DerGottesknecht @ derGottesknecht @feddit.de

Posts

0

Comments

62

Joined

2 yr. ago

1. Uranium.

And thats about it.

Here a paper on the base load.

Also solar panels power amortization time is around a year, depending on cell chemistry, production and installation location.

The reality is that renewable energy is unpredictable and best suited to flexible generation. Please do not misunderstand me, I fully support the development of all renewable technologies. However, when we wean ourselves of fossil fuels, we will need new baseload power plants. Nuclear is currently the best option to provide stable baseload generation.

Do you have a source for this?

Because grids already deal with changing demand and if the generation is geographically distributed this issue could probably be solved with less storage than electrc cars are using. See this paper

because of this

Overpopulation is a cop out, we could supply even more people. Its more an issue with greed and inequality that causes the problems instead of overpopulation

Didn't you hear him? ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

You know that with merit order pricing the cost of electricity only depended on the cost of the most expensive producer? So nuclear plants have close to 0 Influence on the price.

Thank you for debunking this nuclear fanboy bullshit that gets repeated all the time.

Spain is in the EU, so no visa necessary for tourists.

Nah, not really. They want to change from party tourism, which is concentrated on one small area to a more distributed culture tourism. Those tourist spend twice as much and not only in the big clubs but on small shops all around the island. So they have a plan and it makes sense.

Nothing in this article said anything about the police in question being corrupt of abusive of their power.

It said US Police...

High voltage dc transmission lines already exist and are already in use .

This is build faster and with fewer risks than nuclear.

What do you mean with 100% Storage?

you would need a LOT of transmission capability that is not currently available

can be build faster and cheaper than nuclear, doesn't need fuel and needs to be build anyway. We get the cheapest, strongest and least dangerous grid if we invest in more renewables, storage and better transmission. And that's something we can get done fast and start harvesting the profits in a few years.

Niclear has high investment cost and very low production cost which incentivises runnig at max output for as long as possible. This might block out renewables from the grid if their production cost is higher and make it less profitable to build them. So its really not a Symbiosis between nuclear and regenerative

What do you mean with 100% Storage? And why would you need it for multiple days if you have a grid that transports energy all around the continent and in future possible worldwide?

Thats very aptly put. I would also like to not only work the supply side and make demand more flexible to better work with renewables. And maybe get rid of personal cars and get people to ride more bikes and so on... And if we manage to stall/reverse global warming in the next 20 years we hopefully have fusion for all of the really big energy needs.

But most importantly, we need to do everything to get rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible. And that's where I think we agree completely.

once you have reactor designs up and running, building a lot of capacity both cheaper and quicker.

But its the same with renewables and storage, they will improve as well and most likely keep their cost advantage.

And you seem to ignore Opportunity costs again. If we build to much nuclear plants and don't need the energy later we could have invested the money better in other areas, like education. Again, money is a finite resource.

And another reason why I prefer renewables to nuclear is decentralisation. With renewables everyone can partake in energy generation, while nuclear is only for big corporations or governments. I'd rather have a robust decentralised grid where almost everyone is consuming and producing local most of the time than a grid relying on a few huge producers, which are a huge target for sabotage or vulnerable to natural catastrophes.

If the large governmental investments go into renewables and storage we have more energy faster.

Also nuclear doesn't play nice with a energy network with a large fluctuating renewable part. As the running cost of a nuclear plant is minimal compared to the investment there is a huge incentive to let a nuclear plant run at max output all the time, thereby blocking the grid for renewables.

Fusion is way better than fission

Building nuclear does not mean we stop building renewables, or that we build less of them.

Money as a finite resource as of now, so money spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables and storage. And that is the number 1 priority if we want to be carbon neutral as fast as possible. And if we manage to transition to an all renewable energy system and continue to need even more energy we can hopefully start with fusion in 20 years. But in the short term i would only invest in renewables.