New research shows renewables are more profitable than nuclear power::In a recent study, researchers from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE), and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) questioned the planned development of new nuclear capacities in the energy strategies of the United States and certain European countries.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Given that most countries have a capitalistic, private energy sector, profit may not be the best metric but it’s the only one that matters.

    The nuclear bros never seem to understand this though. If nuclear energy made any sense from a financial standpoint, we’d be building a ton of reactors but it doesn’t. With renewables and storage getting cheaper and new nuclear getting even more expensive, we’re not going to see much more new nuclear.

    • danielton@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      New nuclear is banned in a lot of places due to people protesting it for decades. Which is crazy, because it is our best bet to get off fossil fuels in the short term.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        New nuclear doesn’t really do short term though. They take years and years to plan and build and nearly always go over budget while the completion data slips and slips.

        • danielton@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          No matter how you spin it, banning new nuclear is a win for fossil fuels because it takes away a major option.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not spinning anything, just stating the facts. I’ve noticed that facts and the rabidly pro-nuclear doesn’t seem to get along very well though.

        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Large scale energy storage isn’t there yet (afaik, please link otherwise), and adjusting demand with scalable hydrogen production isn’t there either. Meanwhile, France’s nuclear plants can adjust their output by 900MW in 30 minutes to mitigate increased demand or reduced supply due to weather.

            • qaz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, it keeps talking about how near-firm wind/solar are significantly cheaper, quicker to adjust output and produce higher quality electricity (because you wouldn’t need to change AC frequency) but only credits “4 hour batteries” never specifying which would be used and how you would build enough for the entire grid.

    • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nuclear powerplants are not being built due to smear campaign by nimbys and oil groups. Storage is thr achillies heel of solar and wind power because batteries are expensive and wear out. No one solution can solve our needs and nuclear power should be part of the equation.