557
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 10 points 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 -2 points 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 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 -2 points 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 4 points 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 0 points 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.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

1,200MW isn't enough? Where do you work?

Why do you think batteries can't meet instant demand? That's kind of their whole thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/worlds-biggest-battery-with-1200mw-capacity-set-to-be-built-in-nsw-hunter-valley-australia

[-] gazter@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago

We draw a very consistent 950MW, 24hrs a day.

The battery you linked, if it goes ahead, will max out delivery at 400MW, which it can sustain for 3 hours before its 1200MWh storage is exhausted.

Batteries can deliver power instantly, but not beyond their max output.

There's heaps of interest and proposals, and I hope they go ahead. But there's a lot of work to do.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

We draw a very consistent 950MW, 24hrs a day.

Right, but you realize that's far from typical for a workplace?

[-] gazter@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, but, funnily enough, we produce a lot of stuff for the renewable energy industry.

[-] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

For processes like that though, nuclear would make the electricity too expensive to be economic, renewables wouldn't.

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 3 points 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 1 points 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.

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 1 points 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.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is everybody's problem dude.

[-] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Correct. Which is why cheap and agile renewables will remain a good option for less wealthy countries.

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
557 points (91.1% liked)

World News

39167 readers
1363 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS