• Señor Mono@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Except that nuclear cannot be throttled and is no base line option.

    Wind, solar, batteries and gas play well together in central Europe. Other countries have other resources, like water.

    In addition hydrogen is complementary for heavy industries and can be produced when all batteries are filled up.

      • trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        In electricity generation, it typically can’t be throttled reasonably in a way that allows quick reaction to changing demand. Most reactors’ power output is regulated by changing the chemistry of the coolant, which can only be done gradually, Using quicker control rods for everyday power adjustment rather than only for shutdown and startup, is avoided to avoid uneven, and therefore inefficient fuel burn. While it could be done, it would make nuclear power even more uneconomical than it already is by forcing more frequent shutdowns for fuel changes.

    • coyootje@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that the other options are better. I’m just saying that nuclear can be a good temporary step in between to buy us time to perform the complete transition. And I get what you’re saying about hydrogen but with the issues surrounding drinking water I don’t know if we should really lean on that too much.

      • Señor Mono@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        The core difference here is: if we speed things up we can increase wind and solar and battery storage in the blink of an eye. Take a look at China’s new capacity.

        Nuclear not so much. Combined with the follow up questions of end storage or even getting the cheap uranium (Russia) there is no real reason to debate.

      • VibeSurgeon@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        14 hours ago

        It’s hardly viable as a temporary step when the time to bring a new one online is 20 years. The economics are already bad today and have been trending to be worse every year, while renewables and batteries are trending in the complete opposite direction.

        The time for transitionary measures has passed. Renewables and batteries are here today. All we need to do is build it.

      • madde@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

        New reactors take decades to build. We need to have energy autonomy and move towards net 0 now. We can’t wait for shiny new reactors, which will be ready in 2050, if we start planning now.