|
|
|
|
|
by ggm
1023 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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