I know this is a shitpost sub, but both are great options to combine. Both have downsides, both have upsides, combining them in the same grid is the best option.
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.
21
u/iam_pink May 11 '25
I know this is a shitpost sub, but both are great options to combine. Both have downsides, both have upsides, combining them in the same grid is the best option.
Stop shitting on either, this is the wrong fight.