NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled::NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.

  • sunbeam60@lemmy.oneEnglish
    22·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t say 20% is a minor player. But agree we can get 80% there with renewables, in some locations (like Scandinavia, blessed with abundant hydro and wind) probably to 90%.

    There’s no doubt that integrating renewables is cheaper than nuclear right now, partly as a function of how little nuclear we’re building, but majoritively a function of how much steerable generation we have from fossil fuel (mainly gas) plants. But as steerable capacity disappears, we will need to build more and more very expensive storage to keep integrating renewables.

    The fora I’m in where nuclear is discussed seems fairly even tempered to me. But it may be that you’re encountering some immaturity in renewable fora you’re in - I just haven’t come across very much.

    • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyzEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Ah, the specifc numbers, 80%/20%, or 90%/10%, I’m not sure we exactly agree on, but hypothetical future specifics like that aren’t productive to argue about, I’m sure it will be solved by practicality at the time it becomes relevant.

      But also important, and I should have said something about it before, battery and other power storage method technology is also getting cheaper and more effective, faster and faster. 2023 battery tech is better than 2022 battery tech and 2024 battery tech will be better yet, all by noticeable margins. It doesn’t really concern me, they get better faster than we can build them. And we are getting more efficient at recycling the rare materials too, we aren’t far from it being cheaper to recycle a battery than mine new rare materials.