In a recent study, researchers from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE), and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) questioned the planned development of new nuclear capacities in the energy strategies of the United States and certain European countries.

New research shows renewables are more profitable than nuclear power::In a recent study, researchers from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE), and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) questioned the planned development of new nuclear capacities in the energy strategies of the United States and certain European countries.

  • Gray@lemmy.caEnglish
    163·
    1 year ago

    From what I understand, some degree of nuclear power is always going to be necessary. This is because while we tend to think of excess power in the energy grid as being stored away, this in fact is not the case and we only use power as it’s actively available. Excess power is wasted. The major downside of renewables is that they’re circumstancial. Solar energy is only available during clear days, wind power is only available on windy days, etc. Until we massively improve our energy storage capabilities we’re going to need some kind of constant supply of power backing the other ones when they aren’t available. Without adequate nuclear energy available, that’s going to be fossil fuels. And when compared to coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear energy is unbelievably better for the environment. The only byproduct is the spent fuel which is dangerous, but we have control over where it ends up which is more than can be said for fossil fuels.

    • kava@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      1 year ago

      Yeah we need a certain baseline production that will always be on. Power needs fluctuate dramatically throughout the day. Maybe we need 100W in the morning but when people come home from work that jumps to 200W. You need to double your power production.

      Nuclear takes a while to start up and slow down, so we just keep it at 100W the whole time. Then we have stuff like natural gas and goal which are great to use during peak times. You can turn it up and down very quickly.

      If we want to have a nuclear + renewable system with zero fossil fuel usage then we essentially need better energy storage systems. Which people are working on, thankfully.

      • MrSpArkle@lemmy.caEnglish
        61·
        1 year ago

        German nuclear plants can swing from 700MW to over 1300MW per day. Some nuclear plants can manage two swings per day, and these are OLD designs.

        • areyouevenreal@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyzEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I still don’t think that would work as a peaker plant, but it’s better than nothing! If they really have improved it more than that it might work, but you are going to need at least one power source that can be meaningfully changed multiple times per day.

      • kava@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        While an interesting article(/ sales pitch), the base load system as a paradigm has been around forever because it works very well and is safe. Perhaps we won’t need it in the near future. However, fundamentally, you don’t control the sun and you don’t control the wind. It could be cloudy for an extended period of time and there could be an extended period of time with a low amount of wind. What are you going to do? Article talks about geothermal, hydropower, etc and while those are great the reality is that not every place in the world can reliably harvest large amounts of geothermal or hydropower power. Wind and solar is more or less the only constant renewable.

        Nuclear may be more expensive relative to renewables but it has a potential to be much more reliable. You can create a nuclear power plant and you know it will pump out xxxMW consistently. You can rely on that. I believe you could even get a majority of power from wind & solar. But getting rid of that base load is very risky unless our tech significantly changes. Granted, it probably will in the near future, so I’m not discounting that base-load paradigm perhaps could become a thing of the past.

        For example with cheap and effective energy storage, you can just build large amounts of wind and solar and store all the excess. At that point, you would have a reliable source of power to handle any peak demand. Just as of today, it is needed practically speaking.

        • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          Renewables are reliable though over a long enough time frame. Offshore wind is very predictable and you can count on the sun shining in plenty of places. Solar still generates when cloudy though at a reduced output.

          The problem with base load is what to do when it’s very windy and sunny. You can’t just turn off a nuclear plant for practical and financial reasons so nuclear isn’t compatible with renewables + storage.

          Ideally governments the world over will start to mandate storage construction on a massive scale, with the methods being dictated by the resources available. Pumped hydro is great where the terrain has big changes in elevation, molten salt storage is great for desert climates, etc.

          We’re moving rapidly to EVs too. I wish we’d get ahead of the game just once and build in a small amount of grid storage per EV, with compensation to the owner for making the capacity available.