417
The world came tantalizingly close to a deal to phase out fossil fuels (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
140 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Are you saying that nuclear is cheaper than renewables?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In the alternative universe we'd have been building fission power for decades when it was cheaper than renewables, and it would still be running today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In this universe we didn't though, I'm not sure why the multiverse is relevant here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    We were talking about power strategies from the 1980s and the person above said it would just be the "cheapest". If countries really were just building the cheapest, it would not have been renewables back then.

    We were already talking about a counterfactual.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I guess. If we're in this hypothetical alternative universe then those plants built in the 80's would be at the end of their lives and we'd be looking to spend a fortune to replace them with new nuclear or we'd be saving money by building renewables.

    I'm still not sure what this line if discussion is accomplishing though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Probably nothing - though I do think it's worth remembering that renewables were much more expensive in the past than they are now. It's one reason why government action has been so slow - other reasons apply to nuclear power. I think people who are switched on to the crisis are all too aware that renewables are now easily the best source of power, but forget too easily that it was only through significant investment that we've ended up here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Maybe cheaper than renewables and grid scale batteries over the lifetime of the reactor. Perhaps you could correct me, but my understanding is that grid scale battery facilities don't even exist yet. Given the current state of battery technology, you'd need to replace the batteries at that facility in, what, seven years? Ten is really pushing it, right? That's not going to be cheap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nuclear is 2-4 times more expensive and grid scale batteries (the most costly way of storing power) are already being used.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar--battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/?sh=32681a7e5971

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Grid scale batteries for solar day/night cycles can work. There is no good solution for seasonal fluctuations. Of course, a very large part of Earth’s population lives in close proximity to the equator with far less seasonal influences. It’s just unfortunate that those that pollute most (per capita) do not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wind works great at higher latitudes but what we need to be looking at is high voltage DC lines to transfer power over long distances with minimal loss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •