MENU ZOEKEN

8 Responses

  1. Matt 3 February 2021 at 16:08 | | Reply

    Interesting analysis.
    One thing you did not take into account ist availability.
    Solar energy is only available during the day and production is a lot lower in winter compared to summer.
    Wind energy also has a non-constant output.

    So if you want to replace a nuclear power plant solely with solar and wind energy you need short and long time storage infrastucture to adjust the energy output to the demand.

    To compare these two energy sources to the continuous and planable output of a nuclear power plant you would have to include storage costs and storage losses into your calculations.

    1. Mariusz 30 November 2021 at 20:06 | | Reply

      Hey Matt, I think I have read an article that answers your question, long story short, even including energy storage construction and maintenance costs, it’s still much cheaper to go with renewables rather than nuclear : https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/19/nuclear-power-wont-save-the-world-it-wont-even-help/

  2. Femi 6 February 2021 at 07:10 | | Reply

    Well said.

  3. Mads Leonard Holvik 1 July 2021 at 11:28 | | Reply

    You mention nothing about the heavy impact of wind mills on untouched nature. For example along the coast of Norway beautiful nature is being removed to build wind mill parks. They pose a constant risk to birdlife and nature is lost in the building of them. If they are to replace coal and gas we will lose huge areas of nature.

    You also do not mention next generation nuclear power or fusion energy. It seems to me nuclear is a better alternative. You seem to see a huge wind mill park as a salvation, yet for people in Norway who lose their prestine nature, its a disaster, especially since Norway has all the hydro power it needs while foreign investors come in to build wind mill industrial areas for Norway to sacrifice it’s heritage for what?

  4. Erik Mulder 8 July 2021 at 07:14 | | Reply

    You can store energy in the ground for months with practically no loss. Check out polar night energy. And of course battery storage. I can leave my Tesla at the airport for a month with practically no loss of battery charge.

  5. Eddie Bear 29 October 2021 at 00:10 | | Reply

    To be absolutely fair, no cost evaluation should ever be conducted, without considering the cost of storage and containment of nuclear waste, plus compensation for all the death and illness the waste causes, which is a never ending cost.

    As an example, we built an underwater dome,to store nuclear waste, after using an island for nuclear tests. Now, the dome has cracked and somehow needs to be addressed. Many of the residents of the island will most likely get sick and die, or need to be relocated to a different country. And what about all the expense, and deaths of people who have had to clean up after nuclear disasters?

    How can one even put a price on this, the massive loss of human lives due to nuclear. And, what gives us the right to risk many thousands of people’s lives with exposure to excessive radiation, and all that this entails? It is extremely irresponsible creating more nuclear waste while having no truly safe way of dealing with it.

  6. Jake 15 January 2022 at 03:06 | | Reply

    In 2020 nuclear was the most reliable, consistent power source and it wasn’t even close (source: US Department of Energy)
    Statistically, nuclear energy has almost the exact same rate of death/terrawatt hour as renewables (0.04 vs 0.07, with all fossil fuel sources coming in above 1.00 – source ourworldindata)
    Electrical demand is only going to increase (especially as we move transport from fossil fuels and onto the grid)
    So far, every single nuclear plant that’s been closed has had its energy production replaced at least in part by fossil fuels.
    Solar and wind are great and need to keep expanding, but in order to satisfy our ever growing demand with JUST renewables, you’d need more land space than you’ll ever convince politicians to allocate, as well as yet-to-be-invented hyper efficient batteries that aren’t super bad for our environment to manufacture.
    Why on earth should we completely write-off a SAFE, ZERO-EMISSION form of electricity production (which by the way has the highest energy density of any fuel by FAR) when the world needs more and more electricity? Especially on the brink of climate disaster?

  7. Charles Luecke 15 February 2022 at 04:23 | | Reply

    Charles Luecke 14 February 2022

    I think nuclear and renewables both have their pros and cons. But no one seems to consider the fact that we must have a dispatchable alternative. A look at Lazard’s LCOE and LCOS shows that the only dispatchable renewable that is competitive is solar with storage (usually flow batteries). It is 2/3 of the cost of nuclear (per unit generated).

    The real deciding factor for the future of non- carbon dispatchable energy is the speed that a source can adapt to the market. This can only happen with an energy source that is less regulated with shorter development time (renewables). The highly regulated nuclear industry with its long lead time has a tall hill to climb, especially in the countries that value democracy.

Leave a Reply