In everything I've ever read or watched about clean and renewable energy I've never heard the word "cheap" or "inexpensive" used. Cheap energy is dirty energy. Every expert I've heard talk about the future says nuclear plays a part. It may not be a huge part and it may be different than how it's currently deployed but it's required for the level of energy we'll be consuming.
Tesla Cybertruck: The Future?
- Thread starter erstwild
- Start date
In everything I've ever read or watched about clean and renewable energy I've never heard the word "cheap" or "inexpensive" used. Cheap energy is dirty energy. Every expert I've heard talk about the future says nuclear plays a part. It may not be a huge part and it may be different than how it's currently deployed but it's required for the level of energy we'll be consuming.
Lovetheworld
Active member
Well, newsflash: Renewable energy can be so cheap it can already beat fossil fuels depending on location.
The most notable examples are in the middle east, where they sometimes use solar panels for the installations to pump up oil! You gotta love the irony in that!
And they only care about what is cheaper to run. Same for two cases of new powerplants in Middle East and India. They had an opening for a new powerplant, and solar won, just because it reached the lowest price per kWh. Completely no subsidies or governmental policies involved in that choice.
Of course those are sunny locations, it would probably not apply where I live in terms of Solar. But here, after having many years of subsidized windmill farms, now windmill farms are being built without subsidy (because of the improvements)
Then, if you see the South Korean windmill project costing 43 billion dollars and providing a 8.2GW capacity.
Hickley C reactor costs 30 billion dollars and provides providing only a 3.2GW capacity.
In my opinion, I don't really like nuclear that much, but I still see the relevance for nuclear.
But also in my opinion renewable energy will become cheaper and cheaper and it will be globally adopted just on cost basis. No subsidies or policies.
Whether you like it or how clean it really is. Same goes for electric cars (turning point is almost there). You can discuss how much cleaner it really is, or the externalities, but if a tech is cheaper to run, people and business will use it.
Of course, governmental policies will only accelerate it.
This turning point is in some cases already reached (as given the examples above)
And yes, wind and solar are not constant. However, nuclear is very constant, not as flexible as a gas powerplant (which is the most flexible)
In my opinion we will have a future with mostly renewables, perhaps still a little fossil, but a baseline of some nuclear power. Combined with lots of energy storage for peaks.
The most notable examples are in the middle east, where they sometimes use solar panels for the installations to pump up oil! You gotta love the irony in that!
And they only care about what is cheaper to run. Same for two cases of new powerplants in Middle East and India. They had an opening for a new powerplant, and solar won, just because it reached the lowest price per kWh. Completely no subsidies or governmental policies involved in that choice.
Of course those are sunny locations, it would probably not apply where I live in terms of Solar. But here, after having many years of subsidized windmill farms, now windmill farms are being built without subsidy (because of the improvements)
Then, if you see the South Korean windmill project costing 43 billion dollars and providing a 8.2GW capacity.
Hickley C reactor costs 30 billion dollars and provides providing only a 3.2GW capacity.
In my opinion, I don't really like nuclear that much, but I still see the relevance for nuclear.
But also in my opinion renewable energy will become cheaper and cheaper and it will be globally adopted just on cost basis. No subsidies or policies.
Whether you like it or how clean it really is. Same goes for electric cars (turning point is almost there). You can discuss how much cleaner it really is, or the externalities, but if a tech is cheaper to run, people and business will use it.
Of course, governmental policies will only accelerate it.
This turning point is in some cases already reached (as given the examples above)
And yes, wind and solar are not constant. However, nuclear is very constant, not as flexible as a gas powerplant (which is the most flexible)
In my opinion we will have a future with mostly renewables, perhaps still a little fossil, but a baseline of some nuclear power. Combined with lots of energy storage for peaks.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 9101
Guest
SMRs completly change that.
Small Modular Reactors...
Small Modular Reactors Explained - Nuclear Power's Future? - YouTube
Cool stuff
Small Modular Reactors Explained - Nuclear Power's Future? - YouTube
Cool stuff
Lovetheworld
Active member
Yeah thats a nice development (to be more flexible) but will not solve most problems. Like cost. Which is still higher than renewables I think.
What I find funny about Nuclear reactors is that if everybody invoved is confident about it, why do they typically place those things on the edge of the country? Here in Europe we have that. Why place them near a border?
Anyway, I havent written nuclear off, but like most things it is also not an easy answer to our problems.
And I am very confident that most new technologies will be adapted purely driven by lower cost, not by idealism.
A typical market disruption scenario will happen in a few segments. And nuclear is not following that scenario now.
But yeah, a fusion reactor would be nice. However we should never wait for that to come.
What I find funny about Nuclear reactors is that if everybody invoved is confident about it, why do they typically place those things on the edge of the country? Here in Europe we have that. Why place them near a border?
Anyway, I havent written nuclear off, but like most things it is also not an easy answer to our problems.
And I am very confident that most new technologies will be adapted purely driven by lower cost, not by idealism.
A typical market disruption scenario will happen in a few segments. And nuclear is not following that scenario now.
But yeah, a fusion reactor would be nice. However we should never wait for that to come.
socceronly
Active member
Artificially inflating the cost of nuclear was one of the strategies used to kill it. So the real cost of building one is probably a lot less.
Those windmills won't operate for a 100 years, which some of the new Gen 4 reactors are designed to do. Panels certainly wont operate for anything close to that. They would have to be replace multiple times and shipped off to whichever set of children are currently the cheapest for hammering them into bits to get a few cents out of them and dying in the process. ... sorry that was overly dramatic....lol
Those windmills won't operate for a 100 years, which some of the new Gen 4 reactors are designed to do. Panels certainly wont operate for anything close to that. They would have to be replace multiple times and shipped off to whichever set of children are currently the cheapest for hammering them into bits to get a few cents out of them and dying in the process. ... sorry that was overly dramatic....lol
nuclear plants require a large amount of cooling water, often from the ocean, seas, lakes or rivers. Country borders are often oceans, seas, lakes and rivers.
plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
There are gonna be some great “hold my beer” moments with this that end up on YouTube.