• Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    5 months ago

    Lemmy and the nuclear propaganda is so funny. France recently increased the electricity prices because nuclear energy is way more expensive than solar and they will have to increase them again because half of their plants are in severe need of repair.

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s a tricky thing, but renewables and nuclear fission plants are not two mutually exclusive things that can’t coexist. The issue with renewables is that, right now, they are not consistent enough to be relied upon 24/7, and we don’t have, right now, a good enough storage technology to solve the issue.

      Without this, the only other option is to have renewables cover 30-50% of the production capacity, and another technology to provide a base capacity when renewables cannot be used. This can be hydro, if you have it, nuclear, gas or coal. Choose your poison.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 months ago

        There’s some promising research in using heliostats (mirrors to direct sunlight) towards a central tower to create molten salt, allowing solar energy to be stored and released at night.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            It did start back up though. And we don’t know if further research could bring the costs down. I’m not proposing it as a magic bullet, just as one potential way to get nighttime coverage.

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Putting all the eggs in the solar basket has risks, too. Like a large volcano eruption that reduces the amount of light that reaches the surface for a few years would be a double whammy, affecting food production as well as electricity production (which we’d need to rely on to try to offset the food losses). If we’re instead facing brownouts or full blackouts, that’s a recipe for a complete loss of stability. I suspect less solar energy reaching the surface would also reduce total wind energy (less localized heating would mean lower pressure differentials, but I could be missing other significant parts of this equation).

              I’d be most comfortable with a nice mix of energy sources combined with mothballing instead of decommissioning some capacity as renewables are able to take over more and more of the day to day energy needs so that we’re prepared to deal with an emergency like that.

              I’d also like to see more food production moved to vertical farms that can be powered by electricity rather than relying entirely on the sun and weather. But I do understand that the scale of food production would make doing that with a significant portion of the food supply very difficult. But with climate change (plus nutrient depletion of the soil), keeping so many eggs in the “just keep farming” basket also doesn’t seem like a great idea.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          they’re cool, but have weird problems, the one in mojave, had issues with literally vaporizing birds, which might be worse than traditional wind turbines. Considering you can see them.

          The mirrors are incredibly susceptible to dust and debris, being in a desert doesn’t help all that much, so they have to be regularly cleaned. The actual mechanism of heat conversion works, but you can just do the same thing with electric resistive heat and solar, or wind, as heat storage so meh. Though it probably doesn’t work quite as well.

      • _bonbon_@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        This!

        Problem is not producing electricity, problem is producing electricity ON DEMAND. That is something only Fossil fuels can do for now.

        • Ibuthyr@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          I have high hopes for EVs being used as a decentralized buffer via V2G. I’m thinking of something like you either buy an EV outright and you have no obligations to participate in V2G, but can sell electricity that way if you wish. Or, the government subsidizes your car to a certain extent but you have to give maybe 20% of your battery up as a buffer as long as it’s connected to the grid.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Nuclear can absolutely produce power on demand, once the reactors are up and running. I just wish we would have invested in molten salt reactors that cannot meltdown back when we invented them in the '60s. Of course you also can’t make weapons with those reactors, or the isotopes that we need for modern medicine.

          We can’t entirely get rid of nuclear power because of the aforementioned isotopes, but I would be very happy to see all the for profit reactors shut down permanently. You cannot safely run a nuclear reactor when you care about profit.

          Oh and those molten salt reactors are why China is probably going to start selling nuclear waste disposal services to the rest of the world in about a decade once they turn the ones they are currently building on.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Nuclear can absolutely produce power on demand

            so slight correction here, they don’t produce power on demand, unless we include energy storage, but that’s the storage not the plant, nuclear plants are explicitly designed to be a base load service. Which is incredibly well suited to be paired with cheap renewables like solar.

            Nuclear plants often have a capacity factor of close to 100%, and sometimes even over it. Though usually it’s 80-90% for most plants. Gas plants are often 40% ish, hydro is even lower, 20-30% is really common for hydro, especially if it’s stored. Though actual hydro plants can realistically run for most of the year, and will more than likely have a more considerable capacity factor, probably somewhere around 60% or higher.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’ve read the Broken Earth trilogy. Geothermal power will lead to fifth seasons, just you wait.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      it’s expensive because france is skill issuing with the EPR and EPR2 reactor which are incredibly complex and technically complicated PWR plants.

      Nuclear energy while traditionally expensive, is incredibly rip for government subsidies considering most of the build cost is up front construction, which can also be eased with much simpler plants (non EPR plants) And also have a skilled manufacturing base capable of actually fucking making the thing lmao.

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        even if fuel is cheap it’s still has an upfront cost per production and can be manipulated based on demand to ensure prices never drop and always go up.

        or i mean, super, nuclear is obviously what society needs, because energy supply is a natural monopoly and nuclear uses fuel you can burn based on demand and guaranteed awesome profit as a private entity unlike infinite energy resources that produces surplus energy and only benefits society and not the shareholders and owners who are the only ones who obviously matter.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          even if fuel is cheap it’s still has an upfront cost per production and can be manipulated based on demand to ensure prices never drop and always go up.

          sounds like capitalistic free markets to me. I see nothing unusual here.

          unlike infinite energy resources that produces surplus energy and only benefits society and not the shareholders and owners who are the only ones who obviously matter.

          i realize this is sarcastic, but who do you think owns solar and wind plants?