Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VerdantCabbage t1_j5dyw7a wrote

Nuclear is renewable. It's safe, and it produces vastly more electricity (cost-effective) than wind and solar. So maybe DYOR and support the clear winner.


[deleted] t1_j5ehzw1 wrote

Nuclear is literally NOT renewable. It uses uranium as fuel which is a non-renewable resource. There is plenty available, especially if we start extra ring from seawater, but that doesn't change the fact that it's non-renewable.

And nuclear absolutely isn't more cost effective than solar/wind, especially if you are running into the small modular reactor thing. This is a complete Reddit meme.

By their own cost estimates the NuScale plant's main first project in Utah is going to cost $89/MWh produced over it's lifetime (or $119/MWh if you include the government subsidy).

By contrast US onshore wind is averaging about $33/MWh pre-subsidy as of 2021 according to the US DoE, and utility scale solar is coming in between $20 and $40/MWh according to the NREL.

This is all scaled by the amount of power produced, per MWh of electricity actually generated, not per MW of capacity.

If you look at cost per capacity, NuScale is tracking at $20/W (for 95% capacity factor), whereas solar is hovering around $0.9/W (20% capacity factor). So adjusting again, that's $4.3/W for "95% equivalent" amount of power from solar, which is nearly 5x lower than NuScale SMR.

If you want to argue the idea that nuclear has a place because it may reduce storage requirements, I am willing to entertain that discussion. I will disagree with you, but at least it is a valid line of discussion.

However if you are just going to continue make easily falsifiable claims that nuclear is cheap and renewable, then it isn't worth discussing anything with you, as you are just willfully ignorant.


SellTheBridge t1_j5ep0ka wrote

By this standard, please explain how any energy source is renewable. Even if steel/aluminum (wind) and silicon (solar) are abundant, they certainly are finite and they each depend on energy storage, which means lithium right now. I fail to see how nuclear is meaningfully different from a resource consumption standpoint.


[deleted] t1_j5f1z02 wrote

Simple. Uranium is fundamentally consumed (changed into another isotope) when you use it in a nuclear power plant. Aluminum / lithium / silicon is not fundamentally consumed in a solar/wind/battery plant. You absolutely can recycle the materials and reuse them. Losses in this process are an engineeriing issue; losses in the nuclear process are physics and fundamental.


VerdantCabbage t1_j5fqa4z wrote

But the cost to transport the blades and other pieces in a wind turbine kit (flat-bed truck fueled by Diesel). And I doubt very much you can recycle them also. If they break. They go in the landfill and stay there for a hundred years or so.


[deleted] t1_j5fskjs wrote

You can transport those with electric vehicle in principal, burning fuel is not fundamentally required, which is the difference.

Plus, there are a lot of projects underway to recycle wind turbine blades, because as you pointed out that is a real long term concern. Not insurmountable, though.


VerdantCabbage t1_j5grthm wrote

True. Anything given enough time, effort and money can be made more efficient. That's why all this money thrown at wind and solar has improved the technology. Money they refuse to throw at nuclear. From what I hear.