105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
105 points (71.6% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6190 readers
125 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure if that's an unpopular opinion so much as a completely incorrect one.
The simple truth is that nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build.
Renewables and storage are much cheaper and take way less time to start producing energy.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear? Please don't try and tell me about base load (not needed), SMRs (even more expensive) or fusion (not going to happen in our lifetimes)
Peak-load scaling. The major advantage that fossil fuel generators have is that you can spin them up faster to react to higher demand. You can't do that with solar or wind, but you can with nuclear.
If we had grid-scale storage solutions, dealing with peak load would be easier but it's still more cost effective to build pumped hydro storage than large battery arrays. Most electric grids have to produce electricity on-demand which means they have to be highly responsive.
We don't have good grid-scale storage yet. We need demand-responsive energy production. Fission is better than burning coal.
That's why I said renewables and storage. There are lots of storage technologies such as pumped hydro and various kinds of battery that can react very quickly to increased demand. You categorically cannot do that with nuclear, where did you learn this?
Firstly, nuclear needs to run 24/7 as it's not economically feasible to do anything else given how much these things cost. Secondly, you're still heating water to create steam to drive turbines to generate electricity. All of that takes time to ramp up and means that nuclear is not used to generate in response to increased demand.
This is not correct.
A Brief Survey of Load-Following Capabilities in Modern Nuclear Power Plants
It's true that load-following is mostly not done with nuclear in the US, but this is policy/common practice/habit, not a technical limitation of nuclear power plants.
Also, I mentioned pumped hydro storage to point out specifically that battery technology really isn't effective enough yet. It still doesn't scale well, it's too expensive for large grids.
thanks for sharing this!
hilarious to see the other guy doubling down even after you cited an actual source.
It is, you just proved it yourself:
"typical ramps are kept below 1.5%/min."
Compare that with batteries or pumped hydro.
That's plenty fast enough for a power grid.
1.5% of 900MW is 13.5MW. That's plenty of power output scaling per minute.
I think you're getting peaker plants, e.g gas fired confused with load following.
Nuclear plants are not used as peaker plants. you incorrectly stated that they are.
It's a shame that you're being voted down here, even though your points are actually more on the factual side. Well, that's probably the fate of those who "dare" to say something against nuclear. Even if everyone else demonstrably doesn't have a clue about the subject: They're still bashing it. It's just good that downvotes on Lemmy don't really matter.
Yes, but your assertion that renewable is cheaper completely ignored the cost of grid scale energy storage suitable to remove fossil fuel generation.
No, it's cheaper than new nuclear with storage included.
Your statement disagrees with what I could turn up on duckduckgo. Can you provide your sources, I'm not a subject matter expert.
Sure:
"Later this month the LA Board of Water and Power Commissioners is expected to approve a 25-year contract that will serve 7 percent of the city's electricity demand at 1.997¢/kwh for solar energy and 1.3¢ for power from batteries. ... Conventional nuclear often benefits from optimistic estimates in the range of 12¢/kwh."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/?sh=1e2355a25971
I mean, it's speculation. Current estimated completion is November this year, and the battery power price was already raised to 4c in 2020 estimated https://www.capdyn.com/news/capital-dynamics-and-8minute-solar-energy-partner-on-breakthrough-400mwac-eland/
This would still be cheaper than nuclear. But it's not a true comparison. I am asking the cost to replace fossil generation. Which means some degrees of over provisioning and redundancy. The bank of America paints a very different picture in its 2023 report (https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/) but I hardly trust them.
Either way your evidence from anecdote makes it clear you have as little understanding as I do. So I am still none the wiser if solar + generation is a solution today that makes nuclear irrelevant. If it's not we can't just keep burning coal till it is though. People have been saying for 30 years let's just use renewables. But the world would look very different today if we had transition to nuclear energy back then.
To be fair, solar and wind are dependent on wind availability and solar availability year-round. Nuclear is buildable nearly anywhere. There are a lot of places other options aren't as possible or efficient.
It's really not. It needs a reliable water source for a start.
Small scale reactors with stirling generators can power neighborhoods with simple air cooling.
Do you have any examples of them in operation, hooked up to a grid? How much does the energy they produce cost?
Even large scale nuclear plants are not economically viable without huge subsidies. Small scale reactors are even less cost effective. I haven't really seen any of them "in the wild" except for research reactors or something like that.
Oh, I know. Making a wild claim about SMRs and then running for the hills when asked for evidence is pretty standard around here.
Yeah, unfortunately.
BTW, do you work in the field or something? Cause you sound kinda knowledgeable.
No, it’s just an area I’m interested in. There’s so much misinformation and people being confidently incorrect that I spent some time reading up on what’s going on.
Hats off to you for doing research and trying to pass on the knowledge in hostile comment sections. 💪 So sad that they don't care for facts and really love to be confidentiality incorrect. I mean, I have a degree in that matter - still doesn't count and everybody wants to keep spinning their (demonstrably false) narrative.
Thanks, I appreciate it!
So what? Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower. Also, I suspect it's much cheaper than carbon recapture.
I think you've lost the point entirely. The question is "what do we need to effectively generate electricity without fossil fuels?" Nuclear is one such answer. Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
Cost is cost and with new nuclear you can add on a fair chunk to whatever amount is quoted because they often go way over budget.
Given renewables and storage is cheaper, why would you want to piss money away?
We're been developing nuclear for 70 years. In that time it's not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened. Time to let go.
I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market ... and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it's another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?
There it is.
If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I'd be pushing new nuclear hard. I could argue that we should continue to burn coal and gas while we make the leap to nuclear ... in 10-15 year's time. No, let's make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.
Hey, wait. Are you shilling for the fossil fuel industry?
Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody's arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That's the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.
We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.
Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?
If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.
All your sophistry, ignorance, and rudeness aside, you've yet to make a single compelling argument for nuclear.
I think we're done here.
On that we can agree.
I don't like it, but I'll have to go along with it
Presumably you mean "Rufen Sie ein Taxi bitte sonst verpass' ich meinen Flug"?