• Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    There are downsides to nuclear these days. Incredibly high cost with a massive delay before they’re functioning. Solar + wind + pumped hydro + district heating is where it’s at in 2024.

    • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      This.

      Also, tie together more countries’ power grids to even out production and demand of renewables, and reduce the need for other backup sources.

      For a fraction of the cost of nuclear, increase the storage capacity as well. We’ve had days where the price per MWh was negative in many hours, because of excess production.

      The barriers to carbon free energy aren’t technical, they’re purely political.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, back in 2010 and before nuclear was the way to go but with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

        Still shame on Germany for decommissioning nuclear reactors and deciding to build Nordstream 2 and burn coal as a replacement.

        • cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          with the incredible advancements in solar and wind it’s no longer the best option.

          I haven’t heard of any advancement that makes solar generate energy when the sun doesn’t shine and wind generate energy when the wind isn’t blowing.

          • kaffiene@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The wind is always blowing somewhere and overproduction is cheaper than batteries

                • fellowmortal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  No, there is pumped storage. Honestly, despite the plethora of start-ups claiming to have a solution (sodium batteries, molten-salt, etc) The only really proven way to store electricity for later is pumped storage, but that relies on geography (hills) which not everyone has. Batteries are great for phones, and cars but they simply don’t scale to countries.

              • uis@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Lol, just dump energy into resistors. Or desync two generators.

                • kaffiene@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Or convert excess to hydrogen and provide resilience, or have arrangements for industry to consume the excess. Or ramp down your generation at those times. Or shift excess to neighbouring grids.

            • fellowmortal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              This is wrong. Right now, europe is experiencing high pressure and doesn’t have any wind. Check this out its map that shows you how much wind is being produced right now! Can you provide a source that says " the wind is always blowing somewhere" or is it just a platitude?

          • oo1@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            it has got cheaper, but it has to get cheap enough that you can buy enough batteries with the difference. I’m not sure it has become that cheap. Maybe these sodium battery things will get developed.

        • partizan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          You probably also didnt heard about Thorium based molten salt reactors, they are much safer than conventional nuclear, also cheaper, and you can have a 50MW installation in space not much larger than a shipping container. A 50MW solar installation is close to 1km2 and thats without any storage included. It even can be modified to run on spent fuel of conventional nuclear power plants.

      • fellowmortal@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Please understand that negative prices are the market for electricity breaking down! That is not a good thing. It should mean that if you have solar panels on your roof you have to pay to participate in the national grid because you are dumping energy into the grid when it can’t use it, but special rules have been made for renewable plants. Literally, imagine a contract-to-supply for wind or solar…

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        You don’t need to tie grids to transfer energy between them.

    • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Still not a reason to not build them, the entire point is for nuclear to handle the load when solar/wind can’t provide due to weather. Other renewables will still be producing the bulk of the power we need, but at night nuclear will be handling any demand spikes, each of them would greatly reduce the number of batteries required to satisfy the demand. They can stay until our solar output is so high we can just start electrolyzing water into hydrogen as energy storage.

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Though pumped hydro is sometimes opposed by environmental groups because it does absolutely decimate local environments.

          I have high hopes for sodium batteries. The ones that have been released on the market are simply perfect (if scaled up) for local grid storage in countries with a lot of space and will hopefully get better energy density in line with Lithium Iron Phosphate with time.

          Salt batteries have been the cold fusion of battery tech for like 10 years, but now it is finally coming to fruition. I hope to install a solar installation with salt batteries in 5 years or so, myself.

      • Caveman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        If you’re suggesting using Nuclear as a peaker plant or to turn it off and on whenever wind/solar is not up for it then I’m sorry to say that it’s not viable. Nuclear generators don’t handle well being turned off and on.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      district heating is where it’s at in 2024.

      You don’t have those in 2024? Commies built central heating in every city.

    • partizan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You can make Thorium reactors much smaller and cheaper, basically a 50MW unit is not much larger than a shipping container, while being much more safe than standard nuclear plants. The largest issue is over-regulation of the nuclear power in general.

      A 50MW of solar installation is HUGE, and thats 50MW at the sunniest part of the planet: https://newsaf.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-15/Kenya-launches-Chinese-built-50MW-solar-power-plant-MqC575l6Te/index.html, We are basically talking about close to a square kilometer installation…

      there is simply no way to call a 50MW solar plant cleaner than nuclear and its probably not even that much cheaper in the end. Compare that to a shipping container sized reactor… Only thing in the way, is the nuclear scare and government regulations.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        The cost is less from the design and more from the safety regulations. Best case scenario the state just starts making nuclear power plants, it’s just not a good idea to mix profit incentive with nuclear.