• Nuclear isn’t 100% up, France had significant issues due to the summer heat raising riverwater temps, forcing plants to shut down because they couldn’t cool effectively.

    Renewables are too cheap to keep nuclear economically viable, even when including battery storage to keep supply up.

    • toastmeister@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      This study disagrees after taking into account storage.

      https://advisoranalyst.com/2023/05/11/bofa-the-nuclear-necessity.html/

      Storage and production of renewables is also done by shipping in Chinese products created burning coal and ignoring environmental concerns. This all hinges on exporting emissions and labor to areas that don’t care about pollution.

      I’d also argue that nuclear tech can likely proceed faster than storage, given the dangerous nature of energy storage. Even something as basic as storing water can cause deaths given what happens when dams break, stored energy is volatile by nature.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Storage is a red herring. Storage is attempting to make solar operate the same way as existing generation models: “supply shaping”. Attempting to match supply to demand.

        Supply shaping doesn’t even work for our existing baseload generators. We use demand shaping to move our biggest loads to a time of day when we can most easily meet them with legacy generators. Which happens to be overnight. Which is the worst time of day to generate power with solar.

        When we get rid of the current counterproductive demand-shaping models, we drop the overwhelming majority of our storage needs as well.