Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.
You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.
Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
Yes actually. Uranium mining isn’t nearly as bad as needing tons of lithium, cobalt, and who knows what that goes into solar panels. Thorium containing materials are literally a byproduct of other mining operations that gets thrown away.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
Nope. Wind generates 11 tons of CO2 where Nuclear only makes 6. Solar isn’t even close. Biomass is the worst of the renewables and is closer to fossil fuels in its pollution levels than the other clean sources of energy.
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Is it? Most people aren’t factoring the cost of energy storage. No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.
While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.
The reality is both renewables and nuclear needed huge state investments to get off the ground.
It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.
I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.
What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.
In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.
Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.
I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:
Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities
Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.
No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.
Nuclear reactors are not useful for grid firming in a renewable grid, because they have to be running at 100℅ all the time to be anywhere near economical.
Renewables (wind-/solar) aren’t the most predictable sources of energy, so they need something to jump in when power demand is higher than supply. Nuclear reactors can’t deliver on that use case, while battery-storage, pump storage, biomass etc. can.
This means a grid with 30℅ nuclear would have to stop wind turbines and solar panels (free energy, since they are already built) instead of powering down more costly biomass. This results in more expensive renewables (as they aren’t used to their full capacity).
Believe it or not you can turn a reactor off if necessary, or up and down. Crazy I know.
Biomass isn’t practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas. Actually thinking about how much land use it would take, it might actually be worse than gas overall. Biomass is only really sensible when talking about material we would waste anyway like food waste and other waste that can be burned, but that would barely make a dent in our energy needs.
Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be talking about renewables at all.
As for “free energy”, no energy is free. Solar panels and wind turbines still have a finite life span. Nuclear fuel is cheap enough to the point where it too might as well be free if we are willing to call wind turbines free. This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.
Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be talking about renewables at all.
Taking the long term impact of coal, gas and oil on our climate and nature into account, renewables are cheaper. The cost of destroyed infrastructure through (ever more likely) extreme weather events alone is immense and often not taken into account, not to mention the impact on food.
The amount of money countries have is limited. If the goal is to replace coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible it’s more efficient to use cheaper technology.
As for “free energy”, no energy is free.
Yes, my point was about already built solar and wind turbines, that lose money the moment they are not running. The same is true for a powered down nuclear reactor, as the fuel isn’t the expensive part of the operation.
My point is that technology that is expensive even if not curently in use, does not make for good backup power. This makes renewables and nuclear not a good combination, as it’s quite expensive.
Biomass isn’t practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas.
Yes, biogass is only an option as an addition and shouldn’t be used continuously (for backup power it should be fine).
This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.
Those are future technologies never used commercially (if at all). Thorium reactors are not even in the testing stage yet, it’s even worse if you look at acinide burners. I’d like to switch to low emission energy now, not in a few decades.
So, I don’t know why you’re taking a stand for Uranium today. It used to be a good technology 30 years ago, but today it just doesn’t make any sense anymore.
First factor is cost. Renewables (Solar + Wind especially) have really really gone down in cost (see this link and this link), and the population will favor the energy source that is cheaper in the long run.
Secondly, the environmental impact of solar is really not that big. When we talk about how much CO2 solar produces, it’s mostly because that solar needs silicon and that needs energy to be purified. And that energy mostly comes from coal, gas or other non-renewables today. But guess what, as the solar revolution progresses, that emission goes down as well, so solar actually becomes more environmentally friendly over time.
Not really, no.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
Have you actually looked at the data? You might be surprised.
Yes actually. Uranium mining isn’t nearly as bad as needing tons of lithium, cobalt, and who knows what that goes into solar panels. Thorium containing materials are literally a byproduct of other mining operations that gets thrown away.
Nope. Wind generates 11 tons of CO2 where Nuclear only makes 6. Solar isn’t even close. Biomass is the worst of the renewables and is closer to fossil fuels in its pollution levels than the other clean sources of energy.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Is it? Most people aren’t factoring the cost of energy storage. No one is suggesting Nuclear as the only source of energy. It is very helpful though for grid firming and reducing the amount of expensive and environmentally destructive energy storage therefore reducing the overall cost of operating the grid while increasing reliability and reducing land usage and environmental damage.
While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.
What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.
The reality is both renewables and nuclear needed huge state investments to get off the ground.
Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/
I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.
In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.
Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.
I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:
Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.
Can you link a source that isn’t pay walled?
Nuclear reactors are not useful for grid firming in a renewable grid, because they have to be running at 100℅ all the time to be anywhere near economical.
Renewables (wind-/solar) aren’t the most predictable sources of energy, so they need something to jump in when power demand is higher than supply. Nuclear reactors can’t deliver on that use case, while battery-storage, pump storage, biomass etc. can.
This means a grid with 30℅ nuclear would have to stop wind turbines and solar panels (free energy, since they are already built) instead of powering down more costly biomass. This results in more expensive renewables (as they aren’t used to their full capacity).
Believe it or not you can turn a reactor off if necessary, or up and down. Crazy I know.
Biomass isn’t practical as it releases far too much emissions to be worth it, you almost might as well use gas. Actually thinking about how much land use it would take, it might actually be worse than gas overall. Biomass is only really sensible when talking about material we would waste anyway like food waste and other waste that can be burned, but that would barely make a dent in our energy needs.
Not everything is about economics, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be talking about renewables at all.
As for “free energy”, no energy is free. Solar panels and wind turbines still have a finite life span. Nuclear fuel is cheap enough to the point where it too might as well be free if we are willing to call wind turbines free. This is especially true for Thorium technology or actinide burners. Actinide burners literally reuse nuclear waste.
Taking the long term impact of coal, gas and oil on our climate and nature into account, renewables are cheaper. The cost of destroyed infrastructure through (ever more likely) extreme weather events alone is immense and often not taken into account, not to mention the impact on food.
The amount of money countries have is limited. If the goal is to replace coal, gas and oil as quickly as possible it’s more efficient to use cheaper technology.
Yes, my point was about already built solar and wind turbines, that lose money the moment they are not running. The same is true for a powered down nuclear reactor, as the fuel isn’t the expensive part of the operation.
My point is that technology that is expensive even if not curently in use, does not make for good backup power. This makes renewables and nuclear not a good combination, as it’s quite expensive.
Yes, biogass is only an option as an addition and shouldn’t be used continuously (for backup power it should be fine).
Those are future technologies never used commercially (if at all). Thorium reactors are not even in the testing stage yet, it’s even worse if you look at acinide burners. I’d like to switch to low emission energy now, not in a few decades.
So, I don’t know why you’re taking a stand for Uranium today. It used to be a good technology 30 years ago, but today it just doesn’t make any sense anymore.
First factor is cost. Renewables (Solar + Wind especially) have really really gone down in cost (see this link and this link), and the population will favor the energy source that is cheaper in the long run.
Secondly, the environmental impact of solar is really not that big. When we talk about how much CO2 solar produces, it’s mostly because that solar needs silicon and that needs energy to be purified. And that energy mostly comes from coal, gas or other non-renewables today. But guess what, as the solar revolution progresses, that emission goes down as well, so solar actually becomes more environmentally friendly over time.