• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    I think there’s a contingent of people who think nuclear is really, really cool. And it is cool. Splitting atoms to make power is undeniably awesome. That doesn’t make it sensible, though, and they don’t separate those two thoughts in their mind. Their solution is to double down on talking points designed for use against Greenpeace in the 90s rather than absorbing new information that changes the landscape.

    And then there’s a second group that isn’t even trying to argue in good faith. They “support” nuclear knowing it won’t go anywhere because it keeps fossil fuels in place.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      What isn’t sensible about nuclear? For context, I’m coming from the US in an area with lots of empty space (i.e. tons of place to store radioactive waste) and without much in the way of hydro (I’m in Utah, a mountainous, desert climate). We get plenty of sun as well as plenty of snow. Nuclear should provide power at night and throughout the winter, and since ~89% of homes are heated with natural gas, we only need higher electricity production in the summer when it’s hot, which is precisely what solar is great for.

      So here’s my thought process:

      • nuclear for base load demand to cover nighttime power needs, as well as the small percentage of homes using electricity for heat
      • solar for summer spikes in energy usage for cooling
      • batteries for any excess solar/nuclear generation

      If we had a nuclear plant in my area, we could replace our coal plants, as well as some of our natural gas plants. If we go with solar, I don’t think we have great options for electricity storage throughout the winter.

      This is obviously different in the EU, but surely the nordic countries have similar problems as we do here, so why isn’t nuclear more prevalent there?

      • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Because it makes no sense, environmentally or economically speaking. Nuclear is, as you said, base load. It can’t adjust for spikes in demand. So if there’s more energy in the grid than needed, it’s gonna be solar and wind that gets turned off to balance the grid. Investments in nuclear thus slow down the adoption of renewables.

        Solar is orders of magnitude cheaper to build, while nuclear is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity, even discounting the waste storage, which gets delegated the the public.

        Battery technology has been making massive gains in scalability and cost in recent years. What we need is battery arrays to cover nighttime demand and spikes in production or demand, combined with a more adaptive industry that performs energy intensive tasks when it’s abundant. With countries that have large amounts of solar, it is already happening that during peak production, energy cost goes to zero (or even negative, as traded between utilities companies).

        About the heating: gas can not stay the main way to heat homes, it’s yet another fossil fuel. What we need is heat pumps, which can have an efficiency of >300% (1kWh electricity gets turned into 3kWh of heat, by taking ambient heat from outside). Combined with large, well-insulated warm-water reservoirs, you can heat up more water than you need to higher temperature during times of electricity oversupply, and have more than enough to last you the night, without even involving batteries. Warm water is an amazing energy storage medium. Batteries cover electricity demand as well as a backup in case you need uncharacteristically much water. This is a system that’s slowly getting adopted in Europe, and it’s great. Much cheaper, and 100% clean.

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          You bring up heated water as a method of storage, and it reminds me of a neighborhood in Alberta, Canada that uses geothermal + solar heated water storage for 52 homes. They’ve been able to successfully heat the entire neighborhood with only solar over the winter in 2015-2016 and have gotten > 90% solar heating in other years.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community

          There’s a huge number of new storage technologies being developed, and the fact that some even work on a seasonal basis for long term storage is amazing.

          • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            That’s pretty cool! Still seems to have some issues, but as the technology matures, that seems like a promising technology. I didn’t know seasonal warm water storage was a thing

    • Devorlon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I’m very much in the first camp and need to remind myself whenever I think about arriving due nuclear