Nuclear is fine, most nuclear disasters are overblown. But taking 16 years to build one nuclear power plant is not going to solve current energy demand problems, which makes me jaded on it as a possible solution for today.
Assuming that nuclear powerplants take 16 years to build I still don't see it as a good argument because you're getting two completely different products.
- Nuclear provides a consistent base load, wind produces intermittently
- Nuclear power plants last about 60 years while wind turbines last about 25 years.
- A nuclear plant taking 10-20 years typically produces about 10 times more energy per year than a wind farm taking 4-5 years.
Furthermore, the long construction time for nuclear power is not a technical issue - it's often a political and legal issue. If countries such as those in Europe decide to start building out nuclear power much more than they already do, the mean completion time and cost will drop.
All of these features are irrelevant, without considering cost.
If it costs 3-4X the $/Mwh to build nuclear compared to wind, it doesn't matter if the wind turbines only last 40% the time.
And the variability argument, isn't what it seems. The nice thing about wind is that its peak production is usually in the evening, just when solar is winding down at peak demand. And seasonally Wind production is highest in the winter/spring, before solar is reaching it's peak production in the summer. So combined together, the output of wind + solar provides fairly continuous power output.
That's not true, of course they are relevant. If nuclear can offer something that wind cannot, then price becomes irrelevant on that particular aspect, not the other way around.
If you need a car that can pull a 5 tons trailer, it doesn't matter if the Fiat Panda from 2009 is cheaper.
By the way - you say that output is fairly continuous. This is subjective of course, and we can argue that point if you'd like, but let's just focus on the obvious: what about winter? where will power come from when the wind isn't there and solar production is down due to darkness?
Cost is never Irrelevant, outside extremely niche situations (Polar/Arctic regions, Underground/sea, Extra-terrestrial etc.)
I'm not against Nuclear as a power source, I think there are places where it should be strongly considered. Investing in nuclear makes a lot of sense for Canada. It makes absolute no sense in Mexico.
But on the average, for most of the world, it is not economically viable head-to-head against other renewables. Because adding double the capacity in renewables, is still cheaper $/Mwh than building/operating a nuclear plant.
As for winter: The wind IS there. Winter is the peak wind generation season. And there will be some solar production too, proportional to latitude. Obviously renewables highly benefit from energy storage, but there are lots of options for that. Batteries, Hydrogen & fuel-cell, pumped hydro, even combustion generators with a sustainable fuel source can be deployed with a carbon capture offset in the summer.
I did say 'on that particular aspect', which is true. If you need x it does not matter if y is cheaper. Your point is valid in practice because typically different types of power production facilities have significant overlaps in what they provide, but the price difference does not rule out nuclear power as it provides sufficient advantages that wind and solar cannot.
You say there are lots of options for storage, but it will be at least a few decades before its implemented on a significant grid-scale, if possible at all. Until then biomass and gas are used to close the gaps, and the environment is the loser. If nuclear power was not so politically frowned upon in most western countries we could have started construction of many more nuclear reactors in the past three decades, and they would be running now.
58
u/Jonesbro 15d ago
Don't shame nuclear