• dubious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 hours ago

    it’s long past time we took businessman out of control and replaced them with scientists.

    • Argonne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      In which case they would choose Nuclear over Solar 9/10 times. I’m onboard

      • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Nuclear has few advantages over solar.

        Solar + batteries.

        Image from this article

        ~$1000/kW vs $6 - 10,000/kW in 2018, it is cheaper today; projected costs to drop to as low as $560/kW in 2050.

        Add in the ~$150/kWh of grid scale storage with the associated switchgear to connect it to the grid.

        For a 10MW + 20MWh solar system; you are looking at approx $13,000,000 + install costs of probably $2-3,000,000.

      • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        They would probably use nuclear for base load, until something better is found. But it won’t “replace” solar.