←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jama211 ◴[] No.45225631[source]
I’m totally fine with nuclear honestly, but I feel like I don’t understand something. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer with proper facts that explain why we couldn’t just make a whole load more renewable energy generators instead. Sure, it might cost more, but in theory any amount of power a nuclear plant would generate could also be achieved with large amounts of renewables no?
replies(26): >>45225678 #>>45225705 #>>45225742 #>>45225743 #>>45225786 #>>45225863 #>>45225896 #>>45225964 #>>45226093 #>>45226293 #>>45226552 #>>45226586 #>>45226616 #>>45226811 #>>45227067 #>>45227755 #>>45228653 #>>45228868 #>>45229249 #>>45229656 #>>45229704 #>>45229917 #>>45229942 #>>45229970 #>>45230035 #>>45231308 #
yongjik ◴[] No.45225964[source]
As a supporter of nuclear, I think most nuclear supporters will be happy if we achieve carbon neutrality by any means.

But as other commenters pointed out, renewables are not achieving that in most places. According to Google, a staunchly anti-nuclear Germany has 6.95 tons per capita at 2023. France achieved that at 1986 (!!) and is now at 4.14.

It's really a question that should be directed at renewables: "If renewables are so cheap and fast to deploy, how come 39 years after Chernobyl, Germany still cannot get below France in CO2 emission?"

replies(3): >>45226061 #>>45228884 #>>45230468 #
kieranmaine ◴[] No.45226061[source]
> It's really a question that should be directed at renewables: "If renewables are so cheap and fast to deploy, how come 39 years after Chernobyl, Germany still cannot get below France in CO2 emission?"

Because renewables and storage have only been produced at the scale and price required to achieve this for the last 5 years. [1]

The following article "Solar electricity every hour of every day is here and it changes everything"[2] is an interesting demonstration of how solar + batteries is pushing other generation sources to the periphery in most of the world.

Edit: Here is some more data for Brazil and the UK showing a large increase in solar over the last 5 years [3][4]

1. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-power-continu...

2. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e...

3. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/wind-and-solar-gene...

4.https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/a-record-year-for-b...

replies(1): >>45227708 #
strawhatguy ◴[] No.45227708[source]
just looked at 2, using their own numbers, and it says 97% to 24/365, in a sunny area (Las Vegas), which is like an outage 43 minutes out of every day (24 * 0.03 * 60).

That's not what many would consider as 24/365, and certainly not "every hour of every day".

replies(4): >>45227975 #>>45228999 #>>45230216 #>>45232521 #
1. gpm ◴[] No.45228999[source]
That's greater uptime than your average coal (85%), nuclear (91%) or gas (95%) power plants... https://www.nrdc.org/bio/rachel-fakhry/myth-247365-power-pla...

This, like normal power plant outages, is fine because in reality the entirety of your power does not come from one specific place, from a specific type of power. Instead we load balance over different places using the grid, and energy sources. It's much much rarer to have an extended period of cloud cover and no wind than an extended period of cloud cover, and an extended period without wind. Compound that with "over the entire electrical grid" and it doesn't happen.

And as a worst case version where the geographical and types-of-power constraints exist... e.g. if you're planning an off grid facility which is too small to justify wind power... backup generators exist.

replies(1): >>45230921 #
2. LunaSea ◴[] No.45230921[source]
> That's greater uptime than your average coal (85%), nuclear (91%) or gas (95%) power plants...

It really doesn't matter what the uptime of individual power plants is. What matters is the uptime for the consumer which is essentially 100% in EU countries.