Or we have functioning brains and know that due to the inability of renewables to supply a guaranteed base load 24/7/365 that energy has to come from a mix of options which includes nuclear.
This paper appears to be saying that in the future, if the entire European continent connects it would be technically possible to not have to add new baseload
Their findings indicate that a secure, net-zero European electricity system is technically robust and economically viable when based on VRE paired with extensive flexibility, storage, and grid interconnections, without requiring new baseload capacity.
It’s a damn shame the hive mind has decided “nuclear bad” , without really attempting to understand the issue. A purely pragmatic approach demands the commissioning of nuclear power plants, and this vibes-based opposition to nuclear power only has the effect of strengthening fossil fuel’s grip on the energy economy and hastening the climate apocalypse.
I am a nuclear fanboy, because it is a clean and safe form of energy. But the EPR costs and building time are a tragedy for the entire sector and I have no problem in admitting that. But there are good third generation reactor like the hitachi abwr that are fast to build (less the 48 months) and relatively cheap (less than 5 billions).
The real problem is the amount of safety changes required to gen3 design after Fukushima (that was a gen2 reactor that suffered the worst earthquake and tsunami ever in the history of Japan and caused maybe a 1 single death after 4 years, just to put things in prospective).
But this is a problem in general for European nuclear. An APR-1400 costs 4.5 billion in Korea and 9 billions in Europe.
Let’s see if those nuclear fanboys are showing up in this thread
I’m fairly convinced nuclear fanboys on reddit are either paid astroturfers or LLM bots paid for by the oil and gas industry to derail renewables
They are on lemmy too.
Or we have functioning brains and know that due to the inability of renewables to supply a guaranteed base load 24/7/365 that energy has to come from a mix of options which includes nuclear.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386425006496
This paper appears to be saying that in the future, if the entire European continent connects it would be technically possible to not have to add new baseload
It’s a damn shame the hive mind has decided “nuclear bad” , without really attempting to understand the issue. A purely pragmatic approach demands the commissioning of nuclear power plants, and this vibes-based opposition to nuclear power only has the effect of strengthening fossil fuel’s grip on the energy economy and hastening the climate apocalypse.
Or…people who know how a power grid actually works.
Lemmy has a lot of ponytail environmentalists who lack even basic STEM knowledge.
Usually they prefer other platforms.
Nah, they are here as well and in numbers.
🍿
I am a nuclear fanboy, because it is a clean and safe form of energy. But the EPR costs and building time are a tragedy for the entire sector and I have no problem in admitting that. But there are good third generation reactor like the hitachi abwr that are fast to build (less the 48 months) and relatively cheap (less than 5 billions).
The real problem is the amount of safety changes required to gen3 design after Fukushima (that was a gen2 reactor that suffered the worst earthquake and tsunami ever in the history of Japan and caused maybe a 1 single death after 4 years, just to put things in prospective).
But this is a problem in general for European nuclear. An APR-1400 costs 4.5 billion in Korea and 9 billions in Europe.