Comment on Green party drops longstanding opposition to nuclear power
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 14 hours ago
This was one or the few areas I didn’t align with the Green Party before, as I believe that a bit of nuclear is kind of necessary to help round out less consistent energy sources as things stand. I think this is a reasonable stance.
Not to be too much of a dick but this is pretty typical of the pro-new nuclear mindset.
You “believe”? You don’t have to believe, there is plenty of hard data showing that new nuclear is a massive waste of money now renewables and storage are so cheap.
I think this is a reasonable stance.
It’s not, unless you want to pay more for electricity for absolutely no reason other than because you feel like you should.
nuclear is a massive waste of money now renewables and storage are so cheap.
And how cheap are renewables when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?
Renewables and batteries are awesome and we need more. But they aren’t suited to all weather in all countries at all times. The UK has periods where there is not enough wind or sun or battery storage to sustain demand. Nuclear is not my first choice but it is a practical choice that can be helpful.
And how cheap are renewables when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?
That’s why I included storage in my comment. Wind and solar are very predictable across a longer time frame.
The UK has periods where there is not enough wind or sun or battery storage to sustain demand.
Really? Can you provide a source for this?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute
The wikipedia article itself has many sources, I won’t pretend I have read them. Pretty sure I first heard of this in a modo energy video, but I couldn’t find it. Regardless it is a well researched phenomenon and is a real challenge we need to overcome.
Technically you could do it with enough battery storage but those batteries would be doing nothing most of the time when the weather is normal.
It’s right there in the article, “To ensure power during such periods flexible energy sources may be used, energy may be imported, and demand may be adjusted.”
Also the sheer amount of land and wildlife destruction they require to build solar fields and windfarms…
I don’t see that as a problem, you don’t have to put solar on a nature reserve you can put it on a roof, carpark, canal. You can even put it on grazing land and it can increase biodiversity.
Besides the actual surface needed for solar is relatively small, you could power the UK with about as much surface area as is currently used by golf courses.
Ah, fair point then.
there is plenty of hard data showing that new nuclear is a massive waste of money
Care to share some of it? Opinion seems pretty mixed from what I can tell.
This is a decent place to start:
www.lazard.com/media/…/lazards-lcoeplus_vf.pdf
Solar PV + Storage—Utility - $61-$156
U.S. Nuclear - $175-$255
Armand1@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
I might just be behind the times.
I look over at France, who have managed to keep their energy prices low and keep their independence thanks to their large amount of Nuclear energy, and I’m jealous.
Maybe we have fixed the energy storage issue now, and I’m just not aware of it. It’s not my area of expertise.