Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pulsed19 t1_iu6ra1m wrote

As of now, it seems nuclear power has tons of advantages so it seems a good idea.

31

lostparis t1_iu89bm5 wrote

I'm convinced the renewed love for nuclear is just pushed by the oil lobby to try to prevent renewables - nuclear doesn't make sense if you look at the hard details.

−21

pulsed19 t1_iu8vuyq wrote

Do explain

9

corytheidiot t1_iu92tdv wrote

I am curious myself. My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation. Then you throw in renewable with storage to replace peaker plants. This being for the mid term.

Long term would be increasing renewables and expanding storage systems, hopefully, to the point that you could idle the nuclear plants with the end goal of total phase out. (If deemed feasible at the time.)

These are just my thoughts using tech available today, possibly with some expected iterative improvements. So, nothing as revolutionary as nuclear fusion.

1

lostparis t1_iu93vaq wrote

> My thought is that you use nuclear to replace coal for base load generation.

It is better to replace coal now than in 15+ years time. Nuclear is super slow to get on line with huge upfront and afterlife costs.

−3

corytheidiot t1_iu9ttt6 wrote

I don't mean sit idle in the short term. Keep telling renewables as much as possible.

That is why I was conveying my thoughts by stating mid term and long term.

For renewables to replace base load (coal plants and nuclear plants) we have to build the infrasture for energy storage. We absolutely should be doing that now. Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.

1

lostparis t1_iu9vivg wrote

> Pumped hydro, batteries, and hydrogen are the ones I immediately know.

There are some nice heat storage ideas as well as some gas pressurisation/liquification ones that have real potential. Plus odd ball things like flywheels. We can probably come up with better ones. Pumped hydro needs geology we are lacking for anything big. Batteries tend to be expensive due to materials but we may have some options here.

Energy storage is what we really need. Once we get that then most arguments against renewables are dead.

We also need to invest in energy movement (the grid) because this is not up to task. We have to close down energy generation regularly due to this. Also it should be simple for small providers (including individuals) to be able to feed power into the grid.

1

lostparis t1_iu93my6 wrote

Nuclear is not a short term solution. The plants take decades to build plus there isn't that much fuel. The price of power is expensive and decommissioning is a huge cost offset into the future.

Renewables are quick to build and provide cheap power. Big oil likes the idea that renewables are unreliable and nuclear is part of this myth. What we need is investment in storage and distribution because that is our problem. We can have cheap energy with low profits companies do not like low profits for a reason.

−8

pulsed19 t1_iu94dqy wrote

Sorry but it doesn’t seem you know what you’re talking about at all.

8

lostparis t1_iu94u0o wrote

So how long do you think nuclear takes to build?

Do you think they provide cost effective energy?

Why can renewables not fill this need?

If storage is your answer then do you believe this cannot be fixed quicker than building nuclear?

−2

pulsed19 t1_iu9g2v6 wrote

First of all, nuclear energy is renewable. That’s how little you know. There are zero carbon emissions. Did you know that?

The initial investment is higher than say setting up a gas pipeline, but with nuclear you don’t need massive amounts of land to get reasonable amount of energy like with solar or wind. Hydroelectric power is great but we need a river. Geothermic is also great, but they can’t be set up if the resource isn’t there. So yes, nuclear is viable and I hope we build more, way more. Now with micro reactors almost a reality, this is the best approach we have to replace gas and oil. More than 50% of the zero-carbon energy produced in the US is due to nuclear in spite of us not having built a new power plant in decades.

5

lostparis t1_iu9tqjo wrote

> First of all, nuclear energy is renewable.

How do you work this out? Do you know what renewable means? We extract energy from the fuel it doesn't come back it is used.

1

pulsed19 t1_iu9ures wrote

Two links for you to educate yourself.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

4

WikiSummarizerBot t1_iu9ut2n wrote

Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy

>Whether nuclear power should be considered a form of renewable energy is an ongoing subject of debate. Statutory definitions of renewable energy usually exclude many present nuclear energy technologies, with the notable exception of the state of Utah. Dictionary-sourced definitions of renewable energy technologies often omit or explicitly exclude mention of nuclear energy sources, with an exception made for the natural nuclear decay heat generated within the Earth.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

1

lostparis t1_iua2qkf wrote

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

I think this is clutching at straws. Sure solar/wind are not truly renewable but they have an external energy source (the sun) outside our planetary sphere. Nuclear does not get this top up.

1

pulsed19 t1_iua93kt wrote

And when solar stops needing massive amounts of land to produce a relatively small amount of anergy, it’ll be more viable than it is now.

3

lostparis t1_iuajo7y wrote

> when solar stops needing massive amounts of land

Building solar in fields in the UK will probably always be stupid. However it still has plenty of places where it makes sense.

1

pulsed19 t1_iuakans wrote

So what do we do in said countries like the UK? Nuclear :-p

2

lostparis t1_iuamdt6 wrote

Personally I think Nuclear is not what we need as I've explained. Sure keep the old ones running but new ones do not make sense. We could invest the money far better and end up in a better situation sooner.

1