Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?
Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.
Pretending that the baseload problem is solved for solar and wind doesn't help anybody. "batteries work", but not at the scale of the demands of a power utility when wind and solar happen not to be producing.
New nuclear installations will take 10 years and more. They will cost more then anyone is willing to pay. The math is clear, batteries and renewables like geo heat pumps, solar and wind are dead cheap in comparison.
Energy conservation is still the main goal.
Nuclear energy is the false promises that let us believe we can continue as we were.
But it is essentially solved. There are plenty of places in the world that use a variety of power sources including a large mix of renewables without needing nuclear. And they work just fine. I'm surprised that so many people here seem to be ignoring the reality that nuclear is unnecessary and very expensive compared with other power sources.
For example South Australia uses mostly renewable energy sources today - primarily solar and wind with some in-fill from battery and gas. The last coal plant there was closed in 2016. There's no nuclear power in Australia.
Not sure how app.electricitymaps.com gets their data but according them SA uses around 30% gas. How much are you saying they are using?
They're using less and less all the time as they add additional renewables into the mix. Within a few years it'll be approximatrely zero gas.
Talk to me when it's all battery and no gas. That's what nuclear would be replacing, not the renewables. Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other.
Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other
Not at all. Nuclear's terrible at ramping up for short term loads like in-fill gaps. Gas can be idle most of the time and then fired up as required. You don't want to be relying on it most of the time but for in-fill it's cheaper and better than nuclear.
So your grand plan is to keep carbon emitting sources until batteries can completely cover the baseload in all conditions? That's a non-solution.
Batteries, limited as they are, can certainly mitigate ramping issues with nuclear, though.
No, that's not it. Ultimately a mix of renewables will replace everything. Add say tidal and pumped hydro plus maybe some geothermal etc. and you don't need any non-renewable energy sources.
Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?
Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.
Pretending that the baseload problem is solved for solar and wind doesn't help anybody. "batteries work", but not at the scale of the demands of a power utility when wind and solar happen not to be producing.
New nuclear installations will take 10 years and more. They will cost more then anyone is willing to pay. The math is clear, batteries and renewables like geo heat pumps, solar and wind are dead cheap in comparison.
Energy conservation is still the main goal.
Nuclear energy is the false promises that let us believe we can continue as we were.
But it is essentially solved. There are plenty of places in the world that use a variety of power sources including a large mix of renewables without needing nuclear. And they work just fine. I'm surprised that so many people here seem to be ignoring the reality that nuclear is unnecessary and very expensive compared with other power sources.
For example South Australia uses mostly renewable energy sources today - primarily solar and wind with some in-fill from battery and gas. The last coal plant there was closed in 2016. There's no nuclear power in Australia.
Not sure how app.electricitymaps.com gets their data but according them SA uses around 30% gas. How much are you saying they are using?
They're using less and less all the time as they add additional renewables into the mix. Within a few years it'll be approximatrely zero gas.
Talk to me when it's all battery and no gas. That's what nuclear would be replacing, not the renewables. Nuclear and solar/wind complement each other.
Not at all. Nuclear's terrible at ramping up for short term loads like in-fill gaps. Gas can be idle most of the time and then fired up as required. You don't want to be relying on it most of the time but for in-fill it's cheaper and better than nuclear.
So your grand plan is to keep carbon emitting sources until batteries can completely cover the baseload in all conditions? That's a non-solution.
Batteries, limited as they are, can certainly mitigate ramping issues with nuclear, though.
No, that's not it. Ultimately a mix of renewables will replace everything. Add say tidal and pumped hydro plus maybe some geothermal etc. and you don't need any non-renewable energy sources.