Comment on “Lies and fantasies:” Bowen puts $387 billion price tag on Dutton’s nuclear plans
TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 year agoSMR 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?
TheHolm@aussie.zone 1 year ago
We can use lithium, but we can’t afford i because there is just not enough batteries are getting made to build enough storage to stabilise grid. Hell, there is a not enough batteries for cars. Over the time it will be resolved, problem is that it will take too long. Hydro is not an option, there is just not enough places in AU to build required capacity.
CeeBee@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There’s barely enough lítium available to switch every existing car in the world to EVs. Nevermind the amount needed to supply overnight power to a grid. We’re going to need a different kind of battery, but those are still being researched.
Hydro batteries are a solution, but not one that fits everywhere. You don’t get nearly all the amount of energy back that you put into it. Then there are other considerations like availability of water (salt water corrodes, and current desalination processes are expensive and require a lot of power, which is part of the problem it would be trying to solve).
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.