• Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    So you’re arguing that the cost and regulation barriers are higher than renewable development. Are those increased costs proportional to the benefit to the higher baseload, and would an equivalent baseload not be able to be met through battery storage?

    • encelado748@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 minutes ago

      Yes, the barrier for nuclear is much much much higher then renewable development. We know that the same nuclear reactor costs 3.5 billion in china, 4.5 billion in japan, and 9 billion in Europe. That is a huge difference. This is not just a technology problem, but an issue about regulation and processes. I am not arguing for going back to the regulatory framework before Chernobyl and Fukushima, but to take some lessons from the world of aviation where safety is important, but outcome driven and pragmatic regarding costs.

      If we want SNR to succeed we need to make it so that you certify one reactor out of the factory line and then you can build a hundred more without to having to re-certify every single reactor.

      Battery can meet the equivalent baseload. The problem is production capacity, cost, connections and the pollution caused by this deployment. Often is simply better to deploy more renewable than needed. Today you need curtailment to manage grid stability, the higher the percentage of nuclear is the higher the dependency on battery and curtailment is raising the cost of renewable.