Antitoxic9087

about a decade ago renewables reached grid parity with conventional sources in most of the world and experience exponential growth so far. I hope the same happen for plant based products.

Although renewable + bess still wins according to most recent studies on that matter, cost comparison between nuke and renewable / Bess is not that useful. Assumptions on the longevity of nuke reactors, for example, helps little if the fleet of reactors end up constantly break down and require repairment as in France and Belgium. So lcoe of nuke over long time span is highly uncertain and contingent; even in construction phase nuclear projects already entails higher risk in time and budget overrun than renewables. Plus the positive feedback loop of learning curve, evident in renewable and Bess, is not so visible for nuclear.

What is more useful for sake of current policy discussion is deployment rate and scalability, which renewable plus batteries clearly wins.

and you don't seem to understand...

solar panels in a desert seems relative low impact infrastructure

I looked into the gwp* thing and it is more appropriate for macroscopic / global analysis than for the carbon accounting of individuals. if one reduces 1 unit per year of emission of short live GHG now, can they claim the positive climate effects by comparing with the counterfactual baseline, where they continue to emit the GHG with the same rate forever? That is the equivalent of claiming an infinite amount of emission reduction.

in any case it is always possible to use a pulse response function to account for the gwp of any instantaneous emission increase/decrease, since gwp* is just the convolution of the pulse response over time.

just thinking: why stop at 2? I suppose a grid of heat towers with mirrors beneath would provide maximum utilization of the solar radiation

its the marginal cost of running existing plants, mainly from fuel cost.

since death star is capable of delivery a blast with high energy density, its core might be a nuclear fusion or anti matter power plant. maybe the mass there generates sufficient gravitational force.

The political context here is that the Australian conservatives (the liberal coalition I suppose), who have been vividly against climate policies and renewables, are now trying to propose nuke projects on coal power plant sites. Many of these coal power plants are soon to be phased out with renewables plus storage in the queue for the freed transmission capacity, so there isn't really any advantages these sites can offer for nuke projects decades from now.

Of course, any realistic realization of nukes in Australia would be no earlier than 2040 (some even suggest 2050), by then they could already get 100% renewable in energy system easily.