• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    We don’t need new tech, and while we do need nuclear in the long run, it is more important now that we switch off fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Nuclear is not fossil fuels, but it is notorious for taking a long time to build and get verified and turned on, as well as being horrendously late and over-budget. Renewables can be thrown up in a matter of months, are relatively very cheap and turn a profit quickly.

    An irrational aversion to nuclear power is an obstacle, but there are plenty of rational objections and many of them point to nuclear being an obstacle/delaying tactic intended to sustain the fossil fuel industry for longer.

    • bouh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Irrational aversion to nuclear energy had countries stop building reactor for several decades, which lost the technical capabilities which now have to be reacquired.

      The first reactor is hard to build and suffer delays and overcoats. The next ones are easier and cheaper. Like absolutely any other industrial project. Like renewable did over the last 20 years.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The first reactor is hard to build and suffer delays and overcoats. The next ones are easier and cheaper. Like absolutely any other industrial project. Like renewable did over the last 20 years.

        Renewables did it with significantly lower risk and at significantly lower cost than nuclear.

        Renewables cost more to build than a traditional coal power plant, but still far less than nuclear. Maintenance costs are comparible for renewables but more consistent, while nuclear can be much higher in a worst case scenario. Demolition costs are neglible for renewables (the equipment is sold on), while nuclear demolition almost always ends up requiring further state financing, billed to the taxpayer.

        Like you say, development of nuclear tech has been stunted. Renewables are mature and cheap and mass produceable. Nuclear is needed long term, but renewables are ready now.

        The goal isn’t to build the perfect utopian utlity network right away. The goal should be to switch off fossil fuels as quickly and as much as possible.

        • bouh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except this is wrong. Wikipedia cost of electricity by source shows 81-82$/MWh for nuclear, 67-146$/MWh for offshore wind. Solar is 31-146.

          A notable fact is also that renewable supporters are very often very against nuclear energy, and very much on favour of turning it off at all cost. I know no nuclear energy supporter who is against renewable energy.

          If the goal is to remove fossil fuels from energy, some people should really stop fighting nuclear energy at all cost like they did for 40 years.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Offshore wind is more expensive than onshore wind, by far.

            I’m not in favour of turning anything off until replacements are energised. One of my pet peeves is how fast coal has been switched off, only to be quietly replaced by tons of small, inefficient diesel and gas generators that can be installed near industrial estates and hidden behind fences. These pollute more per MW than the large coal plants they replace.

            The goal isn’t just to remove fossil fuel from energy, the goal must be to remove it as quickly as possible. Renewables are the only answer for that specific goal.

            Nuclear is needed long term. Existing nuclear plants should be maintained as long as possible, and replacement plants on the same site should have priority over new plants on new sites. However nuclear takes time to build and is very expensive. Renewables are quick and cheap.

            Money and time are finite resources; focusing all of it and going hard on current renewable tech is the best way to quickly remove fossile fuels.

            Once fossil fuels are gone, then we can see about expanding nuclear.

            • bouh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              As quickly as possible is not the only parameter. Consequences is an important one too. We can technically turn off half the grid right now, but there would be severe consequences to that.

              Smart grid is a cool thing, but we are far from it still if it needs to work from renewables only.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well yes, we shouldn’t switch things off before replacements are switched on. But that means we should be targeting replacements that can be switched on quickly. Nuclear is not quick.

                • bouh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That is exactly the kind of fallacy I’m talking about. That somehow renewable and nuclear would be exclusive to each other. Or that renewable can replace all the fossile faster than a nuclear power plant can be built.

                  We need both. We need to start building nuclear power plants now, and we need to build renewables. This is the best allocation of resources. And this is the only solution out of fossiles.

                  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I think you’re assuming an infinite capacity of funds and people to build the things. If that were true, then yes we should be going for both renewables and nuclear. However it isn’t, and renewables provide far better value and can be built far more quickly.

                    We need to build both, but we can’t build it all at once. It makes sense to build all or most of the cheap and quick renewables first, in an excess (which before long will become capacity again), to get the fossil fuels switched off as quickly as possible, and then fill out the portfolio with nuclear.