[funnym0nk3y]

Yeah, but the nuclear waste would be a problem. The cost would be a problem too.

I don't get why some people won't get that nuclear is not the solution to the energy problem. Nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources, and that's without the cost of long term storage of burnt fuel. Without the cost of health issues in mining areas.

The call for energy consumption reduction is not "for cultish reasons", it's because of climate change that's already screwing us.

[WithinReason]

Cost of nuclear is high due to low investment.

[ViewTrick1002]

You do know that nuclear power peaked at almost 20% of the global electricity mix in the 1990s?

How many trillions should we hand out to the nuclear industry to try ”scale”?!?!?

[fragmede]

why is the cost a problem in and of itself?

[funnym0nk3y]

Because cost is an incentive to do or not to do things. You know, not everyone can have everything.

[lawn]

Many environmentalists revert back to criticizing nuclear based on cost but if they really put the environment first that should logically not be a big deal for them.

[oezi]

Efficiently solving the climate crisis is the biggest challenge for humanity right now. Even though it is projected to just cost 4% of GDP for the next 30 years, it is still very challenging for market economies to achieve (I think primarily because the negative impacts are global not local).

[bmicraft]

If they'd pushed nuclear then whatever monetary support they could win over for their cause would reach a lot shorter.

[lawn]

It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough. They're great in many ways, but they alone won't provide enough power and stability.

So you're left with water power (which is only applicable in few areas and they destroy the nature), coal/oil/gas (which are much worse for the environment) and nuclear energy.

Nuclear might not solve everything itself either, but it's definitely part of the solution.

[funnym0nk3y]

Which is a myth. Renewables can in fact supply most requirements if they are coupled with battery storage. Then the price would be cheaper than nuclear still.

Also, natural gas is much much better than coal for the environment. And more responsive too so dark and calm times can be handled as well.

So, why are we not doing it? Lobbyism, lock in, politics, nimby.

[scuderiaseb]

Batteries are the most expensive parts on EVs, they're heavy, require rare-earth metals and they wear out. So not an ideal solution.

Would be pretty cool to have the EV batteries on cars hooked up to the electric infrastructure and handle the offset and also charging them when there is too much power in the grid.

[hattmall]

I always liked the idea of rapidly swappable batteries, like pulling into a gas station. Then they could be charged / stored in centralized locations which act as very large batteries for the grid. Keep batteries at 90% or even less and use that amount to absorb or push energy to the grid.

[chneu]

Battery recycling is a thing

[energy123]

> It's just the fact that renewables aren't enough (since it's not always windy or sunny) and storage just isn't cheap or plentiful enough

Often repeated but untrue. There have been studies that compare the total cost including all storage and transmission requirements and found that nuclear is still much more expensive.