• DerHaseWillSchmako@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    More like 2 to 3 decades minimum and then they can be recycled. Don’t forget the speed and the extreme low cost in which solar can be deployed. There really is no meaningful benefit of nuclear against solar.

    • Photonic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Ah, well that’s good news, maybe I had some older data then. But even if it’s 25 years it’s still much less than the life cycle NPPs. And after that you have to go into another process of recycling that requires even more energy and time. And as we’ve seen with plastic recycling, it never works as well as promised.

      There really is no meaningful benefit of nuclear against solar.

      The meaningful benefit of nuclear over solar is the fact that we don’t have sun for at least 50% of the day and the NPP can continue to run around the clock.

      In fact, solar panels have a maximum power capacity of only 25% compared to nuclear’s 93%. reliability nuclear vs solar

      So it’s actually much worse than just the 50% of the day when it is nighttime.

      You still need baseload power during the times when solar or wind doesn’t cut it.

      Battery storage is an option but we already can’t mine enough lithium to make batteries for all cars to transition to EVs. And while we’re hearing about new battery technologies every day and some kinetic or thermal storage technologies you will always need extra resources and space just to provide baseload power. You realistically can’t make enough storage capacity for the entire electric grid worldwide. So yes, there will always be a need for NPPs, since baseload power is now mainly provided by coal and gas plants.