Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds::Renewable energy provides the cheapest source of new energy for Australia, a new draft report from the CSIRO and energy market operator has found.

  • Sasha@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    It really seems like people can’t get past the fact that while nuclear did have an unfair reputation, it’s just too late to make use of it.

    Like yeah, it sucks that people blocked it and we built tons of fossil fuel power instead, but now we just have a better option and we can give up that fight.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Nuclear power and cognitive dissonance. That’s why people are still touting SMRs as the future, except they cost even more than traditional nuclear. Also, they don’t exist.

      • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ah yes, “X Technology doesn’t exist yet, so it’s stupid and useless and people that support its development are dumb”

        You see it so often

      • dgmib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Both China and Russia have built operational SMRs. (Not to mention the fact that the nuclear reactors we’ve had for decades in military submarines and ship are SMRs). They exist.

        We don’t have enough data about the economics or SMRs to say for sure, most (but not all) economic models put LCOE for SMRs at half the cost of traditional PWR nuclear reactors.

        It’s hard to judge from the current smr projects what the costs will be. The largest cost in building nuclear power is all the regulatory oversight. Every PWR plant is different and needs to go through the entire process from scratch. But once we have some successful and proven SMR designs. They can be mass produced from the same vetted and approved designs without needing to go through the massively expensive design process again.

        SMRs are simpler too. Which makes them cheaper. They don’t need as many layers of redundant safety systems like traditional reactors do. Even in the worst case scenario, an SMR can meltdown and a person living next door would be perfectly safe.

        All of that adds up to the a lot of potential cost savings if we mass produce them.

        If we can build enough solar or other renewable power to replace fossil fuels without nuclear, great.

        But most people have no idea just how much it’s going to take. We need to not only replace all the fossil fuels on the grid today. Plus have extra capacity to charge storage for use when its night and cover the added demand of all the electric cars, trucks, furnaces, everything else that needs to become electric.

        We need to be building nuclear too. We can’t build enough solar and wind fast enough.

    • Rooskie91@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      For the love of God, look up the importance of maintaining grid frequency and which energy sources are reliable enough to do it.

      Because renewables cannot. Our other option is to build insane infrastructure that can transmit DC long distances, which China has done. However, most countrie do not have the wealth or resources to do this.