12
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
12 points (92.9% liked)
Technology
72933 readers
2276 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Eh I’m more concerned about whoever is still pushing nuclear these days.
It’s a worse solution that takes longer and costs more to achieve what renewables and storage already can. It’s mainly wielded to attack renewables, and nothing ever gets done with it beyond that.
Anything that isn't a fossil fuel is better then a fossil fuel.
I disagree, I think nuclear is a half decent stop gap. Especially when noting renewables aren't a universal perfect solution for every location. (IE not everywhere has good sun or wind). Doesn't mean we should 100% move to nuclear, but the faster we can get rid of coal the better.
Nuclear has its place in the world, and it's pretty much a given that in order to maintain high availability and energy stability we will not be able to rely solely on one single source. It can't be all renewables, but it can't be all nuclear, either. We are going to need a mix of both.
Nuclear can serve e.g. big time industrial, manufacturing, or other mission critical needs with large amounts of power that is reasonably clean and, importantly, very stable.
We just need to keep it from falling totally into the hands of morons who want to waste it all on "AI" datacenters, or whatever the fuck else.
It can and will be multiple renewable sources of generation and storage, with nuclear only having a limited role (especially if SMRs don't become a thing).
Is it more expensive than storage? My understanding was that nuclear was cheaper long-term, but I honestly don't know. I think we need both, but I could be convinced that nuclear is obsolete with some real-life numbers.
It's not, to provide 2 weeks of storage (a reasonable amount to cover a period of no wind in winter) for the UK would cost about 2,000 Billion USD at current Li-ion prices.
Intermittent renewables are great as a component of energy generation but storage costs become prohibitive as you get to large fractions of intermittent power generation.