Green Energy

2277 readers

331 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

221

Nuclear too slow to replace coal, and baseload “simply can’t compete” with wind and solar, AEMO boss says (reneweconomy.com.au)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia's ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Also, let’s not forget Uranium has a finite supply. A few years ago the IAEA estimated that at high usage scenarios (which might actually be happening now), by 2040 28% of remaining supplies would be used. Depending on different factors, that could either accelerate and run out not too long after, which is even for us a pretty short time. Other estimates were thinking up to about 200 years left, at current rates, 10 years ago so indeed not taking AI etc into account.

[–] PixelatedSaturn 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the nineties they said there is only 30 years worth of oil at that times consumption.

If the need arises, we will find the uranium.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Source? I was a kid in the seventies and the OPEC shit show brought a lot of fresh of discussion and investigation into peak oil, and that was expected to be around now , but nobody I heard from said it would run out. Have some wikipedia with that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
May I quote that the predictions were decent, however “It has been recognized that conventional oil production has peaked around 2005–2006. What has prevented peak oil from then on is US tight oil which rapidly increased since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. Additionally, but to a lesser extent, Canadian oil-sands production has helped increase oil supply since 2008.”

So yes, more sources were found, however they were mostly obtainable by tight oil, AKA fracking, and as we all know, fracking is economically viable only when all environmental and other damage is externalised.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Too bad we closed the door on thorium reactors, I bet whoever made that decision is really ~~upset~~ rich right now

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There are 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The environmental damage you will cause by digging shit up from the oceans, if that’s even possible, will be insane. Absolutely insane, completely bonkers, but it does prove once again that nuclear fanbois don’t give a rat’s arse about the environment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You don't have to dig anything, it's literally in the water, you could filter it out. In theory.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You must be obnoxious on purpose, pulling our legs here, right? By the time we’ve collected enough for one fuel rod, humanity will either be extinct or evolved into some sort of powerful plasma creatures https://spectrum.ieee.org/uranium-from-seawater

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

How did you get that conclusion from the article you linked? The article talks about a material that can recover 6.63 mg/g per week of uranium from seawater, so a ton of it would produce just over 10lbs/week. If you produce a large enough amount of that material and put it to work it will add up to a useful amount of uranium in a short amount of time.