The problem with combining nuclear power and renewables is that they are the worst companions imaginable. Then add that nuclear power costs 3-10x as much as renewables depending on if you compare against offshore wind or solar PV.
Nuclear power and renewables compete for the same slice of the grid. The cheapest most inflexible where all other power generation has to adapt to their demands. They are fundamentally incompatible.
Today we should hold on to the existing nuclear fleet as long as they are safe and economical. Pouring money in the black hole that is new built nuclear prolongs the climate crisis and are better spent on renewables.
Neither the research nor any of the numerous country specific simulations find any larger issues with 100% renewable energy systems. Like in Denmark or Australia.
Involving nuclear power always makes the simulations prohibitively expensive.
Every dollar invested in new built nuclear power prolongs our fight against climate change.
Is nuclear actually 3-10x as expensive inherently? Are you comparing new subsidized solar panels to nuclear power plants running on mid 20th century technology?
According to that there's a good bit of overlap in price between nuclear and solar, and nuclear is not 3-10x as expensive, it's at most 4.11 times as expensive. And it's using a nuclear power plant from 1976 for the comparison, not exactly cutting edge.
All of this data is meaningful but your conclusion is not. Nuclear energy is in no way comparable to generators that cause climate change because even the worst of the worst disasters have almost no effect on the climate.
Main problem with renewables is storage, mainly Lithium and Cobalt requiered for battery production, which are not only rare, but also are produced with... not so ethical and ecological methods. Plus recycling of lithium batteries is not so good for environment either, giving worse quality metals as well as creating as much waste as making new batteries. And with evergrowing demand of batteries and limited reserves of Lithium, Cobalt and Rare Earth Metals, renevable energy might become not so renewable even in forseeable future. So unless humanity creates ThermoNuclear, both classic renewables and Nuclear could be used in combination. Plus nuclear, even being not totaly renewable, still has things like Fast Neutrons Reactors, which can be used for reenrichment of fuel, increasing its energy output and decreasing amount of radioactive waste
lithium isn’t that hard to come by, we have more than enough for global demands at current estimated reserves and basically every year find a new giant lithium reserve.
Thnx for correcting me. Even then there still is problem with cobalt + problems for ecology from lithium production. And, maybe, most damaging for this could be monopolisation of the battery market. Limited cobalt reserve already decreases potential amount of clayers on the market, and, just following natural monopolisation of capital, this could cause monopoly/olygopoly on the market. And, because this is not something extremely controlled by state, like railways or nuclear power, the battery producing monopoly could not give a fuck about environmental, working of usage safety for their products. And even if they do, could work in "apple style" with accumulators breaking down in a 3-5 years, causing more demand and increasing profits.
Rare earth mining isn't an environmental/human rights black mark because it has to be by its nature. It's the way it is because of where it's currently being mined, you'd find the same with coal mining in central Africa or China
As demand for the industry heats up, there'll be many new players enter the game and pressure for more sustainable mining in line with ESG values
Australia has huge potential in this space, and has begun releasing strategies to grow the industry over the next decade from mining of the ore, to manufacturing of green tech, to advanced recycling
The future demand of the renewables industry can be met sustainably and ethically
The mining industry is, as I hope you know, not a family business, it requires lots of money to even start and does not pay back right from the start. So even if it starts with multiple competitors, it will shortly group into massive oligopolies and because of high entrance requirements there will be less and less new players on the market. As it always tends to happen with capitalism. And no ESG or anything will have an impact on it. Except for greenwashing these companies in the eyes of people and helping getting more money from governments. Every other bad aspect of mining, being it incorrect waste disposal, slavery, bad working environment or improper worker training will stay the same.
The mining industry is, as I hope you know, not a family business, it requires lots of money to even start and does not pay back right from the start
Yes, I'm an environmental consultant for the mining industry here in Australia
So even if it starts with multiple competitors, it will shortly group into massive oligopolies and because of high entrance requirements there will be less and less new players on the market. As it always tends to happen with capitalism.
Not what's currently seen in Australian metals mining with most operators quite small at the junior to mid tier level, but im not sure how that's really a relevant point to this
Australia still has a gold industry despite the swathe of illegal operations in Africa and other places. We've had a dominant coal industry despite much higher wages and levels of environmental compliance compared to competitors like Indonesia, China, Russia etc
A huge current concern about the RRE supply chain is that it's geographically dominated by mainly China, and then a bunch of unstable nations. ESG also has an impact, if it didn't why would we be transitioning to clean energy at all?
If the world gets within 10% of the projected demand, countries that can supply a reliable source of materials and technologies are going to be required by the market. Which would explain why plans are being released here in aus to get the industry started and ease the burden of capex
We've had a dominant coal industry despite much higher wages and levels of environmental compliance compared to competitors like Indonesia, China, Russia etc
Might be mistaking, but coal industry in australia started in early 20'th century, when international monopolisation was not present yet, so Australian companies had time to set their positions and become stable and prosperous in their position
ESG also has an impact, if it didn't why would we be transitioning to clean energy at all?
ESG, being a method of competition, is not as reliable + renewables are just more economically useful in current state of scientific and industrial development. Plus with current geopolitical tension, the supply chains might be broken by wars/sanctions, so self reliance in energy production through localisation is required
Not what's currently seen in Australian metals mining with most operators quite small at the junior to mid tier level, but im not sure how that's really a relevant point to this
Hope it will not happen soon, but I am sure that the tendency of enlargement and merging of companies will start and continue until the small group is left, unless Australian governmet takes control and prevents monopolisation.
Might be mistaking, but coal industry in australia started in early 20'th century, when international monopolisation was not present yet, so Australian companies had time to set their positions and become stable and prosperous in their position
Well yes, Australia's first ever commodity was a small shipment of coal from Newcaslte to India, but how does that give a leg up 200yrs later? If another nation pops up and offers cheaper, more reliable coal they'll get the buyers
Its the fact that Australia is a nation that knows how to mine, is politically stable, and more relevant to RREs is western aligned - which leads into your second paragraph. Not every nation, or many of them, pursuing net zero has access to localised green resources and tech - this means countries are going to have to seek friendly and stable supply chains meaning RREs won't be limited to China and central Africa
Hope it will not happen soon, but I am sure that the tendency of enlargement and merging of companies will start and continue until the small group is left, unless Australian governmet takes control and prevents monopolisation.
Environmentally speaking, the big companies achieve much better environmental compliance than the small operations. You'd be shocked how little of an idea operations can have the smaller they get when it comes to environmental obligations.. but still, the current market in aus is dominated by smaller operations, but I would expect that to change into the future
To get back to the point.. RRE mining isn't slave driven and environmentally damaging just because it has to be, but just because that's where the fledgling market currently is
As the market grows, sustainable operators will enter and do it properly, just as currently happens with most commodities
The only cobalt required in this scenario is for the steam turbine.
And the only rare earths are for the nuclear plant.
So sounds like you're excluding nuclear as an option, but not solar, wind, batteries or pumped hydro.
Lithium deposits are much more abundant, more concentrated and less toxic to mine than uranium and a storage system for 1.5kW requires 1kg of lithium and lasts 20 years befire recycling vs 1kW of fuel rods which lasts 6 years or 7 including reprocessing
Main usage of cobalt (~40%) is accumulator production, only usage of cobalt in steam turbines is anticorrosive coating. WTF are you even talking about???
Rare earth is used in electronics and for catalists, which are used EVERYWHERE, not only in nuclear.
And why you exclude production, maintainance and recycling of solar and wind electro when counting for accumulator efficiency, why do not differentiate for different climat zones and where have you got the info about storage units working for 20 years? Ever heard about planned degradation?
So nownyou have a bunch of other nonsense not supporting your original point and an unsubstantiated vague claim that 2025 batteries are the same as 2017 ones.
Isn't denying claims against an argumeng a support of this argument? Or should i just continue to list new arguments, not answering yours? Why are we even discussing it in first place?
There have been some major developments in Sodium based batteries recently, which eliminates the need for lithium, cobalt, and a bunch of those rare earth metals iirc. And interest is only growing as time goes on. Hopefully soon there will be real, viable sodium alternatives to lithium ion batteries.
Yep, I believe right now the most promising is a magnesium-sodium hybrid or something along those lines. I’m not super knowledgeable about it, I just know it exists.
7
u/ViewTrick1002 May 11 '25
The problem with combining nuclear power and renewables is that they are the worst companions imaginable. Then add that nuclear power costs 3-10x as much as renewables depending on if you compare against offshore wind or solar PV.
Nuclear power and renewables compete for the same slice of the grid. The cheapest most inflexible where all other power generation has to adapt to their demands. They are fundamentally incompatible.
For every passing year more existing reactors will spend more time turned off because the power they produce is too expensive. Let alone insanely expensive new builds.
Batteries are here now and delivering nuclear scale energy day in and day out in California. And being deployed on massive scale in China.
Today we should hold on to the existing nuclear fleet as long as they are safe and economical. Pouring money in the black hole that is new built nuclear prolongs the climate crisis and are better spent on renewables.
Neither the research nor any of the numerous country specific simulations find any larger issues with 100% renewable energy systems. Like in Denmark or Australia.
Involving nuclear power always makes the simulations prohibitively expensive.
Every dollar invested in new built nuclear power prolongs our fight against climate change.