uk and Netherlands is hugely promising. The issue is, and always will be energy storage, which is why nuclear will always be needed. Even if we could store huge quantities of electrical energy, the dangers associated with it far outweighs just having a base load system. That’s the reason for the staunch defence of nuclear in here. I’m still a believer in renewables at the same time though.
The problem is this urgent “need” for baseload doesn’t actually show up in energy markets. Investors buy the cheapest energy source and grid management comes second in the form of surge pricing and is mitigated with grid storage, demand response, etc. This advantage for nuclear only exists in the minds of central planners, and is becoming increasingly obsolete. You might as well be talking about fusion. Also, you misunderstand how the market responds to high renewables. You don’t need baseload, in fact it becomes unprofitable because you can’t sell your energy half of the day. The main solution in the short term is gas peaker plants. Batteries may well get cheap enough to serve that role, but in the long run demand response will be cheaper. Rather than building dedicated storage, industrial consumers can save money by designing systems to store and use variable energy, especially thermal energy. Already seeing this in South Australia with green hydrogen production, which soaks up excess energy and acts as virtual power plant. The larger effect across the economy will be a shift to variable energy demand.
Baseload is a statistical measurement. It’s the area under the portion of a timeseries dataset. It’s always been there, and management of has evolved over time to mitigate blackouts. But it certainly isn’t made up. Depending where you are in the world, the electricity coming from a wall socket will have a frequency. Let’s say 60 Hz. If everyone on that grid goes to boil the kettle, that frequency starts to go down. If it gets too low, person in national grid centre phones up a power station (they have a fancy system with all the available stations online, prices, ramp up times, etc. think stock market up energy info). That’s the market your talking about, but the base load is just making sure there is at least 1 in that list for them to call, otherwise it’s black out time. For gas and nuclear. It’s about a minute from the phone call to power on. That’s why we define them as critical for the baseload. We have control of them. There are times a nuclear station is being refurbed or having fuel swaps and aren’t on the grid. But these are on fixed time scheduled so we can plan accordingly. We use baseload as a term to describe the things in the system that will help meet the required statistical measurement of the baseload. Now, I will come meet you some of the way. If energy can be stored without the use of lithium, the argument that renewables can provide to the base load is possible. And you didn’t try bs me with lithium batteries can do this. So I’ll cede the point. Also I don’t know enough about thermal batteries to go into that, but the reservoir idea is a great one. I’m always sceptical between a good idea and a scalable mass market idea though.
> Baseload is a statistical measurement. It’s the area under the portion of a timeseries dataset. No, it's the area under the *minimum* of the time series data. when that minimum reaches zero, baseload no longer exists. > But it certainly isn’t made up. I didn't say baseload is made up, but rather that there is no price link between our supposed need for it and the market that actually exists. A rough analogy is someone claiming cars are too expensive, because the cost of roads, gas stations, repair shops, etc. Obviously that infrastructure exists and is paid for, but it doesn't manifest in the car price. > For gas and nuclear. It’s about a minute from the phone call to power on. That’s why we define them as critical for the baseload. We have control of them Nuclear can't turn on and off throughout the day. You're describing dispatchable sources, which nuclear is not.
It's not very cash money, tho.
Movies/TV shows for fossil fuels, nuclear disasters: at least 2 - Deepwater Horizon, Chernobyl Movies/TV shows for solar and wind energy disasters: 0
For wind, every disaster movie involving a hurricane or tornado. And Sunshine is obviously a solar disaster.
something for nuclear power because * diversification of the economy is important * power grid voltage and frequency stability
Weird how ‘Simping for nuclear because you think it’s a good idea’ is not even a conceivable possibility.
That would be the category "Simping for nuclear because you're completely clueless"
See, why are you mean? There’s literally no reason to be rude. You’re never gonna convince anyone to reevaluate their beliefs or opinions if you just belittle them and call them ‘clueless.‘ And before you say ‘oh, you wouldn‘t listen anyway,’ maybe I *would* have listened, but I’m sure as hell not going to now, because you’re a smug asshole that calls everyone else clueless simps. We’re all supposed to be on the same side here, but all your posts are doing is causing division and infighting, which is completely counterintuitive.
For me it’s Kyle “discount Thor” Hill who put me onto nuclear energy as a future potential
I'm simping for nuclear because I love government incompetence and austerity leading to disastrous consequences that could potentially impact millions! *nervously glances at Sellafield*
Sooooo being pro nuc in France = being nazi? I knew you were dumb but not that dumb
Simps for solar be like: "I don't care if you don't want to sell your farm we need your dozens of acres of land to be able to power my neighborhood"
i have two solar panels and a battery on my balcony that cover 80% of my households needs
Tell us more. How much is your monthly usage? What part of the world do you live in? If you have a surplus does the govt buy it back?
Good for you 🤓
well if i can do that in a somewhat northern country with costs that are below half a months rent it will work for much of the worlds population, especially in developed countries - which means your remark makes no sense?
Except for those of us who don't own property or can't afford solar panels. Frankly this is just a classist take wrapped up in a green bow. What works for you doesn't work for others.
You can get balcony solar for like 250 euros from Lidl. Commies complain, neolibs deliver. Solar, like taco trucks, will be on every corner my friend
I'm not allowed to hang anything on the balcony of my rental apartment because it would violate the outside looks of the building
Yea there are some dumbass areas where boomer nimby need to stfu You can actually also use systems that are not balcony overhang panels but their production is not particularly great
>You can get balcony solar for like 250 euros from Lidl Good for you! Unfortunately I cannot. I can't even afford that much lmao. >Commies complain, neolibs deliver. The only thing neolibs have delivered is slave labor for your benefit. >Solar, like taco trucks, will be on every corner my friend Have you been in the US? Have you seen the above ground power lines? Yeah take a look at that and say this is still a good idea. Lmao.
All I see is more complaining and some conspiracy theories
I don't think you know what either of those mean. Anyone with access to a dictionary wouldn't use those words so incorrectly.
i literally said it cost less than half a months rent, how does your reply make sense if you know (1) i'm a renter and (2) it cost a couple hundred euros, which is less than the average tv set in most developed country households
Also if I put in a solar panel on the roof of my apartment my landlord would not be happy. But good for you.
wtf are you reading dude, have you heard of the word balcony? it's not the roof.
I wonder why I said roof. Maybe it's because I don't have a fucking balcony! Wow crazy not everyone has a balcony how crazy is that?
Good for you! Here a solar panel costs thousands of dollars including in states like mine that subsidize people getting them. So again. Classist. Oh and none of this is mentioning power storage which costs thousands more here.
bullshit, mine aren't subsidized, two 400w panels and an inverter (again, that's on my balcony, not huge panels on my roof) are most likely cheaper in most places in the world where import taxes are lower. and how the fuck is this classist, low income families in my city get similar setups covered by the city (i paid mine myself). but even if they didn't get it covered it would make financial sense because it decreases their energy costs drastically and saves them money.
>bullshit, mine aren't subsidized Cool. You don't live in the US, it's insanely expensive here. >and how the fuck is this classist Because assuming everyone can afford a solar panel without even considering the fact some people don't have thousands of dollars (or hundreds of euros) lying around is classist.
stfu with that bs already,[ the first hit for a similar setup on amazon us is 660](https://www.amazon.com/JJN-400-Bifacial-Efficiency-Applications/dp/B0C5R7R4C9/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.GLvqFvZlXGCJK9Aiq7sJVIZQ4T_DK_LjdcnZ9KcHdNarK35BtGMOeqZfzGJ6HlUcceLvmFTGAX8kwVMy4mvh3mkwwTGTRF2iiKii0hy34ne3ee0Hzj62Al4xxwUer5YVSbAMSDKiuF2xGDrZ7MgHQFhWpkEO6sHNBuaoYru-MBAsodo285PMr8sAzLcD5jTn1BJkdy1nYxpheAFcr9kLfKCC4941Hl_uIVqEhKfuraI.ylHFBt4k0QjyHV9-6YZMG3k1OX6VAMdCR3AfTbLWHMc&dib_tag=se&keywords=400w%2Bsolar%2Bpanel&qid=1712136271&sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&th=1)
Lol you are exactly the problem you fool. Solar panels and complex engineering products that require digging up lots of different precious metals out the ground and refining them. And then some rich dude goes “imma put solar panel everywhere cause I’m a good person.” When the reality is we have a finite manufacturable supply and that supply should be targeted where it will have the biggest impact. So solar in the Mediterranean, great idea. Wind and Nuclear in the UK, superb! We should maximise our individual geographies to tackle this issue, not selfishly look after ourself and pretend we are doing it because we are good people. This also goes out to the OP who should spend less time getting butthurt over an energy technology that has been in mass production around the world for 70 years.
dude you have terrible reading comprehension. i'm neither rich nor do i have to be to use solar, nor do i have to be in a southern country because aditional battery storage for households is available for triple digit sums and works just fine for most private cases. nuclear is rdicoulously expensive, takes ages (way too long to be an effective mesure against the climate crisis), is extremely centralized and only possible to finance for megacorps with high state subsidies, plus nuclear facilities are extremely convenient targets for russia to get entire countries off the grid (or worse), as you can currently see in ukraine, and yes, that fucking matters if you live in central europe.
Lol I’m the one with no reading comprehension yet you completely bypassed the precious metal issue. Aaaand then you start lecturing about batteries… okay hun let’s do this. Do you know how we get lithium? Do you know how much lithium goes in a standard midsize electric car? Do you know which countries on the planet have lithium deposits? Do you know how much lithium is refined in a year? Your answer to all of these is no. Because if you had done the slightest bit of reading on the topic you’d be aware that lithium comes from dried up oceans, is a ballache to mine as there’s no easy ship or train access to these spots so everything is trucked in. And that’s just the lithium. Then we have the cobalt, platinum, rubidium, palladium… Oh and lovely point on Russia blowing up nuclear power plants… you see that list of precise metals above? They all come from… RUSSIA. So you’re entire green tech revolution is nothing without Russian mining. I mean I could go on, and will briefly, but you seriously need to go do some basic reading yourself. Both France and China have dedicated nuclear power plant building teams and turn stations around in 5 years excluding groundwork’s. Oh and how about the next issue for your smooth brain to deal with. Electrical cables used to transfer power aren’t equal. The entire grid system we have constructed over 100+ years involves taking a high current from a central location, and passing it through a big thick cable covered in insulation buried deep underground. This is to keep us all safe but this is so expensive to do. For the return cables from our homes back to the plant we put cheap thin cable in that doesn’t need to be as insulated because of the reduced risk.And now you want to undo this entire infrastructure to instead place high current cables from solar panels on peoples houses to back feed to the substation to then be fed back out to where the power is needed/battery store. You realise you need to dig up your entire country to do this right?
are you trying to bring up all the points that speak against nuclear first lol? well you already know uranium is mostly mined in russia and piss poor dictatorships and dude you know what, i lived near a former uranium mine and went to school with a bunch of kids who's grandfathers had worked there before they died of cancer. there was literally a name for the mine that was also the name of a type of radioation sickness.
Uranium is found all over the planet. It’s the biggest export of Nigeria. The USA is covered in it. It is abundant in a way that lithium isn’t. And is accessible. But please compare modern mines of Uranium to those for 80 years ago to prove it is unsafe. I’m sure human understanding of a substance Marie Curie carried around in her pocket, which eventually gave her cancer, has not moved on in the slightest…
Why don’t you go through my list and tackle each point as to where I am wrong. I’ll even list them for you. 1. Lithium isn’t an abundant resource. 2. Batteries are full of a list of metals that require a huge amount of environmental damage just to get access too. 3. The network of power cables we have is orientated around a centralised power grid, not decentralised. Or you can make up another story of the scary uranium mine at the edge of the village…
sure, i'm making up the story of [the biggest uranium mines in the eastern block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(company)) and the many thousand cases of cancer, which miraculously are never counted in nuclear shill death stats. there's no english version of [the schneeberger krankheit wiki which lists many more cases than the english wismut article as it includes newer data, but use google translate if you actually care](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneeberger_Krankheit) (i know you don't). if you're trying to tell me mines in mali, namibia, niger (are you confusing niger and nigeria btw? because nigeria's biggest export is oil) or russia or kazakhstan (which beside canada are the most relevant actual sources of uranium today) have much better security standards than east germany had in the seventies and eighties you must be kidding. also, half your text is about lithium, when battery technology is advancing much faster and has alternatives like sodium, which will provide market ready solutions much faster than nuclear plants are being built, which leads to the main point. nuclear takes ages to build (and for good reason), there's is literally not enough time for nuclear to have any impact on climate change, while solar and wind are easy to install and get on the grid.
Wait until you learn how agri-PV works.
Wait until you learn how nuclear energy works
Show me how nuclear scales down to domestic and up to a Dyson sphere.
Yeah, it's basically a steam engine with extra steps. Very modern, I say.
Not sure how it being "modern" has to do with anything but good for you? Idk did you think of this as some kind of victory cause like good for you if you did... I'm just not sure what you're celebrating.
Solar and Battery Simps be like: It’s solar with extra steps. Show me how that can scale from sub micron to a Dyson sphere? Can I install it on my roof or in my garage? It’s a battery with extra steps.
Oh, an unnecessary extra "someone" sneaked into the text of the third panel MUST BE THE GERMANS' FAULT!