Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cwesttheperson t1_ixxdj5g wrote

Reply to comment by CuriousSequoia in Record efficiency of 26.81% for large silicon solar cells by Wagamaga

Nuclear is the single best option. Still fascinating people argue against it.

There has even constrictive conversation on this but the point stands. Too much of the anti nuclear is talking points trying to weigh pros and cons but it’s clear the picture of nuclear vs. wind and solar is still muddled. Nuclear is the best option, tons of research and information, it’s still pointless trying to deny it, it all leads back.

0

electric_creamsicle t1_ixxjxci wrote

There's no single best option. They all have upsides and downsides and it's dumb to try and say we should fully commit to any one kind of alternative energy.

Solar and wind don't offer a reliable energy source and require some kind of battery infrastructure to power a grid if there's enough volume to provide enough power to the grid on average.

Nuclear can provide steady energy as the grid requires but has huge overhead in terms of start-up costs. There's also the problem of disposal of waste but I think that's less of a problem.

If we were forward looking enough, we would be building enough nuclear plants to phase out coal and natural gas for energy production in the grid while also building solar and wind to cover the increase in energy usage year after year. That way there's no need to increase coal/natural gas output and they become obsolete once the nuclear plants are built. There's a more nuanced approach where the government heavily subsidizes (more than they have) solar panels so land owners build them on their property that they're not using for things like food anyway and keep energy production as local as possible.

24

LivingReaper t1_ixxqya3 wrote

Modern reactors use the fuel almost to completion. Smaller amounts of waste and less toxic waste that is safe after a few hundred years.

4

uhhNo t1_ixxsoup wrote

In a decade, nuclear will be 3x more expensive per unit of energy than wind and solar.

Nuclear is only good up to the baseload of the grid. For the rest, wind, solar, and storage will be more economical while still being reliable.

3

ttux t1_ixydm51 wrote

But your baseload has to be the same as your entire solar + wind production until electricity storage has been solved so why build both solution when you can build only one. I say this often but Germany spent 600 billion euros on wind and solar since 2000. They would have spent this on building nuclear plants and not closing the ones they already had and would have 100% co2 free and cheapest electricity on the planet. There is a difference between theory and practice. Now we are screwed because we lack energy and building nuclear plants will take minimum 10 years so in the mean time we burn gas and coal for baseload and add more solar/wind. At 40% renewables, 11% nuclear and the rest fossil. And that's just for electricity. So optimistically another 800-1000 billion euros to go? Then 2 times that to replace use of fossil fuel beyond electricity?

source: https://www.aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

4

uhhNo t1_iy2cvb4 wrote

All the money spent developing wind and solar should be looked at as an investment for humanity. Wind and solar prices dropped by so much for the entire world. Massive benefit for reducing global emissions.

Wind, solar, and batteries are already the best option for peaking load, but currently providing baseload energy this way is too expensive.

There will still be a huge baseload energy need so it would still make sense to add much more nuclear.

1