• CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    Nuclear is an expensive alternative to big batteries. I’m not sure about the long term economics but a megawatt of nuclear is more expensive up front

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      There are two countries heavily pushing for a properly sized hydrogen market for industry use as well as long-term storage: Germany and France.

      So basically everytime you hear arguments of storage in a nuclear vs renewable discussion, you can be sure it’s bullshit. The people actually doing the planning know well that nuclear as well as renewable models need similiar huge amounts of seasonal storage.

      (The French model of today explicitly only works economically via exports and only as long as all their neighbours use fossil fuels. That’s not a viable model when nuclear and/or renewables are in use everywhere.)

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Right, so nuclear should probably be sort of a filler during a period of low output from renewables, I guess?

      • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        It serves as a base, yes. It doesn’t respond to changes in demand quickly. I suspect that tech has gotten to the point where batteries are a better investment.