• ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    You can certainly try to use the power as much as possible, or sell the energy to a country with a deficit. But the problem is that you would still need to invest a lot of money to make sure the grid can handle the excess if you build renewables to cover 100% of the grid demand for now and in the future. Centralized fuel sources require much less grid changes because it flows from one place and spreads from there, so infrastructure only needs to be improved close to the source. Renewables as decentralized power sources requires the grid to be strengthened anywhere they are placed, and often that is not practical, both in financial costs and in the engineers it takes to actually do that.

    Would it be preferable? Yes. Would it happen before we already need to be fully carbon neutral? Often not.

    I’d refer you to my other post about the situation in my country. We have a small warehouse of a few football fields which stores the highest radioactivity of unusable nuclear fuel, and still has more than enough space for centuries. The rest of the fuel is simply re-used until it’s effectively regular waste. The time to build two new nuclear reactors here also costs only about 10 years, not 20.

    Rather continue with wind and solar and then batteries for the money.

    All of these things should happen regardless of nuclear progress. And they do happen. But again, building renewables isn’t just about the price.