Honestly wouldn’t mind a few gigawatt of these as baseload insurance and the rest renewable for the few days a year the renewable grid might struggle to net zero. So much better from a pollution and radiation exposure standpoint than coal or on-demand gas turbines
Comment on “Lies and fantasies:” Bowen puts $387 billion price tag on Dutton’s nuclear plans
joelfromaus@aussie.zone 1 year ago
SMR aren’t a bad idea, they’re just not a ‘now idea’. In the short term our current renewable systems are doing exactly what we intended them to do.
Frankly this is just dog whistling to climate deniers to throw further discourse towards wind, solar and storage. But with that being said; having nuclear base-load available would strengthen our energy supply in times of need.
Getawombatupya@aussie.zone 1 year ago
vividspecter@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The problem is more of timescale. If they were ready now and reasonably affordable, then great, use them. But by the time these will be available in reality we should have already hit 100% renewable (which is doable entirely with batteries + wind/solar).
Getawombatupya@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Also, a presentation I saw by Saul Griffith for Australia, gives an idea where the focus needs to be
DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Yeah, it’s a false dichotomy. We can do both.
TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 year ago
SMR is actually bad idea. They produce way more nuclear waste than big reactors, and probably will cost more to build and definitely more to run for same power. We need just good proven “old” nuclear. Not waiting for new technology and become test site for it.
anathema_device@bne.social 1 year ago
@TheHolm @australia We do not need nuclear at *all*
TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 year ago
If we want to get rid off coal in next 20 years, we need. We can’t afford pure “classic” renewable grid using currently available technologies. renewables becomes extremely expensive when you can’t relay on traditional generation for grid stability.
unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Can’t we just use gravity, lithium and hydro batteries to maintain stability?
CeeBee@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nuclear is currently the best way to generate clean energy at scale. It’s a proven technology with highly predictable output and lifespan.
Renewables technology and manufacturing are still new, so things like long term reliability are still unknowns. Then there’s the consideration that the manufacturing and installation of renewables (like a wind turbine) produces more CO2 on a per kWh basis than nuclear. This is because a wind turbine generates relatively low amounts of power compared to nuclear, but all the materials like the concrete foundation, casting of steel, blades, electronics, etc, have a CO2 cost. Nuclear wins out on this.
It’s not an all out nothing situation. The reality is that a combo of both nuclear and renewables is the path forward. But nuclear needs to be the base load for the next while.