• Q ⠀@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nuclear, the costliest energy source available with massive room for long build projects and years of service contracts to manage the waste materials and deconstruction costs with at least nine figures. Cui bono?

    Wind and solar ia cheap and save, batteries work. Build time is manageable.

    • zagaberoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Pretending that the baseload problem is solved for solar and wind doesn’t help anybody. “batteries work”, but not at the scale of the demands of a power utility when wind and solar happen not to be producing.

      • zik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        But it is essentially solved. There are plenty of places in the world that use a variety of power sources including a large mix of renewables without needing nuclear. And they work just fine. I’m surprised that so many people here seem to be ignoring the reality that nuclear is unnecessary and very expensive compared with other power sources.

        For example South Australia uses mostly renewable energy sources today - primarily solar and wind with some in-fill from battery and gas. The last coal plant there was closed in 2016. There’s no nuclear power in Australia.

          • zik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            They’re using less and less all the time as they add additional renewables into the mix. Within a few years it’ll be approximatrely zero gas.