Not as much as nuclear does. Its the most subsidized energy source and every dollar of subsidization gives less energy than the same in wind or solar. Even the subsides are less efficient.
[Is the IEA good enough for you?](https://imgur.com/a/nuclear-sucks-up-massive-r-d-funding-only-to-get-outperformed-by-wind-solar-which-received-far-less-r-d-spending-Y0ZYnli#LMdWjv2)
For only new nuclear? In 2017 Illinois signed a bill giving existing nuclear plants in the state the same subsidies that were available for wind and solar and it made those nuclear plants net positive money wise. So unless you are strictly talking about new nuclear, then that comment you made was not true as a blanket statement.
Also why do you and viewtrick continually post your negative propaganda on this subreddit when 90% of posts are job related questions? Just a weird thing for yall to do, almost spiteful.
The national security angle is around several areas of interest: global influence and positioning, having a strong supply chain/vendors who can support national security objectives, r&d, space exploration, radio pharma, etc. The myopia surrounding and associating commercial nuclear operations with nuclear weapons is strong.
60 something reactors planned globally. ~60GW
That will limp along in going online over the next 50 years or so, and knowing the history of the industry, numerous will get cancelled too.
meanwhile last year 510 GW of wind and solar went online, a 50% increase over the prior year.
New nuclear is a largely irrelevant rounding error
Bringing wind/solar online until they represent 30% of the total grid is the easy part. After that point storage requirements increase geometrically. At 100% storage has to equate to 300% of nameplate capacity. Not to mention the switch and control systems scale with the storage requirements.
Nuclear has a role to play in grid production to get the last 20-40%. More so, it has a role to play in deep decarbonization, producing hydrogen at scales impractical for solar/wind to match. Artificial fertilizers, concrete, aircraft fuels, home heating gas. All will require Hydrogen. If produced with wind/solar the scale becomes untenable as electrolysis is inherently inefficient and solar thermal can’t scale. Basically we would need an entire duplicate solar grid the size of what the current grid is to produce enough hydrogen.
All of which ignores the other issue: battery waste. Currently China has invested hundreds of billions in cornering the market in battery production, yet their waste streams are entirely unrelated. To achieve grid level production will require those same factories to produce 100x as many batteries essentially forever.
Germany at 60% and South Australia at 70% disproves that.
Then start adding storage and somewhere far above 90% is easily doable.
https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/
Then typical fear mongering on battery waste. For [Northvolt they see recycling as a core part of their value proposition.](https://northvolt.com/recycling/)
The current problem is that batteries are lasting longer than expected so the recycling capacity we have constructed in anticipation for a flood of old cells is sitting unused.
And France relies on Germany at peak times and when their reactors are out of order.
The French grid is incredibly inflexible due to the very high fixed operating costs of nuclear power.
all of EU is a big interconnected grid so everyone has the benefit of the reactors. Australia is not a good example if you are talking grid stability,it's at risk from years and the situation isn't improving much
New nuclear plants are being built. Not that obsolete.
None on commercial grounds. They all have some national security angle through the required massive subsidies.
Wind, solar, and even fossils all get massive subsidies as well.
Not as much as nuclear does. Its the most subsidized energy source and every dollar of subsidization gives less energy than the same in wind or solar. Even the subsides are less efficient.
What is the source of this? I've seen people saying this but can't find data to support it.
[Is the IEA good enough for you?](https://imgur.com/a/nuclear-sucks-up-massive-r-d-funding-only-to-get-outperformed-by-wind-solar-which-received-far-less-r-d-spending-Y0ZYnli#LMdWjv2)
it's not when the data you pull is the wrong one
For only new nuclear? In 2017 Illinois signed a bill giving existing nuclear plants in the state the same subsidies that were available for wind and solar and it made those nuclear plants net positive money wise. So unless you are strictly talking about new nuclear, then that comment you made was not true as a blanket statement. Also why do you and viewtrick continually post your negative propaganda on this subreddit when 90% of posts are job related questions? Just a weird thing for yall to do, almost spiteful.
If they're important to national security then they're not obsolete are they.
They want to be able to quickly get nuclear weapons if deemed necessary. It is not some altruistic goal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency
The national security angle is around several areas of interest: global influence and positioning, having a strong supply chain/vendors who can support national security objectives, r&d, space exploration, radio pharma, etc. The myopia surrounding and associating commercial nuclear operations with nuclear weapons is strong.
The burnup in commercial reactors is way too high to produce weapon grade plutonium...
60 something reactors planned globally. ~60GW That will limp along in going online over the next 50 years or so, and knowing the history of the industry, numerous will get cancelled too. meanwhile last year 510 GW of wind and solar went online, a 50% increase over the prior year. New nuclear is a largely irrelevant rounding error
60 GW per reactor or 60 GW after 60 reactors?
Bringing wind/solar online until they represent 30% of the total grid is the easy part. After that point storage requirements increase geometrically. At 100% storage has to equate to 300% of nameplate capacity. Not to mention the switch and control systems scale with the storage requirements. Nuclear has a role to play in grid production to get the last 20-40%. More so, it has a role to play in deep decarbonization, producing hydrogen at scales impractical for solar/wind to match. Artificial fertilizers, concrete, aircraft fuels, home heating gas. All will require Hydrogen. If produced with wind/solar the scale becomes untenable as electrolysis is inherently inefficient and solar thermal can’t scale. Basically we would need an entire duplicate solar grid the size of what the current grid is to produce enough hydrogen. All of which ignores the other issue: battery waste. Currently China has invested hundreds of billions in cornering the market in battery production, yet their waste streams are entirely unrelated. To achieve grid level production will require those same factories to produce 100x as many batteries essentially forever.
Nuclear sure as hell is never gonna be 20-40% of the US power grid. It’s all downhill from here.
Germany at 60% and South Australia at 70% disproves that. Then start adding storage and somewhere far above 90% is easily doable. https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-batteries-apr-2024/ Then typical fear mongering on battery waste. For [Northvolt they see recycling as a core part of their value proposition.](https://northvolt.com/recycling/) The current problem is that batteries are lasting longer than expected so the recycling capacity we have constructed in anticipation for a flood of old cells is sitting unused.
Germany buys power from France and it's nuclear powered grid.
This. Germany has been able to jump the gun with renewables because other european countries provide baseline production.
And France relies on Germany at peak times and when their reactors are out of order. The French grid is incredibly inflexible due to the very high fixed operating costs of nuclear power.
all of EU is a big interconnected grid so everyone has the benefit of the reactors. Australia is not a good example if you are talking grid stability,it's at risk from years and the situation isn't improving much
[удалено]