Nuclear is there as a back up for when the sun doesnโt shine, the wind doesnโt blow, you donโt have enough space for renewables, or youโve reached the capacity for building and repairing renewables (Either logistically, in lack of expertise, or lack of public support).
Nuclear is a terrible backup. Itโs far too expensive, requires a ton of highly educated personnel we donโt have and is not flexible enough to act as a quick backup if renewables fluctuate too much. On top of that there are very few moments where there is almost no wind or sunshine over a very large area all at once, making it economically unviable to an enormous degree.
Obviously the best backup is battery storage, which is ramping up in production capacity quite quickly. And it allows far more decentralisation: a lot of homes can be fitted with a small battery pack, which combined with some solar allows them to be basically off the grid. Combined with more research showing PV cells are still up to 80% the efficiency they were designed for after 30 years (suggesting they last far longer than estimated), it seems solar is becoming an ever stronger long-term solution. Itโs also becoming cheaper each year beyond even the most optimistic scenarios.
But even something like gas is a more preferable alternative to nuclear. Itโs very cheap and still viable when needing to spin up or down quickly. It also requires less educated personnel than nuclear and most countries have at least a few built already. Sure thereโs more emissions, but for those 30 days of the year you really need them thatโs still well over 95-98% of emissions cut when compared to the current fossil fuel mix.
nuclear should never be a reason not to invest in renewables
Unfortunately it is, because money is finite. And investers choose whatever is most viable, which increasingly is not nuclear.
Iโm hopeful for fusion, but as always thatโs at least a decade away from commercial viability.
The same people that build nuclear donโt build solar or wind. And yes, there is a huge shortage for these people with renewables, which is where the black and white flat cost of energy sources breaks down. Renewables are slightly less expensive than nuclear, but infinitely more expensive when their natural source is unavailable and battery / hydro storage is depleted. โfar too expensiveโ is highly over exaggerated when nuclear costs about 1-3x as much as renewables, with newer reactors being on the low end of that scale.
On top of that there are very few moments where there is almost no wind or sunshine over a very large area all at once, making it economically unviable to an enormous degree.
To make this happen you need a massive amount of overcompensation for the times that the sun does shine and the wind does blow. The kind that isnโt economically viable. Youโre building decentralized infrastructure that needs to be maintained while being essentially useless a lot of the time. You also canโt exactly build a new wind/solar park in response to short term fluctuating demand, while you can scale up reactor utility.
Obviously the best backup is battery storage, โฆ And it allows far more decentralisation: small battery pack, which combined with some solar allows them to be basically off the grid.
The biggest users of electricity are not homes. Youโre right, this is a fine setup for houses. But youโre not going to solve the biggest energy users this way. Not to mention, even for people at home, the amount of rare earth metals required with current technology is an ecological disaster in itโs own right. We need batteries, but lets not pretend they are currently a final solution. Decentralization is not a magic cure all, decentralization also causes places with outdated energy infrastructure requiring new investments to completely revamp the system. This is not economically viable.
But even something like gas is a more preferable alternative to nuclear. Itโs very cheap and still viable when needing to spin up or down quickly.
This is not carbon neutral, which is what our goal is. So youโre essentially conceding the point here. You also highly overestimate how many days a year you would need them, considering the sun doesnโt shine for at least HALF the day on average.
Unfortunately it is, because money is finite. And investers choose whatever is most viable, which increasingly is not nuclear.
Which is why nuclear is necessary. As the engineers that can build and maintain renewables are busy, and the grid is oversaturated with renewables when the sun is shining and the wind blowing (causing their efficiency / utilization to fall if you build any more) they will eventually break the equation in favor of nuclear. And there are still nuclear reactors being built in places where public opinion isnโt irrationally afraid of nuclear.
The sad thing is we could have been building them 20 years ago, and have had massive steps ahead in being green now. Instead we are here hoping for some kind of miracle technology like cheap batteries, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, all which isnโt a certainty to become fruitful, yet nuclear is here right now.
