this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
579 points (90.7% liked)

World News

38583 readers
2290 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is this supposed to prove wrong exactly?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That nuclear produces more MW/HR than wind at an exponential rate.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-1462/wind-power-and-nuclear-power/

"Capacity factor is the feature highlight of this info-graphic poster. To make a graphic representation of how this compares to one nuclear power plant rated at 1154 megawatts (MW), this shows the full count of all 2077 2-MW wind turbines in a 24"x36" poster. This is what would be required to match the nuclear power plant output even if this array of turbines could hypothetically run continuously at only 25 percent of its rated capacity."

I'm giving you sources. You can downvote but I don't see your numbers reflected in any study.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Okay? I never said anything contrary to that though? So what's your point?

[–] ephemeral_gibbon@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It's produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor... They're still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.

To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn't economic. Renewables are