this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2162 points (94.2% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2301 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


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
[–] QWho@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?

Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.

[–] zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pretending that the baseload problem is solved for solar and wind doesn't help anybody. "batteries work", but not at the scale of the demands of a power utility when wind and solar happen not to be producing.

[–] QWho@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

New nuclear installations will take 10 years and more. They will cost more then anyone is willing to pay. The math is clear, batteries and renewables like geo heat pumps, solar and wind are dead cheap in comparison.

Energy conservation is still the main goal.

Nuclear energy is the false promises that let us believe we can continue as we were.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But it is essentially solved. There are plenty of places in the world that use a variety of power sources including a large mix of renewables without needing nuclear. And they work just fine. I'm surprised that so many people here seem to be ignoring the reality that nuclear is unnecessary and very expensive compared with other power sources.

For example South Australia uses mostly renewable energy sources today - primarily solar and wind with some in-fill from battery and gas. The last coal plant there was closed in 2016. There's no nuclear power in Australia.

[–] penitentOne@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not sure how app.electricitymaps.com gets their data but according them SA uses around 30% gas. How much are you saying they are using?

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

They're using less and less all the time as they add additional renewables into the mix. Within a few years it'll be approximatrely zero gas.

[–] zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Talk to me when it's all battery and no gas. That's what nuclear would be replacing, not the renewables. Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other

Not at all. Nuclear's terrible at ramping up for short term loads like in-fill gaps. Gas can be idle most of the time and then fired up as required. You don't want to be relying on it most of the time but for in-fill it's cheaper and better than nuclear.

[–] zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So your grand plan is to keep carbon emitting sources until batteries can completely cover the baseload in all conditions? That's a non-solution.

Batteries, limited as they are, can certainly mitigate ramping issues with nuclear, though.

[–] zik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, that's not it. Ultimately a mix of renewables will replace everything. Add say tidal and pumped hydro plus maybe some geothermal etc. and you don't need any non-renewable energy sources.

load more comments (6 replies)