• mosiacmango@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Renewables and batteries have steady output and can be built much faster and cheaper than nuclear. It’s why 94% of all new power generation globally in 2024 was renewables.

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Batteries plus solar to equal a constant output power is much more expensive than nuclear. It’s when you have other sources that you can have less storage that solar gets cheaper.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 days ago

        Denmark is surrounded by sea. Offshore wind power is pretty reliable and it is a lie that solar and batteries would be more expensive than building nuclear power plant. Plenty of households theses days buy solar with battery and safe money with it comparing to buying from the grid. And nuclear power is the most expensive in the grid. For Europe nuclear is at around 20 cents/kWh, coal around 8-10, lignite around 5, and solar is down to less then 5 cents/kWh.

        Furthermore nuclear power will get more expensive the more demand is there as Uranium is a finite resource. And the most likely trading partner will be Russia or countries under Russias influence.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 days ago

          Finite resource goes for battery minerals even more so, and solar production capacity is also limited.

          Agree on offshore wind, but it’s also got intermittency.

          You can save money with solar and batteries, but only after about 30 years. That’s a much longer payback time than any other forms like nuclear. Plus you wouldn’t have representative grid loads overnight.

          The costs you cited are just for the panel electricity, not taking into account any storage.

          Right now it costs about $400/kwh. You’ll need about 12 hours storage to cover over night, which means about $50k/kw. If the lifespan is 20 years, (which is generous) that means the added cost is 28 cents per kwh just for the storage. I’m sure the batteries will get more efficient, but they will also be in more demand, so that price could go up or down.

          Do you have better numbers showing 100% solar is cheaper than nuclear? Why is nuclear bad? It’s less deaths than even wind energy and is a proven technology to minimize emissions. Why limit yourself?