The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.
Also, let’s not forget Uranium has a finite supply. A few years ago the IAEA estimated that at high usage scenarios (which might actually be happening now), by 2040 28% of remaining supplies would be used. Depending on different factors, that could either accelerate and run out not too long after, which is even for us a pretty short time. Other estimates were thinking up to about 200 years left, at current rates, 10 years ago so indeed not taking AI etc into account.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Even if we started to build nuclear plants like crazy right now, it would be decades for them to make a real impact. Building a single nuclear plant is very expensive and time consuming. Building up the necessary supply chain to build a lot of them would take much longer. In the meantime, you can build huge amounts of renewables in just a few years for a fraction of the cost, even if you factor in storage.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Not only that but the cost of renewables and storage is still coming down rapidly. You’d better hope that you’re not priced out of the energy market before your construction time plus payback period is up.
The_Terrible_Humbaba@slrpnk.net 6 months ago
Lemmy most of the time: Makes fun of people always bringin up “the economy” as if it’s what really important
Also Lemmy when it comes to nuclear: “But the economy!”
What happens in case of a sudden abnormal weather event that blocks out most of the sunlight? Picture a large volcano eruption covering the sky in ashes for thousands of miles. Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth the sun was blocked by dust for several years. Or just think about northern European countries that barely get any light in winter; Portugal is a very sunny country, we have invested a lot into solar, and sometimes we still get energy from Spain (who use nuclear btw).
Also, I’ve been hearing this whole “it takes too long to build nuclear plants” since at least early 2010s; imagine where we’d be if we’d just started building plants then. I can picture the same thing being said in 2035-2040, while fossil fuels still have not been completely dropped.
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Exactly. Sure, shutting down existing plants is dumb af (looking at you, Germany). But building new plants now with the aim of having an impact on climate change just isn’t the most effective decision.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Most of those were very old. I’m glad we’re not the ones who will find out how long you can really run one if those things before it fails.
PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s not precise. A nuclear plant can be built in like 5 years. And the supply chain is not the issue when you have lots of orders. But there are not many. It’s also not precise to say you can build huge amounts of renewables instead. Probably Spain doesn’t need nuclear, since it’s got plenty of sun. On the other hand many countries don’t have areas that have enough sun and consistent wind.
Id also say that the part you said that cost of renewables combined with storage would be a fraction of the cost, that is completely false.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Can you point to any nuclear plant in a Western country that was built in five years in the past thirty years or so?
Seriously? Building reactor vessels is a very specialized task that only few suppliers are even capable of. Add to that uranium mining, fuel rod production, fuel logistics and a host of other components - and all that will just fall from the sky once enough orders are signed?
Germany is already at over 50%, many other countries are far ahead of that. Your point has no factual basis.
Here’s a source
Rooskie91@discuss.online 6 months ago
This boggle my mind. We turn out about one or two nuclear subs a year. It really shouldn’t take that long.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 6 months ago
yup, and no waste issues that have to be held on site in cooling pools for decades (assuming a final storage point is ever resolved in your country).
we already know that we must improve transmission infrastructure across the board, if we’re going to have to do that either way, might as well embrace grid storage and go with as much renewable generation. AU, your Great Australian desert could power most of the southern pacific if you want to get wild :D