• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    certainly not saying you’re wrong, but the base load problem is still a problem afaik… storage solves some of it, but i think storage isn’t a full solution - we’d still need some other 24/7 generation capacity

    • skibidi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      58 minutes ago

      Base load is an outdated concept. It is cheaper, by an order of magnitude, to install surplus generation capacity using renewables and build storage to cover periods of reduced production.

      Nuclear reactors actually make terrible ‘base load’ generation anyway, as large swings in output induce thermal cycling stress in their metal components AND the economics of these multi-billion dollar investments depend on running near max output at all times - otherwise the payback time from selling power will extend beyond the useful life of the plant.

      The policy wonks shilling for nuclear are not being honest. The economics for these plants are terrible, they are especially terrible if The Plan ™ is to use nuclear as a transition fuel to be replaced by renewables - as then they won’t even reach break even. To say nothing of the fact that a solar installation in the US takes 6 months, while there have been two reactors under construction in Georgia for a decade…

      50 years ago, nuclear was a great option. Today, it is too expensive, too slow to build, and simply unnecessary with existing storage technologies.

      If y’all were really worried about base load power, you’d be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Agreed; and it will become more of a problem as water becomes less predictable. Problem is, for most atomic generators, that also holds true.

      Investment in research is definitely needed, but building existing systems isn’t going to solve the issues either.

      • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Thorium Salt reactors can recycle their water source and also use water from waste treatment or even sea water as they’re not high pressure water reactors.

        When you don’t need the result of power generation to be fissionable material for warheads there are a lot more options available to you, such as using the waste from older reactors to generate energy and output much less reactive material.

        Nuclear missiles are an albatross around the neck of nuclear power.