There is no nuclear Power plant in the whole world, that’s entirely run by a private corporation. They are all heavily subsidized by the states. And all of those states either have nuclear warheads or want to build some. Nuclear is just too expensive.
Completely false. Many countries have nuclear power with no nuclear weapons. Most of Europe, much of Asia. Africa is about to build many nuclear power plants too.
Yeah, also you have to keep mining and enriching uranium or thorium to keep them running. At least with renewables most of the materials are recyclable so you only have to mine once. Nuclear would have made a great stop gap between fossil fuels and renewables though.
Yeah unfortunately nuclear doesn’t make any sense anymore today. It’s way too expensive and its not nearly as renewable as you’d think. 20-50 years ago? It should have been something huge.
At this point solar is so cheap and easy almost everything else looks silly in comparison.
There are plenty of countries that have nuclear power plants but no nuclear warheads or intention to get them. Like Japan and many European nations.
Nuclear is costly, but its the only green form of electricity production that is both feasible everywhere and can provide baseload power. As of yet, an energy transition towards renewables does not seem feasible without it. On top of that, SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs.
What is it with nuclear proponents and completely misunderatanding what baseload means
Renewables need the exact opposite of a baseload as a complement
SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs
might or would not will. If we go by hypotheticals, then any of the twenty promising new battery technologies “will” make battery storage so cheap that we will go with 100% renewables
Where did I mention we shouldn’t also use wind and solar?
Maybe I’m not the one misunderstanding….
And you’re making assumptions based on your own misguided beliefs and biased opinion.
The technology isn’t there yet but it’s not as impossible as you would make it seem: we have been using molten salt in solar powered plants for a while now. We are getting close to using it in commercial NPPs and there are many test projects already running. Luckily governments worldwide have seen the potential benefits and are investing heavily in them. If we leave everything to the “nuclear scary and bad” crowd we wouldn’t get anywhere…
And it is complete nonsense. Of course you need baseload power. Thinking you can supply the entire world with backup power from batteries alone is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough storage capacity as it is, not to mention when we want to switch the world to EVs.
people think who throw the word “baseload” around.
I used a word. I’m not throwing anything around, and I don’t have anything to do with what other people do or say.
And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it, and clouds their judgment. Maybe you watched Chernobyl on HBO, but that is not something that can happen with modern reactors.
You haven’t made a single valid point and started off with personal attacks. That is not a way to have a discussion, with anyone, about anything.
Where am I claiming we need to supply the entire world with nuclear power? Again, this isn’t a nuclear vs. renewables discussion.
Wow genius argument.
Just your wilful misinterpretation of it. And please refrain from personal attacks when a discussion doesn’t go your way. It is not doing your case any good.
You mean the things with storage that you connect to the grid,
Yes. Those. We don’t have the production capacity to make them for everyone worldwide. What is your point?
click on my power suppliers website right now?
You will still need the right EV, the right vehicle-to-grid charging station and most importantly, a garage or a carport. So no, not just a click.
Also it will only supply enough storage for a home. Businesses and industries need power as well…
And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Who said anything about going without storage? Come to think of it, let me ask this meta question: why do people always think in absolutes and convenient boxes?
npps are useless
How are NPPs useless? You don’t need so much solar that it does everything by itself if you have nuclear for baseload. Those solar panels are the things that will become useless come winter time. But yes, when there is a lot of sun, NPPs can be turned down during the day and be spun back up during the night. That’s how France does it already. And the still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech may be even more flexible.
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
My argument isn’t based on any cost analysis. Where have I mentioned cost at all? I’m not arguing nuclear is going to be cheaper.
The issue is that we already don’t have enough production capacity for (Li-ion) EV batteries, we don’t have any production capacity for the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech, but we do have production capacity for NPPs.
Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and bet it all on a still-fictional-but-likely battery tech?
I concede the nuclear warheads part. Still true fir a lot of countries tho.
The fun thing about smr is that investors are fleeing and the start ups are going bancrupt. Additionally when the nuclear power plants were initially developed they had to upscale the to high size because the big overhead of maintenance, safety measures and poor yield from heat power coupling only gives a small net power output. So to make it work they had to make it big. Now they try to make it small again. Apart from some niche use they won’t make a big difference.
You’re comparing technology of the 1980s to today’s technology. Nuclear power research has come a long way since then.
Part of the reason NPPs (as in, conventional PWRs, as we use in the west) had to be so big is the giant containment structure to keep pressurised water inside the reactor. Molten salt does not need to be pressurised and is much more efficient because it runs at much higher temperatures than water does.
So these two technologies combined definitely have the ability to reduce the size of NPPs.
There is no nuclear Power plant in the whole world, that’s entirely run by a private corporation. They are all heavily subsidized by the states. And all of those states either have nuclear warheads or want to build some. Nuclear is just too expensive.
Completely false. Many countries have nuclear power with no nuclear weapons. Most of Europe, much of Asia. Africa is about to build many nuclear power plants too.
Sweden’s first commercial nuclear power plant was literally an underground bunker for manufacturing nuclear bombs.
Global nuclear power growth is a hoax. Doesn’t change the rest of my Statement that nuclear is always subsidized by the state and super expensive
Irrelevant.
Yeah, also you have to keep mining and enriching uranium or thorium to keep them running. At least with renewables most of the materials are recyclable so you only have to mine once. Nuclear would have made a great stop gap between fossil fuels and renewables though.
Yeah unfortunately nuclear doesn’t make any sense anymore today. It’s way too expensive and its not nearly as renewable as you’d think. 20-50 years ago? It should have been something huge.
At this point solar is so cheap and easy almost everything else looks silly in comparison.
There are plenty of countries that have nuclear power plants but no nuclear warheads or intention to get them. Like Japan and many European nations.
Nuclear is costly, but its the only green form of electricity production that is both feasible everywhere and can provide baseload power. As of yet, an energy transition towards renewables does not seem feasible without it. On top of that, SMR and MSR technologies will greatly reduce costs.
What is it with nuclear proponents and completely misunderatanding what baseload means
Renewables need the exact opposite of a baseload as a complement
might or would not will. If we go by hypotheticals, then any of the twenty promising new battery technologies “will” make battery storage so cheap that we will go with 100% renewables
Where did I mention we shouldn’t also use wind and solar?
Maybe I’m not the one misunderstanding….
And you’re making assumptions based on your own misguided beliefs and biased opinion.
The technology isn’t there yet but it’s not as impossible as you would make it seem: we have been using molten salt in solar powered plants for a while now. We are getting close to using it in commercial NPPs and there are many test projects already running. Luckily governments worldwide have seen the potential benefits and are investing heavily in them. If we leave everything to the “nuclear scary and bad” crowd we wouldn’t get anywhere…
Where did I mention you mentioning we shouldn’t also use wind and solar?
I said nuclear doesn’t complement renewables well, unlike a lot of people think who throw the word “baseload” around.
I also didn’t say “nuclear scary and bad”.
And it is complete nonsense. Of course you need baseload power. Thinking you can supply the entire world with backup power from batteries alone is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough storage capacity as it is, not to mention when we want to switch the world to EVs.
I used a word. I’m not throwing anything around, and I don’t have anything to do with what other people do or say.
And you said bad, I assumed scary, because that is the basic emotion many anti-nuclear people have about it, and clouds their judgment. Maybe you watched Chernobyl on HBO, but that is not something that can happen with modern reactors.
You haven’t made a single valid point and started off with personal attacks. That is not a way to have a discussion, with anyone, about anything.
Thinking you can supply the entire world with nuclear power is a ridiculous idea. We don’t have enough nuclear power as it is
Wow genius argument.
You mean the things with storage that you connect to the grid, which I could sign up for with a click on my power suppliers website right now?
Where am I claiming we need to supply the entire world with nuclear power? Again, this isn’t a nuclear vs. renewables discussion.
Just your wilful misinterpretation of it. And please refrain from personal attacks when a discussion doesn’t go your way. It is not doing your case any good.
Yes. Those. We don’t have the production capacity to make them for everyone worldwide. What is your point?
You will still need the right EV, the right vehicle-to-grid charging station and most importantly, a garage or a carport. So no, not just a click.
Also it will only supply enough storage for a home. Businesses and industries need power as well…
I’m not anti nuclear
Anyway so your plan is to have nuclear running to cover a fix part of the demand (“baseload”), say 60%, and then have renewables cover, depending on weather, anywhere from nothing so the grid crashes without storage or everything by themselves so the npps are useless?
And your reasoning why we can’t put the same money into storage instead of npps is that your still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech would be cheaper than the battery tech of today, an apples to oranges comparison, and you deliberatly ignore the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech that would make storage way cheaper?
Your whole argument is based on a fictional cost analysis.
Who said anything about going without storage? Come to think of it, let me ask this meta question: why do people always think in absolutes and convenient boxes?
How are NPPs useless? You don’t need so much solar that it does everything by itself if you have nuclear for baseload. Those solar panels are the things that will become useless come winter time. But yes, when there is a lot of sun, NPPs can be turned down during the day and be spun back up during the night. That’s how France does it already. And the still-fictional-but-likely nuclear tech may be even more flexible.
My argument isn’t based on any cost analysis. Where have I mentioned cost at all? I’m not arguing nuclear is going to be cheaper.
The issue is that we already don’t have enough production capacity for (Li-ion) EV batteries, we don’t have any production capacity for the still-fictional-but-likely battery tech, but we do have production capacity for NPPs.
Why would you put all your eggs in one basket and bet it all on a still-fictional-but-likely battery tech?
Are there any functioning SM or MS reactors?
I think only China and Russia have ones that generate power. Other than that, test reactors.
I concede the nuclear warheads part. Still true fir a lot of countries tho.
The fun thing about smr is that investors are fleeing and the start ups are going bancrupt. Additionally when the nuclear power plants were initially developed they had to upscale the to high size because the big overhead of maintenance, safety measures and poor yield from heat power coupling only gives a small net power output. So to make it work they had to make it big. Now they try to make it small again. Apart from some niche use they won’t make a big difference.
You’re comparing technology of the 1980s to today’s technology. Nuclear power research has come a long way since then.
Part of the reason NPPs (as in, conventional PWRs, as we use in the west) had to be so big is the giant containment structure to keep pressurised water inside the reactor. Molten salt does not need to be pressurised and is much more efficient because it runs at much higher temperatures than water does. So these two technologies combined definitely have the ability to reduce the size of NPPs.