• Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    While here in Australia we already have a state running on 100% renewables, any plan for nuclear takes too long and costs too much. Read up. The barriers for compact reactors are large and expensive before nuclear is feasible and they still haven’t worked out that pesky waste issue. Investing in nuclear once renewables are established is fine. Expecting nuclear to bear the load while they are yet to be built is just fantasy. Renewables are here and are cheaper. They are literally the answer already here.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tasmania has some great geography for hydro power, generating 90% of their power. Most places in the world don’t have such geography. Pointing to goldilocks locations as though they’re replicable everywhere isn’t well informed. Further, while hydro is less volatile than wind and solar, it still requires a reliable grid fallback during droughts. Tasmania has this with the Basslink. Without it, they would also require quick-fire coal and LNG plants on standby. Or, more likely, running permanently as the spool-up cost is very high.

      No one is claiming nuclear is cheap and instant. We’re arguing that neglecting nuclear keeps coal and LNG consumption unnecessarily high.

      • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Appreciate you did research, however Tasmania isn’t SA. And Bass link runs both ways. It’s a grid link, not a power generator.

        But if you th8nknthats goldilocks, let’s look at France. It’s the most successful and pervasive nuclear power. And they are currently moving away from nuclear. Ouch.

          • Quatity_Control@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unfortunate that they don’t have the workers to maintain them, the failure to maintain existing reactors has resulted in blackouts as urgent repairs occur, and the only way to make nuclear seem to work is to nationalise the debt and make everyone pay heavy taxes to cover up the losses. But hey, eight new reactors planned, that’s not a goldilocks!

            Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay all hit 100% renewable also.

            • Anduin1357@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And the clue is in urgent repair. It is incompetence that lead to increased cost, and fines should pay for the consequences of the incompetence, not raising taxes.

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

                … No, please read up on the topic. It wasn’t possible to make profit. The cost of supporting and maintaining the reactors was too much. Without exorbitant electricity prices, there’s no profits. So the govt is taking on the debt and will tax to service the debt. Nuclear doesn’t add up financially. You need a entire mature industry to service the reactors. Without that, the operating costs get excessive. Nuclear isn’t cheap. It only works when the govt subsidises. That equals higher taxes.

                • Anduin1357@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  LOL and nuclear power is known to be extremely cheap per kwh when it gets up and running. It doesn’t take exorbitant electricity prices to recoup the cost of building the facility in reasonable time.

                  The real trouble comes from political activism that serves to drum up outrage and popular dissatisfaction with nuclear power, which is what actually makes nuclear power unprofitable because of government overreach.

                  And besides, nuclear is a multinational effort, just like defence. You don’t need that industry in your borders, you just need a bigger ally with more resources and scale to build that industry for you. And some part of nuclear power is for military purposes anyway, so you know the countries with the requisite industries already.

                  Besides, all technology needs investment. Solar power sucked initially and had to ramp. If you don’t give a chance for nuclear power to get good, then you just made a self-fulfilling prophecy. A naysayer that would make you.

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

                    Lol, nuclear has had plenty of time and money. It doesn’t work. Renewables don’t have similar barriers and are the clear path forward.

            • JasSmith@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t understand what you’re arguing. There has been no maintenance failure. They delayed maintenance during the recent energy crisis, but the reactors remain perfectly safe. Do you think pointing out the fact that reactors require maintenance is an argument against nuclear? Do you have any idea how much maintenance is required for wind and solar?

              Albania, Iceland, and Paraguay rely on primarily hydro power. The same as Tasmania. You appear to be using the same argument as above, refusing to acknowledge that most countries are unable to utilise hydro power generation. Give me the case for how every other country in the world is able to rely on hydro. Show me your working. Provide some citations.

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

                Nah boy, you claimed nuclear is the answer, yet no one runs 100% nuclear. You have several examples of renewables already delivering 100%. And none of them are 100% hydro. RENEWABLES, not just hydro, are the clear and unmistakeable winner for energy provision. Fucking around with nuclear has been proven to be too expensive and not maintainable by the best example you have, France.

                And no one has resolved the nuclear waste issue which makes nuclear the worst possible environmental choice for energy. I’m not gong to bother to cite anything so self evident. You want to claim otherwise, you shown us your citations.