There are downsides to nuclear these days. Incredibly high cost with a massive delay before they're functioning. Solar + wind + pumped hydro + district heating is where it's at in 2024.

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Still not a reason to not build them, the entire point is for nuclear to handle the load when solar/wind can't provide due to weather. Other renewables will still be producing the bulk of the power we need, but at night nuclear will be handling any demand spikes, each of them would greatly reduce the number of batteries required to satisfy the demand. They can stay until our solar output is so high we can just start electrolyzing water into hydrogen as energy storage.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's why they mentioned "pumped hydro"

[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

Though pumped hydro is sometimes opposed by environmental groups because it does absolutely decimate local environments.

I have high hopes for sodium batteries. The ones that have been released on the market are simply perfect (if scaled up) for local grid storage in countries with a lot of space and will hopefully get better energy density in line with Lithium Iron Phosphate with time.

Salt batteries have been the cold fusion of battery tech for like 10 years, but now it is finally coming to fruition. I hope to install a solar installation with salt batteries in 5 years or so, myself.

[–] olafurp@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you're suggesting using Nuclear as a peaker plant or to turn it off and on whenever wind/solar is not up for it then I'm sorry to say that it's not viable. Nuclear generators don't handle well being turned off and on.

[–] vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago

My good friends Xenon and Samarium.

load more comments (30 replies)