certainly not saying you’re wrong, but the base load problem is still a problem afaik… storage solves some of it, but i think storage isn’t a full solution - we’d still need some other 24/7 generation capacity

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Agreed; and it will become more of a problem as water becomes less predictable. Problem is, for most atomic generators, that also holds true.

Investment in research is definitely needed, but building existing systems isn’t going to solve the issues either.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Thorium Salt reactors can recycle their water source and also use water from waste treatment or even sea water as they're not high pressure water reactors.

When you don't need the result of power generation to be fissionable material for warheads there are a lot more options available to you, such as using the waste from older reactors to generate energy and output much less reactive material.

Nuclear missiles are an albatross around the neck of nuclear power.

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Base load is an outdated concept. It is cheaper, by an order of magnitude, to install surplus generation capacity using renewables and build storage to cover periods of reduced production.

Nuclear reactors actually make terrible 'base load' generation anyway, as large swings in output induce thermal cycling stress in their metal components AND the economics of these multi-billion dollar investments depend on running near max output at all times - otherwise the payback time from selling power will extend beyond the useful life of the plant.

The policy wonks shilling for nuclear are not being honest. The economics for these plants are terrible, they are especially terrible if The Plan (tm) is to use nuclear as a transition fuel to be replaced by renewables - as then they won't even reach break even. To say nothing of the fact that a solar installation in the US takes 6 months, while there have been two reactors under construction in Georgia for a decade...

50 years ago, nuclear was a great option. Today, it is too expensive, too slow to build, and simply unnecessary with existing storage technologies.

If y'all were really worried about base load power, you'd be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If y’all were really worried about base load power, you’d be shilling for natural gas peaker plants + carbon capture which has much better economics.

Ah there it is. Another anti-nuclear shill for the fossil fuel industry. Sprinkling nebulous "economic" claims.
Storage at grid scale doesn't exist, and probably never will, but natural gas peak plants exist today and are extremely lucrative for the fossil fuel industry. Every watt of solar or wind has a built in fossil fuel component that is necessary for grid stability. Nuclear eliminates the fossil fuel component, why would you be against that?

The purpose of nuclear power is zero-carbon emissions. That is the most important part. The economic value of them is secondary.

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You clearly didn't comprehend what I wrote. Educate yourself on this topic - not from forum arguments, but from TEA and policy papers.

For one, I said 'base load' generation isn't needed. Your thinking that is is means your thinking on the matter is 10 years out of date. If you insist base load is needed, then gas plants and carbon capture systems are far cheaper and faster to build.

You don't care, though, as you aren't seriously involved in the policy and just want to live in a world where you are right 🤷.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Carbon capture is fossil fuel industry green washing. It doesn't exist and completely ignores other greenhouse gases that are endemic to natural gas extraction and use. Again the purpose of base load, which is needed regardless of the propaganda, is to have a stable grid. The only way base load won't be needed is if grid-scale storage both could be built (it can't) and was built (it isn't). So conveniently natural gas plants are built instead and now the US is the world's number one producer of fossil fuels.

Isn't that interesting?

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The conspiratorial thinking isn't helping your argument.

It's quite clear you haven't engaged with this topic outside of internet arguments. I sincerely hope you do some reading and learn more here - you clearly have the passion.

Until then, find someone else to harass.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

If base load isn't required, where are these grid level storage facilities? Last I checked there were <100 and they are handle a fraction of a percent of the US grid load.

How many does china have? They have a much larger solar/Wind installation then the US so surely they should have hundreds of thousands, and yet?

In ths US as of 2022, 66% of natural gas facilities are for Base Load generation, something that you claim isn't needed. Maybe you should let the engineers and grid planners know? https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61444

Can you provide a link showing the huge amount ofenergy storage that has been built alongside wind and solar? Surely such a huge undertaking would have at least a wikipedia page about it? Maybe a graph showing the increase in storage capacity over time? Afterall, base load isn't needed anymore, this seems like a huge development in the past 10years! I'd love to learn about the inflection point where base load was no longer required.