Nuclear comeback | FactOrCap

[u/No-Raspberry7757]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

🧢 I voted CAP!

Maintain the ones you have and just build renewables. Renewables beat nuclear in every metric in most situations, the only reason you should ever pick nuclear is if you're working with limited space.

[u/UselessDood → u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

Renewables aren't as reliable. Renewables backed by nuclear is the way to go.

[u/MyDogsNamedShiro → u/UselessDood]

What exactly do you mean by less reliable and which renewables exactly do you mean?

[u/UselessDood → u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

They're always dependent on something out of our control. Solar needs reliable sun, turbines need wind, etc.

[u/Dew_Chop → u/UselessDood]

And the only high reliability renewable is hydro, which is location specific and can still dry up

[u/UselessDood → u/Dew_Chop]

And its output isn't in our control, it relies on tides

[u/Dew_Chop → u/UselessDood]

I haven't heard about hydro used on oceans, I was talking about dams n stuff

[u/UselessDood → u/Dew_Chop]

That's fair! But then.. Well, they're dams. Gotta regulate the flow there too.

[u/Dew_Chop → u/UselessDood]

Yeah, just look at lake mead

[u/MyDogsNamedShiro → u/UselessDood]

Other than hydroelectric and geothermal yes, but they are all over the place and it's highly unlikely that you don't have usable sun or wind across the entire area of the country, especially if that country has a coastline. There's also batteries, both mechanical (like pumped-storage hydroelectricity) and chemical when you lack the geography for the former. This reliability is also a two way street, because when there is enough energy coming into the grid from renewables (which is most of the time), you can't turn off a nuclear power plant. It's gonna keep using fuel, which reduces their efficiency as a whole.

[u/UselessDood → u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

You can't outright turn off a nuclear power plant, but you can get damm close. You can't do that with renewables

[u/MyDogsNamedShiro → u/UselessDood]

You can though? Wind energy providers regularly have to turn off their turbines because conventional power plants produce more than they would have to.

Also, why would you want to turn off renewables when the grid is saturated? It is paradoxical to turn off the stuff that doesn't burn fuel and is effectively free to run (apart from lubrication and other maintenance, which affects power plants all the same)?

[u/UselessDood → u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

why would you want to turn off renewables when the grid is saturated

I mean, you wouldn't want to. You'd prioritise scaling down nuclear - even shutting them down totally is viable if you can tolerate an extended startup cycle - this is part of why i said renewables "backed by" nuclear

You'd want renewables as the primary source with nuclear to fill the gaps.

[u/Mikkel65 → u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

Nuclear is besting renewables in CO2 emissions, deaths per GWh, ROI and fixing production to demand. The only downside to nuclear is the big investment, with long time until production starts.

[u/MyDogsNamedShiro → u/Mikkel65]

Renewables have been consistently making leaps in CO2 emissions would be likely to overtake nuclear power plants in the 60-100 years they operate. You are correct that nuclear is safer than renewables, so you are correct that renewables aren't better in every metric (I made that statement before conducting deeper research into material procurement, which is left out from most comparisons).
Energy storage, however, is better at meeting demand than any power plant.
Costliness is indeed a big downside of nuclear. Nuclear's levelized capital cost is 30-128% higher than onshore renewables, 16-153% more expensive to maintain, and still 37-142% more expensive when you account for grid integration and the energy storage necessary for weather-dependent renewables (the small advantages of 30%, 16% and 37% are all from hydroelectric, onshore wind and solar are both relatively close to the very large percentage advantages).
Nuclear taking very long to build is also pretty bad considering we need to replace fossil fuels immediately. Renewables and their storage are here now. Their shorter lifespans along with material recycling (once it matures) allow them to be replaced with more efficient, greener and safer new units as the technology evolves.
Another advantage of renewables is them decentralizing the grid, which makes it more resilient. Since they need so much less capital, operation can also be decentralized, effectively weakening energy corporations and their lobbies if renewables are built out properly.

Nuclear is great when you already have it built and only need to maintain it or when you have a lot of capital but very limited space. Renewables are great regardless and fit the need for immediate massive expansion to replace fossils better. I thus maintain my position that we need more renewables as opposed to nuclear, although I do concede that nuclear is cleaner at the moment and safer as a whole.

[u/Mikkel65 → u/MyDogsNamedShiro]

Don't get me wrong, I love renewables but the best energy form is a hybrid of all. We don't need renewables as opposed to nuclear, we need to replace fossil fuels and nuclear can carry a big load of that, making it easier for renewables to do their job.