• muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Look i hate the man. But nuclear power is the best possible energy solution we have. Nuclear energy can fix all elecyricity related global warming issues we have in a reasonable acheivable world saving timeframe.

    But here we are associating what could be earths only hope of stopping the climate fuckup with the molerat man.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      New nuclear power is now significantly more expensive than renewables, and almost any other form of grid-scale electricity.

      It’s also far, far, far too slow to build. If you started the consents process now, you might see it operational in 15 years.

      Gigawatt-class units really don’t scale well in smaller power grids. It’s a pretty common rule in power engineering that you need enough spinning/fast reserves to cover the unexpected, instant loss of your largest generator or transmission line. That’s fine if you have a 100MW grid; not so great when there’s 10MW of load.

      Small modular/meme reactors have thus far been rather disappointing.

      Throw more solar, storage, and demand response at it with a side of synchronous condensers.

      • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        15 years

        why is Australian construction this fucking slow?

        the largest nuclear plant (built in Japan in the 1980s) was commissioned 5 years after the start of construction. I can’t imagine safety improvements since the 1980s would triple the time alone.

        • gumnut
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yep. The latest CSIRO/AEMO report published this week addresses exactly this, with various levels of renewables penetration modelled, including associated firming costs (additional transmission & storage) Here’s an overview (spoiler: renewables are still cheaper by far.) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-21/nuclear-energy-most-expensive-csiro-gencost-report-draft/103253678?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            If u go look at the spurce document and not a report on the document i found a couple interesting things.

            1. Risk profiles have not been considered due to renewables variation etc
            2. The nuclear costs are all based on one reactor from a single startup and overlooked the multitude of other reactors around the world at significantly better prices
            3. Renewables where assumed to go down in cost but we have seen that the cost of storage has actualy been rising recently
            4. Why does the IEA think nuclear is still cheaper?
            • CalamityJoe
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 months ago

              Are you able to link the source document?

              However, as an example of why nuclear is seen as risky, time-consuming and subject to massive cost blowout and time delays, see Flamanville 3 ( https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx Under “new nuclear capacity”)

              It’s gone from being a project started in 2004 to build a 1650MWe plant costing 4.2 billion euros (in 2020 euros), to an estimated completion date of 2024, at 13.2 billion euros.

              And this is France, a country that is very familiar and well-versed with building nuclear reactors.

              Without the source document, this may well be the example you use from your 2nd bullet point. But I wouldn’t have called this a startup.

                • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  THEY FUCKING MISSED AN ENTIRE CLASS OF NUCLEAR REACTOR. They had one fucking job compare all the power options and they ignored any reactor that was not a small scallable bullshit silicon valley hyptrain piece of shit. This “unbiassed” report funded with million of dollars just happened to accidentally forget the cheapest and most economically efficient reactor design this is heigly sus and very much looks like it is purposefully misleading. I thought the CSIRO was unbiassed but this is an aggressiouse error that canot be overlooked.

            • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻OPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago
              1. Not sure what you mean here
              2. See Section 2.4.4 of the report
              3. Source?
              4. Source? IEA seems to see renewables as being important for emissions reductions by 2050 Source
          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Does this not only look at 2023 to 2024 would that not skew it towards options that have a low upfront cost? Nuclear is strongest in the longterm not over the period of 1 year.

    • ephemeral_gibbon
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s just too expensive and too slow. Renewables with the additional Transmission and storage needed to make it reliable is much much cheaper, and quicker to build. The new csiro gencost report thats coming out basically says they nuclear is just not economically viable.

    • 𝚝𝚛𝚔
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear made sense a few decades ago. But now, renewables are better by every metric that matters.

    • Hugohase@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Tell me you have absolutely no clue about the electricity market, project planing and the economy without telling me you have absolutely no idea about the electricity market, project planing and the economy.