←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.64s | 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 #
pil0u ◴[] No.45226293[source]
Nuclear has serious advantages over renewables when you consider the physical constraints: to match a large nuclear plant solely with wind or solar, you’d need far more land, material, and backup or storage to deal with intermittency. Renewable sources can’t reliably deliver the same baseload without huge infrastructure and/or major reductions in energy demand. The trade-offs make nuclear almost unavoidable if we want to decarbonize quickly while keeping stable power supply.
replies(2): >>45226350 #>>45230404 #
pfdietz ◴[] No.45226350[source]
Even with that, renewables are cheaper.

One often hears the pearl clutching about land area, but even in Europe the cost of land for renewables would be quite affordable. Building very expensive nuclear power plants to save on relatively cheap land would be penny wise, pound foolish, an optimization of the wrong metric.

replies(2): >>45227340 #>>45229338 #
bluefirebrand ◴[] No.45229338[source]
Who the actually cares about cheaper I want better and more reliable

Can we please stop optimizing everything into low quality low reliability garbage for the sake of being cheaper?

replies(1): >>45229423 #
pfdietz ◴[] No.45229423[source]
Renewables and storage would be cheaper at the same level of reliability.
replies(1): >>45233565 #
bluefirebrand ◴[] No.45233565[source]
You are delusional if you think renewables and storage will be the same reliability as base load plants like nuclear, gas, coal
replies(1): >>45233607 #
1. pfdietz ◴[] No.45233607[source]
Renewables and storage wouldn't drop gigawatts off the grid in an instant. They'd be massively redundant and distributed. That's how you get reliability.
replies(1): >>45234354 #
2. bluefirebrand ◴[] No.45234354[source]
No way any current place is building that kind of oversupply and redundancy
replies(1): >>45235017 #
3. pfdietz ◴[] No.45235017[source]
"No one is doing it therefore it is impossible" is a remarkable argument, especially from someone trying to argue nuclear can replace fossil fuels.