So why not modernize or replace the nuclear plants? Battery storage isn't anywhere close to being able to store baseline energy for a full renewable grid.

I agree it's a perception issue, but that doesn't mean nothing can be done about it.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the money for modernizing, let alone replacing those plants is a lot better invested in renewables. Battery Storage is very close to store baseline energy, not in Lithium Batteries though and the projected cost for Redox-Flow Batteries is going to be falling like crazy. It already is on the same level as Lithium, and while it is less energy dense, it's safer, easier to operate and especially longer to operate. The Dalian VFB in Liaoning, Dalian, China is one of the first "bigger" stations to come online, but there are already a lot of plans. I also have one in my house.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am curious how many Wh the one in your home is and what you use it for?

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

7,5 kWh, max. continous power is "only" 3 kW, but that's more than enough to get the house over the night and even for quite some time in to the next day if the weather is bad. Non flammable, no higher insurance rating, and so on.

[–] Muetzenman@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Most plants are to old to modernize and building new ones is expensive, takes decates and dosn't solve the dependency on uran and the nuclear waste problem. Renewables were always the longtearm goal and gas for shortages. Nuclear cant be easy switched on or off, so they aren't a good solution to help with energy lows.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Exactly, just look at Olkiluoto in Finnland. 11 Billion Euros. For comparison, right now, 1 MW in an offshore wind park is about 4 Million Euros. Meaning, for 1600 MW, that's 6400 Million, or 6,4 Billion. That's nearly HALF of Olkiluoto's cost.