Since releasing my oil video I've had so many people claiming that renewables will never work and we need nuclear power instead.
What's odd is that almost all of the messages mention that nuclear power is the only solution for the "base load".
I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and I took several nuclear science electives. I like nuclear energy. But I received so much "base load" gaslighting that I started to doubt my own understanding of the situation.
@sgued @notjustbikes it was an excellent option we should have deployed more of in the 90's.
But it isn't the 90's any more.
@LovesTha Yeah, that's the thing.
When I was studying nuclear energy in University (because I was a huge proponent of it) it was the 90s, and we should've built a shitload of nuclear reactors then. It made sense.
But now? Nuclear rectors take ages to construct and they will not be as cheap as renewables.
Nuclear reactors may still make sense for powering heavy industrial applications though.
There was and interesting conversation between Robert Scheer and Thomas Bass (who wrote a book on Fukshima)
I have not fully investigated the assertions from Thomas, but he posits that nuclear was never viable, it was only ever a subsidy to enable weapons, there are obviously other positive and negative outcomes from nuclear, but this seems credible from my cursory understanding.
If I remember the figures from Thomas, it was a while since I listened to it, the cost of nuclear excluding build, disposal, and decommissioning is about $170 /MWh where solar is about $40 /MWh inclusive. *I will probably listen to it again today and correct later.*
He describes it as "the most expensive way to boil water."
*I edited from what Thomas said in the recording, I had guessed too low on nuclear and too high on solar.*
I don't think he is talking about the 90s
I feel this may be 2023-5 estimates.
This paper estimates solar at $45/MWh for large scale solar. I don't know where Thomas gets the nuclear figure from.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372355663_Electricity_Generation_Costs_by_Technology
I used to be very pro-nuclear, but I am now very pro-fusion.
I have a number of remote nuclear fusion receivers on the roof of my house, and they are netting me around 7 MWh/year at zero running cost.
The remote fusion collection contraptions don't have any moving part either. I think this is important, maintenance-wise.
@sgued @notjustbikes
@spiegelmix @datenhalde @isotopp @sgued @notjustbikes
It's a fancy way of saying "solar".
The sun generates energy via nuclear fusion. And photovoltaic modules and such collect the energy.
So you want more fossil or what?
There is no basis for any geopolitical tension between the EU and China. Most of it was concocted by the US, starting with Trump, then with Biden turbocharging it.
The EU has little to lose and everything to gain by leaning more into solar weaning itself off of both Russian and US machinations.
Besides, the EU (Germany) had a world leading solar industry before either through gross mismanagement or malice it tanked its own industry.
So you want more fossil or what?
No, precisely thatās why I want more nuclear power combined with renewables in EU so we can actually finish decarbonisation rather than wholesale importing PV from China and pretend their CO2 doesnāt count.
Well, I did! And it looks much better.
One reason is that typical volume of nuclear fuel is counted in tens of tons, while typical volume of resources for PV industry is counted in millions of tons due to its significantly lower energy density. Itās therefore easy to secure fuel for a nuclear power plan - you just send one cargo aircraft or ship. For the other you need to secure the whole logistics for continuous delivery of millions of tons of the resource.
Oh you muppet.
Youāre telling me because I have Korean-made solar panels installed on my house and gathering renewable energy that I currently rely on China and forced labour? Get out of here.
What are you proposing? That I get rid of my solar installation and import some diesel from Saudi Arabia and support Mohammed Bone Saw?
Goddamn stupidest thing Iāve read today. You should be ashamed.
I see youāre a supporter of nuclear energy. You might have missed the first post in this thread about how building new nuclear plants is not something that happens anymore realistically.
Also, Iām in nuclear-free Aotearoa, so that will never happen.
New power capacity for the home owner either comes from solar panels, which can be imported from Korea, or it comes from diesel generation on the other side of the globe, supporting the worst repressive regime you can imagine.
Iām supporter of decarbonisation.
Nuclear power is the only low-carbon electricity generation that is dispatchable and does not depend on geography.
Unlike the PV & wind fans, Iām not going to tell you what you should be using in Aotearoa. You should use whatever works in your geographic landscape and lattitude and delivers decarbonisation.
Iām also a supporter of decarbonisation, and despite your assurances you most definitely are telling other people what to do.
Nuclear power doesnāt work regardless of geography. Nuclear power isnāt viable here due to culture, geology, and ā¦ geography.
IF you want decarbonisation, THEN you look at IPCC & UNECE data and choose technology that works in your geography.
The part where I step in is when people deny IPCC & UNECE data, be it in causes of the climate change or the role of nuclear in decarbonisation. Funny thing the former are rare here, but frequent on Twitter, but vice versa for the latter š But one canāt say āI follow scienceā but then cherry-pick from IPCC ābecause I feel soā.
Not Just Bikes š³š±
Soso
LovesThaš„§
Curious
Houba
Christof Damian šš
Kris
Jean Luc am Grimmsten
SpiegelMix
Billiglarper
kravietz š¦
Future Sprog
Allegro con Fuoco
Ćscar Morales VivĆ³
degenerating degenerate
joƫl
Marsh Ray