• CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m all for renewables but keep in mind a nuclear plant can produce 24/7 regardless of conditions while many renewables cannot. I don’t see an issue with diversification here rather than pointlessly advocating for a one-size-fits-all solution.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      A nuclear plant can’t “produce 24/7 regardless of conditions”. Obviously natural disasters affect them. Nuclear plants need water so any flooding or tsunami can affect them. They also need maintenance because they are very complicated water boilers.

      They require a lot of educated people to run them, whereas a wind turbine requires a few guys to check on them sometimes. Solar just requires some dudes to brush off the panels occasionally. That can probably be automated too.

      • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Solar’s lack of moving parts is something people overlook, too. Hail storms supposedly rarely damage them, and if they do, you can just replace individual panels.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I used to work with a guy who was a nuclear tech before getting out of the military and he legitimately made me concerned about the level of intelligence they require to do the job.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Demand isn’t a 24/7 constant value.

      Nuclear doesn’t match demand and supply.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nobody said it was, and I have no idea what the statement, “Nuclear doesn’t match demand and supply” is supposed to mean.

        • Wanderer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You said nuclear can produce 24/7. As in thats why its better than renewables. The issue you speak of is supply matching demand right? Renewable don’t match demand. Well neither does nuclear.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where did I say it was better than renewables? I said we need to diversify, and that means using more than one thing.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes diversification is important too. But that still doesn’t mean nuclear is worth it.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because it doesn’t help. Renewables want to be paired with something that can easily be spun up and down as needed. Nuclear doesn’t fit that model. It tends to make it worse, because cheap energy we could be getting from solar or wind has to give way to the nuclear baseload instead.

      It’s something of the opposite problem of the sun not shining at the same time the wind doesn’t blow. At times where you have tons of both, you want to store them up for later. Nuclear forces a situation where you have to do that even more.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except we don’t have a practical way to store any of this energy and there is always a constant baseline demand that can be met in part by techniques that don’t need to be constantly spun up and then back down and work day and night, rain or shine.