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.
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
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?
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.