• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Offshore wind is more expensive than onshore wind, by far.

    I’m not in favour of turning anything off until replacements are energised. One of my pet peeves is how fast coal has been switched off, only to be quietly replaced by tons of small, inefficient diesel and gas generators that can be installed near industrial estates and hidden behind fences. These pollute more per MW than the large coal plants they replace.

    The goal isn’t just to remove fossil fuel from energy, the goal must be to remove it as quickly as possible. Renewables are the only answer for that specific goal.

    Nuclear is needed long term. Existing nuclear plants should be maintained as long as possible, and replacement plants on the same site should have priority over new plants on new sites. However nuclear takes time to build and is very expensive. Renewables are quick and cheap.

    Money and time are finite resources; focusing all of it and going hard on current renewable tech is the best way to quickly remove fossile fuels.

    Once fossil fuels are gone, then we can see about expanding nuclear.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well yes, we shouldn’t switch things off before replacements are switched on. But that means we should be targeting replacements that can be switched on quickly. Nuclear is not quick.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you’re assuming an infinite capacity of funds and people to build the things. If that were true, then yes we should be going for both renewables and nuclear. However it isn’t, and renewables provide far better value and can be built far more quickly.

            We need to build both, but we can’t build it all at once. It makes sense to build all or most of the cheap and quick renewables first, in an excess (which before long will become capacity again), to get the fossil fuels switched off as quickly as possible, and then fill out the portfolio with nuclear.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. You’re not really making sense there. Prices in MWh is what the market charges at, and renewables are FAR cheaper per MWh than nuclear. However there is a disconnect between the generation market and consumer markets - as a consumer, you don’t see any difference. Regardless, I haven’t been saying that 1MW of renewables is the same as 1MW of nuclear. I’ve been saying we need to build an excess of renewables everywhere to account for the times it isn’t available in some locations.
                2. Yes, they do. There are only so many people in the industry. I say this as an electrical engineer who has worked throughout (renewables, nuclear, factories, basically anything with HV). There is also production capacity, but we haven’t reached this yet with renewables and it can be expanded - however when we do get closer to it then it will make more sense to put money into nuclear. Money is also a limiting factor, particularly when it comes to government finance, and is perhaps the biggest limiting factor of all.
                3. Wind farms take up a lot of space, solar can go on roofs, hydro requires bodies of water. Hydro is very location specific, wind somewhat, solar not very much. However the biggest obstuction of all is the NIMBY attitude.