If there is no wind or sun, we're facing a global apocalypse. There's always wind or sun. You just need to capture it. Nuclear is not on demand either, most plants aren't designed to be. Nuclear is designed to be baseload energy, which, for decades, has fallen out of favour in lieu of more flexible doctrines. Octopus Energy is doing quite a bit of work with AI and energy demand, using incentives to control public energy consumption, which reduces the backup you would need for renewables. Also, that study I referenced, presumes about a 25% decrease in cost of nuclear. Again, best case scenario for nuclear.
It's actually the worst time to get started on nuclear. Costs keep going up. There's a reason why countries overwhelmingly prefer to invest in renewables over nuclear. This includes nuclear companies. EDF is one of the largest investors in renewables, and it's actually the profitable side of the business. It's going to be the taxpayer that's going to pay for nuclear, and they're not going to get their money's worth, as opposed to renewables.
That doesn't make any sense. That's like, going to a mechanic and giving them a few million to start an auto business vs going to some random guy, and giving them billions to start an auto business. Sure, eventually it would work out, just by sheer volume of investment, but it's just not feasible. Otherwise governments and private industry would've just done it. That's like saying we should've had the foresight to invest in hydrogen powered cars. Why prioritise that when batteries are easier and cheaper?
But that's the thing with nuclear. The upfront costs are massive, and literally irrecoverable. Can you name a single nuclear powerplant that has broken even? I can't. Not unless, it's one that the government has built and then handed over to private industry, for example. Reducing safety from nuclear powerplants is not viable long term. And that's the only way to get them commercially viable.
And yet, it's backed up by studies showing that nuclear is faster for decarbonisation, S&P Global's estimates for the massive growth of renewables vs nuclear indicating China's preferences. But really, this is all part of China's infrastructure push. The funding is going to renewables, but China is keeping a foot in the door for nuclear. At best, nuclear would work, in a majority renewables grid if they cut about 25% off the cost.
Poor track record with safety (not talking about the big issues such as meltdowns, but smaller issues such as minor leaks, and workplace incidents). Nobody's interested in building them unless they've got profit guarantees and subsidies from the government. Nobody's interested in insuring them in full (unless it's the government). Nobody's interested in the eventual decommissioning process, which can take a century, and again, still costs. Renewables will be up and running, and profitable, long before nuclear is constructed.
Is it though? You'd need to cut the price of nuclear by about 1/4. Even then, renewables are faster at decarbonisation. Not that nuclear represented a large amount of the German grid in the first place. Best case scenario for Germany, is extending the lifespan of their plants not more than a few years.
Usually it's renewables that's sold over the border rather than nuclear energy. Also, nuclear and batteries, for example, are not comparable. Batteries have an ROI of less than three years. It'll be profitable long before nuclear is even constructed. That's presuming private companies are interested in them. Are you aware of a single nuclear power plant, anywhere in the world, that is unsubsidised? Or even an insurance company that's willing to insure a plant in full? Usually not, usually it's subsidised by the government, with guarantees of profitability to private companies, and at least partially insured and decommissioned by the government. Because nobody wants anything to do with nuclear. Not even nuclear companies. EDF's renewables part of the company, is subsidising the nuclear side. On top of all this, studies are clear on what is faster and more effective at reducing emissions.
I don't have to tell China they're finding it out themselves. Yes, China leads in deploying nuclear, for various reasons. Energy, research, military. But despite this, renewables represents by far the largest investment and growth. Though China's nuclear energy ambitions seem large, don't forget, it's a huge country. It's just a small piece of the pie, the pie being dominated by renewables.
It took Finland nearly two decades to complete Scandinavia's newest reactor. Sweden can remove the cap, but good luck finding private companies willing to invest in that. Not without guaranteed profits and subsidies. Of course Sweden could just build it themselves. But it's not cheap.
There is some evidence to suggest a small nuclear presence in an otherwise majority renewables grid, can be ideal. But this is the most generous position you can have for nuclear.
People also think that nuclear is some sort of magical thing that provides cheap unlimited energy on demand, when really it's an expensive, lumbering option, that is slow to construct and difficult to maintain. There's a reason why even China prefers renewables over nuclear, and they have reactors for military research.
Depends. Renewables are faster at decarbonising than nuclear. Only if we're starting from scratch. They're also cheaper, and at scale, more reliable. Difference here was, Germany shut down existing nuclear before they could ramp up renewables. I will add that this is the most generous argument to maintain nuclear.
Perhaps the timetable for them could've been extended, but when literally one of the largest nuclear power companies in the world prefers renewables, and balks at the cost of opening a nuclear powerplant without significant government guarantees and subsidies, that should tell you something. The nuclear argument is usually fuelled by the mining lobby. Even China, who does not care for public opinion, and has an active nuclear stake for military purposes, prefers renewables. The only argument for Germany was the when was the appropriate time to shut down the reactors, not that it shouldn't have been done.
I will also add, the new Brother laser toners, can be a bit iffy with their chip. They're not as easy to refill (or use aftermarket toners) as the used to be, not impossible, but it's not as easy. Nothing wrong with Brother tho, when it works, it works well, and reliably. It's not like HP, where the cheaper printers require a ink subscription service (and in my experience, tend to break more easily).
If you want a simple colour printer and scanner, go for a Canon Megatank or Epson Ecotank. If you're only printing black and white, a Brother laser printer is good, just a touch more expensive than other equivalents. The OEM toner isn't cheap, in theory tho, they can last much longer without needing to print. The ink tank printers have far cheaper ink. Only downside is that it requires printing once a week to ensure that nothing clogs up. That said, these tank printers are smaller and lighter than Brother Colour AIO's.
It would be a bit more serious if the territories they claimed were Japanese, but they're not. China's not going to pick that fight, because they know they won't win. China has picked regions guarded by nations that have ships such as these guarding their territories.
Arcturus @ Arcturus @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 65Joined 2 yr. ago
You can't go cheap on nuclear. Otherwise you're looking at a myriad of political corruption and safety concerns, which in part will cost you a government, where you'll eventually have to start all over again. Or you could just invest in renewables. Like what China is overwhelmingly doing.