this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
585 points (90.8% liked)

World News

38255 readers
2753 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

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

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

There's evaporation, which can be mitigated by floating solar panels, but pumped hydro is a closed system, it doesn't consume water.