Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvgu4e wrote
Reply to comment by CriticalUnit in Solar Rollout Rouses Resistance in Europe’s Countryside: Regulations meant to protect green space block the installation of solar panels despite soaring energy prices by CannoliIntoPussy
What in particular are you talking about? Mind finding me a link to something?
CriticalUnit t1_irvl6q3 wrote
> What in particular are you talking about?
That nuclear is not necessarily more reliable to "keep the power on".
https://www.ft.com/content/bce753b9-2b82-4895-a651-01ce91df7627
What exactly are you trying to say? We should all pay more for nuclear even though it obviously also has reliability issues? What are we paying extra for exactly?
LazyLizzy t1_irw46nr wrote
All these stories aren't pointing at nuclear being unreliable, all of these articles have issues that could also pop up in cheaper power productions as well.
The french one they discovered corrosion and crackign in critical cooling pipes that seems to have been a manufacturing defect. So they shut down similar reactors for inspection to be safe.
The one in Belgium had a short circuit in a critical component, again something that can easily happen with other productions of power.
To me it seems you hand picked these stories because they forwarded your goal, but you conveniently left out WHY these places were shut down hoping someone wouldn't actually read them. Coal and Natural gas plants are cheap to run (or used to be anyway) and they had issues all the time that required down time. It's just unfortunate that in these cases the faults that occurred are in critical systems so the whole reactor needed to be shut down until it can be fixed.
CriticalUnit t1_irzqsqi wrote
> all of these articles have issues that could also pop up in cheaper power productions as well.
That's exactly the point. Nuclear also has these same issues and isn't really more reliable than cheaper power production.
So why would we pay more and wait longer to build it?
>All these stories aren't pointing at nuclear being unreliable,
Well that long list of nuclear plants in those links that are shut down currently can't be relied on to produce power at the moment. Call it what you will...
LazyLizzy t1_is0i6em wrote
Except the point of nuclear is to replace coal and gas power plants with something much greener to help keep a strong stable power in the transmission lines.
CriticalUnit t1_is0sjdz wrote
Except the point of renewables is to replace coal and gas power plants with something much greener to help keep a strong stable power in the transmission lines.
Maybe you could list the ways you think new nuclear can do any of that better?
LazyLizzy t1_is1165j wrote
Thorium reactors and newer designs are incredibly efficient. On top of that nuclear waste isn't that big of a deal, there's plenty of places to keep it, but the biggest hurdle is people. Lot of people have boogeyman thoughst about anything nuclear thanks to Oil and Gas companies lobbying against it back in the 80's and 90's. I love renewables, I'm ready for them, however can they handle peak loads? Can they keep a stable output 24/7? We have to store excess power to help during peak loads or if something were to occur, what technoligies exist that's cost efficient and as good or better than just running a few nuclear plants in a region? Electrcity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop some more turbines and solar panels".
CriticalUnit t1_is4l8j7 wrote
> Thorium reactors and newer designs are incredibly efficient
not where is counts. They aren't economically efficient (Expensive)
>I love renewables, I'm ready for them, however can they handle peak loads?
when enough are deployed, absolutley. There are plenty of countries where they already do.
>Can they keep a stable output 24/7?
Again, yes they can. Have a google of Costa Rica or Portugal.
>We have to store excess power to help during peak loads
Sure, we have to do that now too. Nuclear also requires you to o store excess power to help during peak loads because you can't economically operate them in a flexible manner.
>what technoligies exist that's cost efficient and as good or better than just running a few nuclear plants in a region?
Literally all of them. Have a look at some actual recent numbers. Even Residential Solar is now the same price as nuclear.
>Electrcity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop some more turbines and solar panels".
Sure, that's a nice red herring. Let me spice it up:
Electricity transmission for a country is complex and daunting and there's more to it than just "Plop in some more nuclear plants".
Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvtohu wrote
Nope. Just didn’t reveal anything when I looked. Thank you!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments