[pipo234]

Wind and solar have legal perils as well. Mostly NIMBYs, but some sincere concerns exist about impact on wildlife, loss of agricultural space, etc.

I think the reason the effects of those concerns in monetary terms pale in contrast to nuclear, is that nuclear technology is much more complex and complicated and therefore many more issues need to be addressed. At this stage, it's still a pretty immature technology and it can't progress very fast because it's considered more hazardous than alternatives.

As it is, I'm tempted to agree with the young climate activists if nuclear could short term buy us time to instantly shut down coal and gradually transition to renewable sources. Problem is, that even building "off the shelf" nuclear plants tends to take way longer than wind or solar.

[spacecadet]

NIMBYs want to watch the world burn, from their safe and seclude back yards, lol.

Reminds of the idiot filming the wildfires as he played golf.

[thaumasiotes]

> Reminds of the idiot filming the wildfires as he played golf.

Was there a water hazard nearby?

[smackeyacky]

Instant is not a word associated with the building of nuclear power plants.

[pipo234]

True. The problem is that instant action is needed.

In that perspective, Germany's decision to shutdown operational nuclear plants in favour of ramping up brown coal energy seems especially poor. But had it's politics been different and the existing reactors kept open at expense of ditching coal, that still would not have helped advance nuclear innovation that might possibly have led to cheaper or safer nuclear power. As it stands, nuclear is too expensive to compete with renewables.

And I don't think the young climate activists would argue for leniency, building and managing nuclear plants with the same sloppiness as their coal competitors.

[tcfhgj]

Germany still has a reactor for research. I think this helps more with innovation than a power plant that's just there for energy production

[Loic]

They can pack a nuclear power plant on a boat/submarine. It means, they can build a system which is compact and reproducible.

If the authorities would be ready to allow the use of such systems as stationary deployment and provide financial incentives to get them online fast for "base load", I expect Rolls Royce and cie. to quickly deliver.

[hathchip]

Nuclear power plants on submarines successfully meet energy needs for customers who are the least price sensitive in the world.

[smackeyacky]

Even a reactor designed to power an aircraft carrier wouldn't do much more than power a few suburbs. We would need many, many boat powerplants to replace a single coal fired power station which looks impractical against batteries and wind/solar both on cost and deployment speed.

[ggm]

I'm not here to try and float the nuclear boat, 'that ship has sailed' -but I think your economics are true now, but somewhat shallow.

There have been decades lost getting PV and wind viable to power a few suburbs and the LCOE of SMR would have been just fine if the industry had been allowed to achieve the same economies of scale of production. Now? It's two to three or more times expensive than solar/wind. (CSIRO)

Instead we've got billions of overspend on giant Reactor complexes like Hinckley. It can't compete. But undeniable huge sums of money have been flung at nuclear.

Both nuke, and solar and wind and batteries are dwarfed by the gross irresponsible subsidies which underpin coal, oil and gas. They launched the 20th century. They leave a trail of tears and ash behind, which will take centuries to remediate. Massive socialised losses as an externality.

I like wind, and PV and batteries. We're going to do fine.

[defrost]

> I like wind, and PV and batteries.

As further grist for your mill:

* Australia has proved a focused sunlight system with hot|cold water 'battery' storage

(existing ProofOfConcept) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-31/raygen-resources-open...

(funded expansion) https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/raygen-resources-opens-ne...

( Prior iterations of focused sunlight have had issues )

* 'Gravity batteries' are finnally being constructed (Waterless hydro batteries for non dam friendly topography)

(2018) https://insights.globalspec.com/article/10784/massive-gravit...

(2023) https://www.energyvault.com/project-cn-rudong

(cube animation 2021) https://vimeo.com/647372871

[steveBK123]

I am not a grid expert, though I am fairly well versed in EVs/solar/battery storage.

I am curious if battery storage can be done on-site at solar/wind facilities rather than distributed locally in neighborhood grids. I ask, because in NY we are seeing huge NIMBY issues with installing battery storage in residential areas. A mix of realistic concerns (fire safety) and general FUD/NIMBYism for sure.

The facilities aren't even that big, which is why I'm curious if they could just be built out at the generation site and fight the NIMBY env. review paperwork game once.

[scrlk]

Co-location of storage with renewables is a very popular option these days, at least from what I am seeing in the UK.

[pipo234]

Buffering at production site has additional advantage of reducing strain on transport infrastructure.

I'm always saddened looking at inert wind mills while there's obviously plenty to harvest.

[suoduandao2]

Which has a huge effect on the speed of innovation, the cycle time is such that making a better nuclear system takes much longer than solar. So comparing costs gives one result, comparing cost curves quite another

[mabbo]

> concerns exist about impact on wildlife

My father pointed out an interesting counter to this to me recently: how many birds are killed by wind farms and how many are killed by house cats?

Studies show a million or so birds killed in the US by wind each year. Other studies estimate cats kill billions of birds- and most aren't eaten, because the cats are well fed pets.

> loss of agricultural space

Is that something we're short of? I'd argue that food prices, ignoring recent inflation fluctuations, are the cheapest they've been ever in the history of humanity. Hunger only exists in the world because capitalism dictates that those who are poor must starve.

The opposition to renewables is pure NIMBYism. Though I'd still back new nuclear any day (and my province recently announced some!)

[tcfhgj]

> Is that something we're short of?

Yes and no. On the one hand, we destruct rain forests to have agricultural space. Bad of course. On the other hand, we destroy the remaining nature by using pesticides to increase short term production.

Nevertheless, this wouldn't be necessary if the world would switch to plant based diets as much as possible