Green Energy

2277 readers

98 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

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

That's not precise. A nuclear plant can be built in like 5 years. And the supply chain is not the issue when you have lots of orders. But there are not many. It's also not precise to say you can build huge amounts of renewables instead. Probably Spain doesn't need nuclear, since it's got plenty of sun. On the other hand many countries don't have areas that have enough sun and consistent wind.

Id also say that the part you said that cost of renewables combined with storage would be a fraction of the cost, that is completely false.

[–] Diplomjodler3 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

A nuclear plant can be built in like 5 years.

Can you point to any nuclear plant in a Western country that was built in five years in the past thirty years or so?

And the supply chain is not the issue when you have lots of orders.

Seriously? Building reactor vessels is a very specialized task that only few suppliers are even capable of. Add to that uranium mining, fuel rod production, fuel logistics and a host of other components - and all that will just fall from the sky once enough orders are signed?

On the other hand many countries don’t have areas that have enough sun and consistent wind.

Germany is already at over 50%, many other countries are far ahead of that. Your point has no factual basis.

Id also say that the part you said that cost of renewables combined with storage would be a fraction of the cost, that is completely false.

Here's a source

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Can you point to any nuclear plant in a Western country that was built in five years in the past thirty years or so?

what about the rogue boyscout one

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Use this one weird trick to get free energy from your old smoke detectors!

[–] PixelatedSaturn -1 points 5 months ago

why did you specify in the west :)? You know why you did that, because nuclear plants do get built in 5 years elsewhere.
emm, yes very much so. Like you said, they're are even a few suppliers who can do that. They just need enough orders for it to make sense.
you should check that data again. Renewables are great, but some countries have better access than others. Right now Germany is building gas plants and burning coal and there is no end in sight for that.
I might check that file later thanks, but what I'm taking about is just plain physics. You can not store enough energy today to make a big difference at any cost. And the cost is really high and can not be close to what a power plant can generate on the fly. It's just can't. Especially if you are taking lithium batteries.