News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
That ship has sailed. With renewables and storage nuclear makes no financial sense and dispatchable power doesn't work well with base load generation.
That's just... not true. Nuclear absolutely makes sense, it's just that there's not enough public appetite for it. In particular, small modular reactors (SMRs) are very much needed for distributed power generation.
There's not enough storage with renewables that can compete with nuclear. The technology that currently exists doesn't scale from a cost perspective, which is why the storage startup space has become so hot in the last 5 years.
Nuclear is way more expensive than renewables, it’s not public appetite, it’s that it’s impossible to get funding if you can’t get a government to cover the cost. Another reason lenders are jumpy is that nuclear frequently goes way over budget and takes longer than initially estimated.
By the way, last I checked SMRs don’t exist in any meaningful capacity.
Sodium ion batteries are already on the market, they’re much cheaper than lithium, work across a far wider range of temps, they don’t catch fire, don’t lose capacity over many charge cycles, and sodium is cheap and abundant. New nuclear takes at least 10 years to build, typically longer. By then sodium batteries will be everywhere, as well as repurposed batteries from older EVs.
What’s the argument for new nuclear? Make it make sense.
Nuclear has a better value-adjusted levelized cost of energy. SMRs are very much developing but have been deployed in some areas outside the US.
Sodium ion batteries are great for many reasons but also aren't as energy dense, so you need a way larger footprint. I'm not saying we should only do one of the other, it's all of the above. Also repurposed EVs aren't really a thing at scale, nor does there seem to be that much investment into it from a quick search. The main investment is into full recycling of batteries.
I don’t think you can win the economic argument, everything I’ve seen suggests nuclear is far more expensive and it’s not getting cheaper, whereas renewables are but if you’ve got sources, by all means let’s see them.
Sodium batteries don’t require a way larger footprint, it’s true they’re not quite as energy dense but they’re being used in EVs in China, there’s a little reduction in range for the same size pack but they’re way better in extreme cold and heat so you’re not drawing as much power to condition the battery.
If we’re talking 10-15 years from now, when a new nuclear plant would come online, there’s going to be a lot of EV batteries around. Maybe they get recycled but that seems a waste when they’ve only lost a little capacity. I guess we’ll see.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
That's 6 years old and written in conjunction with the NEA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Energy_Agency
Still there's this from that report:
In the US, at least nuclear is much more expensive than wind and solar.
Here's last year's figures. Nuclear is crazy expensive.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/
Renewables can't do it alone. Nuclear can be a large help.
I mean ... that's just not true.
It is.
This is going well, isn’t it?
Typically it’s on the person making the assertion to back it up with evidence but you do you.
Didn't you just say something without backing it up
Yeah - if I cared I probably would. But I don't.
Storage costs balloon when you go full renewable, because instead of just storing enough for the night, you need to charge up enough during the summer to last the winter since solar power dries up.
Having a constant 20% of power nuclear would decrease the need to make a huge amount of batteries, since you can serve the demand on a lower amount of sunlight.
But what about wind? It works in places that are windy and have space for it, and America doesn't have super high voltage transmission to cover every area.
You just can't connect everything to shore up needs of every area because the country is too big and we forgot how to build things
It’s called HVDC, it’s been in use for decades. Just admit you like nuclear because reasons and we'll call it a day.
It's not going to support 100% renewable usage. It is not built to transfer solar power from Nevada to Minnesota
Everything works better when you have baseline nuclear power, transmission losses decrease, storage costs decrease, coal and gas get phased out. Remember that batteries need to be replaced often and they are very much not green. Nuclear plants operate on the scale of decades before getting replaced.
Those are the reasons I like nuclear.
This exists and is longer than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Madeira_HVDC_system
Nope. Baseline isn't helpful when you're dealing with dispatchable generation, I already mentioned this.
Nope. I already mentioned that silicon ion is capable of thousands of charge cycles.
Nope. Not when you're comparing it to the amount of concrete in a nuclear plant.
Like every other pro-nuclear person it's all about feels with you. I've given you plenty of evidence, which you've rejected much like a cultist would do. I see no point continuing to discuss this with someone who has made an emotional decision to support nuclear in the face of all the evidence.
That's in Brazil, though? What do you mean it exists. High speed rail exists in China, I've been promised it since early 2000s in California and yet...
What do you mean by dispatchable generation?
Thousands of charge cycles means a few years? 2000 days is just 6 years