Nuclear is back on the table for a green future(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/business/dealbook-dc-climate-task-force.html
760 comments
> ... I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.
Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology, that's probably true. Nuclear technology has been up to the task for the past fifty years.
> Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -> fuel rods supply chain.
Seawater extraction is an option if that's ever a real concern, as is using breeder reactors to reprocess spent fuel. And the exact same issues apply to storage.
Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology, that's probably true. Nuclear technology has been up to the task for the past fifty years.
> Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -> fuel rods supply chain.
Seawater extraction is an option if that's ever a real concern, as is using breeder reactors to reprocess spent fuel. And the exact same issues apply to storage.
Also, reprocessing "nuclear waste" from nuclear power stations yields a lot of pretty good fuel for "fast breeder" reactors [1]. This also mostly solves the problem of storing the highly active nuclear waste: you may need like 5% of the current storage capacity if you burn the current "nuclear waste" stockpiles.
Yes, the process involves production of Pu-239, which is weapon-grade and may raise proliferation concerns. But for the US, or France, or UK, or India, or China (and a bunch of others) this should not be a concern, since they officially have nuclear weapons.
It's mostly the political will, and the public opinion (which are interlinked) that limit a nuclear renaissance. If you talk about subsidies, please remember how huge were the subsidies that kickstarted the current solar and wind booms; early panels and wind towers were completely uneconomical by today's standards, and R&D costs were colossal. But now, with the technology streamlined and the economies of scale kicking in, solar is competitive even without subsidies.
The same could happen to a new crop of nuclear technology, much cleaner and more efficient than the kind we've inherited from 1970s.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Yes, the process involves production of Pu-239, which is weapon-grade and may raise proliferation concerns. But for the US, or France, or UK, or India, or China (and a bunch of others) this should not be a concern, since they officially have nuclear weapons.
It's mostly the political will, and the public opinion (which are interlinked) that limit a nuclear renaissance. If you talk about subsidies, please remember how huge were the subsidies that kickstarted the current solar and wind booms; early panels and wind towers were completely uneconomical by today's standards, and R&D costs were colossal. But now, with the technology streamlined and the economies of scale kicking in, solar is competitive even without subsidies.
The same could happen to a new crop of nuclear technology, much cleaner and more efficient than the kind we've inherited from 1970s.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
> Yes, the process involves production of Pu-239, which is weapon-grade and may raise proliferation concerns.
Not if you use Thorium breeder reactors.
Not if you use Thorium breeder reactors.
If you didn't include 238U in your thorium breeder, the 233U that comes out will be usable in weapons (at least until enough of the 232U decays to present a gamma hazard.) And if you DO include 238U, you get plutonium.
I'm interested in nuclear energy but it appears that I don't know enough. Thorium breeder, processes generating pu-239... Is there a relatively accessible book I can read to understand all of this better?
The LFTR presentations (lots of youtubes) showed how their isotope chains were proliferation resistant.
'handwave the unsolved-at-scale' ? All you have to do is look at Australia:
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/10/worlds-largest-grid-f...
> Battery rollout: "AGL Energy has committed to build 850 MW of battery-based assets by 2024. To that end, Torrens Island marks the first project to be constructed at the site of a fossil-fuel power plant. It won’t be the last, however, as big batteries are planned for New South Wale’s Liddell coal plant and Victoria’s Loy Yang facility. In January, AGL Energy revealed that it had secured both Wärtsilä and Fluence under non-exclusive framework agreements to supply up to 1 GW of large-scale battery storage."
So, would it make more economic sense for this 1GW battery-storage system to be replaced by a nuclear power plant? Australia after all is one of the places with the most high-grade uranium ore, being among the top three exporters.
Here's an example of more reliable analysis:
> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant."
https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/10/worlds-largest-grid-f...
> Battery rollout: "AGL Energy has committed to build 850 MW of battery-based assets by 2024. To that end, Torrens Island marks the first project to be constructed at the site of a fossil-fuel power plant. It won’t be the last, however, as big batteries are planned for New South Wale’s Liddell coal plant and Victoria’s Loy Yang facility. In January, AGL Energy revealed that it had secured both Wärtsilä and Fluence under non-exclusive framework agreements to supply up to 1 GW of large-scale battery storage."
So, would it make more economic sense for this 1GW battery-storage system to be replaced by a nuclear power plant? Australia after all is one of the places with the most high-grade uranium ore, being among the top three exporters.
Here's an example of more reliable analysis:
> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant."
https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...
French electrical power is 70% nuclear and has an installed capacity of 135 GW of power today. That comes out to 94.5 GW of nuclear power in France alone. Is there any country in the world that can supply hundreds of gigawatts to the grid from batteries today? If not, then the problem of grid power storage is unsolved at scale compared to nuclear.
Not just hundreds of Gigawatts, but also tens of thousands of Gigawatt-hours. Unless you're willing to accept regular black-outs, you need to build enough capacity to account for the occasional long, sustained period of cloudy days with low wind. The cost of that extra necessary-but-rarely-used capacity needs to be factored in to any comparison of wind/solar vs other energy sources.
It might make more sense to have either fossil-fuels as backups for such times, or for HVDC lines to connect geographically disparate regions (it's always sunny or windy somewhere).
As we're seeing from Russia and Europe, depending on someone else means you can find yourself being threatened or actually being cut off.
There will be plenty of tropical suppliers of synthetic anhydrous ammonia competing, if transmission capacity or availability falls short.
People might even keep a stock on hand.
People might even keep a stock on hand.
[deleted]
France installed nuclear capacity is 61370 MWe, I suspect you looked at MWth (thermal output, not electrical output). Source:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fr...
Currently the capacity factor for french nuclear reactors is less than 50% because of various technical issues and maintenance schedule slippage.
It will go further down because of a very hot summer and regulations on maximum released water temperatures.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fr...
Currently the capacity factor for french nuclear reactors is less than 50% because of various technical issues and maintenance schedule slippage.
It will go further down because of a very hot summer and regulations on maximum released water temperatures.
I don't think that's a common use of "unsolved at scale". We know how to do it, it just doesn't make economic sense right now. I mean, suppose you have hundreds of GW of storage of some form installed. You could just claim it's still not "solved at scale" because the global energy consumption is even higher.
The global supply chains for lithium batteries are already struggling to keep up just with current demand. Where are we going to get enough cobalt? Hopefully not DR Congo.
>Where are we going to get enough cobalt?
Nobody would use this kind of lithium ion battery for grid storage. Instead use Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo4) batteries- no cobalt needed. LiFePo4 batteries are absolutely good enough right now for grid storage.
Nobody would use this kind of lithium ion battery for grid storage. Instead use Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo4) batteries- no cobalt needed. LiFePo4 batteries are absolutely good enough right now for grid storage.
And any sort of lithium battery is the most expensive storage.
Utilities are not generally in a habit of reflexively choosing the most expensive alternative, even if some have plumped for nukes in places where ratepayers have no say.
Utilities are not generally in a habit of reflexively choosing the most expensive alternative, even if some have plumped for nukes in places where ratepayers have no say.
There is a number of battery chemistries more cheap and even efficient than Lithium-based, but with lower energy density. High energy density is important for handheld devices, for flying devices, even for cars. But stationary energy storage can be much heavier and bulkier per kWh stored, as long as it's cheaper, and can sustain more than a few thousand recharge cycles.
Lithium batteries have the momentum and are dropping in price because of the EV cars revolution happening right now. When solar revolution will happen i utility scale, the utility-type batteries that will emerge may be seriously different.
Lithium batteries have the momentum and are dropping in price because of the EV cars revolution happening right now. When solar revolution will happen i utility scale, the utility-type batteries that will emerge may be seriously different.
Since you are 100% certain that such technology will emerge in an economical viable state to solve the storage problem for Europe, could you please provide a date so we can draft a EU law that forbids burning of fossil fuel in the European market by that date.
If you can do it by this winter it would solve inflation, enable a complete sanction packet against Russian oil and gas, solve several political conflicts within EU in regard to the Ukraine war, eliminate the food shortage problem and significant reduce the cost of farming, make a large dent in reducing global warming, improve GDP, and boost prosperity in general.
If you can do it by this winter it would solve inflation, enable a complete sanction packet against Russian oil and gas, solve several political conflicts within EU in regard to the Ukraine war, eliminate the food shortage problem and significant reduce the cost of farming, make a large dent in reducing global warming, improve GDP, and boost prosperity in general.
Alternative chemisitries are many, and are actively developed; here's a 2021 overview: https://www.mining.com/non-lithium-battery-chemistries-to-gr...
What I can't predict is when some of them will become competitive enough to matter, and thus used in some large infrastructure projects.
What I can't predict is when some of them will become competitive enough to matter, and thus used in some large infrastructure projects.
If we had completely free, 100% efficient grid scale storage of unlimited capacity today we couldn't stop burning fossil fuels because we don't have enough renewable generation capacity installed to fill any form of storage.
If the storage solution is close to free then the capacity doesn't matter since any new investment would be guarantied profit. Wind, when the weather is optimal, is several time cheaper than fossil fuels. Everyone would rush to just install new renewable capacity.
Just this week in Europe, during the summer vacations and when energy usage is at the lowest point during the year, the energy market price still jumps by 3000% when the wind go from high to low.
Just this week in Europe, during the summer vacations and when energy usage is at the lowest point during the year, the energy market price still jumps by 3000% when the wind go from high to low.
Who says Lithium batteries are the best technology for grid scale storage? (Besides Elon, I guess?)
There are multiple kinds of grid storage. Australia, for example, wants these batteries to provide fast-acting frequency stabilization... in addition to stabilizing the output of various wind and solar facilities.
The advantage of lithium batteries is energy/weight and energy/volume. With grid storage, neither weight nor volume is much of an issue.
A couple years back, "60 Minutes" ran a segment of somebody developing grid batteries with seawater and dirt. They didn't store much energy per weight and volume, but who cares for grid batteries. I wonder what happened to this technology.
A couple years back, "60 Minutes" ran a segment of somebody developing grid batteries with seawater and dirt. They didn't store much energy per weight and volume, but who cares for grid batteries. I wonder what happened to this technology.
Batteries will be a negligible fraction of utility storage, so that is moot.
Why? What will the rest be?
I know there are options like pumped water, compressed air, spinning disc. No idea how feasible they are at scale, but I can imagine a world where physical storage like that could be lower maintenance & cost in the long-term compared to chemical batteries.
Even if less efficient, you can get enormous potential storage from pumped water with relatively simple machines compared to massive battery farms.
Even if less efficient, you can get enormous potential storage from pumped water with relatively simple machines compared to massive battery farms.
I know a fellow who is running a startup that moves a (very) heavy weight up a hill, and going back down it provides power. He says it is something like 90% efficient at energy recovery, whereas pumped water is far less due to friction in the pipes.
He also said the inertia of a falling weight is enormous, and would help stabilize the grid.
He also said the inertia of a falling weight is enormous, and would help stabilize the grid.
Okay, but if his startup isn't named Sisyphus Energy, I don't know what he's doing with his life.
It’s actually not a good idea at all. When you do the math ( or rather the physics) gravity batteries need so much mass and height to compete with other technologies that it’s just not worth it.
Now if you use water, pipes and pumps, instead of solid materials, now we’re talking. It’s called pumped hydro storage and is the number one grid scale storage in the world.
Now if you use water, pipes and pumps, instead of solid materials, now we’re talking. It’s called pumped hydro storage and is the number one grid scale storage in the world.
Hint: pumped hydro is, exactly, a gravity battery. A gravity "flow battery", if you like.
It is #1, just now, because a lot already existed. They cost a great deal to build, back when. New ones would cost as much, but a small variation is much cheaper, not needing a dam or a watershed.
A small variation on a bad idea can be a very good idea.
It is #1, just now, because a lot already existed. They cost a great deal to build, back when. New ones would cost as much, but a small variation is much cheaper, not needing a dam or a watershed.
A small variation on a bad idea can be a very good idea.
This is a genius idea, especially because it could be done anywhere with a hill, which makes it a lot more geographically accessible (since most places have hills)
It’s actually not a good idea at all. When you do the math ( or rather the physics) gravity batteries need so much mass and height to compete with other technologies that it’s just not worth it.
Except if water, pipes and pumps are used, as water is heavy, and pipes and pumps can transport a lot of it very efficiently and cheaply. That’s called pumped hydro storage and is currently the #1 grid scale storage in the world.
Trying to do the same with solid materials can sound like a genius idea but it’s really not.
Except if water, pipes and pumps are used, as water is heavy, and pipes and pumps can transport a lot of it very efficiently and cheaply. That’s called pumped hydro storage and is currently the #1 grid scale storage in the world.
Trying to do the same with solid materials can sound like a genius idea but it’s really not.
I'm interested in those alternative technologies, but I suspect they won't scale as well as batteries. Pumped hydro has been around a long time but it hasn't scaled because it is just very geographically specific.
Batteries have the very large disadvantage that cost is per Wh stored. Flow batteries can reduce this, as capacity becomes a matter of tankage and electrolyte.
The sweet spot for storage is near-zero opex, very low per-Wh stored capex, and cheap capex per-W in and, particularly, out. Thus, weight for watt-hours, and simple motor / generator for watts in and out.
Synthetic fuel has the appeal that the stored energy is readily tanked and transported, and very saleable; enough so to overcome low round-trip efficiency, expensive electrolysers for W-in, and complicated combined-cycle turbines for W-out.
The sweet spot for storage is near-zero opex, very low per-Wh stored capex, and cheap capex per-W in and, particularly, out. Thus, weight for watt-hours, and simple motor / generator for watts in and out.
Synthetic fuel has the appeal that the stored energy is readily tanked and transported, and very saleable; enough so to overcome low round-trip efficiency, expensive electrolysers for W-in, and complicated combined-cycle turbines for W-out.
Pumped hydro is far, far less geographically specific than always assumed.
This is partly because it needs no watershed, and partly because transmission lines mean it need not be local.
Anyway pumped hydro is only one of many equally viable alternatives. All will be used. Eventually which ones are cheapest will become clear.
This is partly because it needs no watershed, and partly because transmission lines mean it need not be local.
Anyway pumped hydro is only one of many equally viable alternatives. All will be used. Eventually which ones are cheapest will become clear.
I think my assumption with pumped hydro is that there must be something holding it back because it's been mature for a long time, so if it were as useful and scalable as you say, I think it would have been scaled a lot more by now.
Kinetic (water gravity, flywheel) or thermal (molten salt baths which can be supplemented with solar thermal).
None of these things exist at a large scale except for pumped hydro / water gravity, and that requires very convenient topography and geology to work. Generally, any non-chemical storage system is overpriced (too inefficient) or a maintenance disaster.
None of these things exist at a large scale except for pumped hydro / water gravity, and that requires very convenient topography and geology to work. Generally, any non-chemical storage system is overpriced (too inefficient) or a maintenance disaster.
Pumped hydro is not kinetic.
Not much storage exists because it has not been built yet. It has not been built yet because we haven't the renewable generating capacity to charge it from yet. Thus, we are spending on renewable generating capacity first, and lately factories that will build storage systems.
Battery storage is the most expensive variety. Round-trip efficiency is not very important anymore. I.e., other concerns dominate now. Anyway, gravity storage efficiency has always been fine.
Not much storage exists because it has not been built yet. It has not been built yet because we haven't the renewable generating capacity to charge it from yet. Thus, we are spending on renewable generating capacity first, and lately factories that will build storage systems.
Battery storage is the most expensive variety. Round-trip efficiency is not very important anymore. I.e., other concerns dominate now. Anyway, gravity storage efficiency has always been fine.
Flywheels and molten salt both have pretty gnarly failure modes too. Not Chernobyl bad, but still no fun.
Underground flywheels are perfectly safe, and more easily kept evacuated. But they won't be used much at utility scale, because they are expensive per Wh stored. Maximum storage is dictated by tensile strength of the wheel material, and each wheel needs its own motor / generator.
Do you think those technologies will be scaled such that batteries are a "negligible fraction" of utility storage, or are you just giving examples of possibilities?
Numerous technologies will be scaled. Those mentioned adjacent are just very easily understood examples. Utilities will have criteria other than "easily understood", cost chief among them.
A negligible fraction of storage will be in flywheels.
At scale means with mining requirements as well.
With current and projected reserves we can manage intra-day requirements for the whole world. This is the we mine it all option.
But we need intra-year storage capacity.
Nuclear is clearly the easier and only option (and the most environment-friendly to me, considering the mining requirements)
With current and projected reserves we can manage intra-day requirements for the whole world. This is the we mine it all option.
But we need intra-year storage capacity.
Nuclear is clearly the easier and only option (and the most environment-friendly to me, considering the mining requirements)
Mining of what? Hydrogen as storage medium for example doesn't require all that much mining. Are you assuming storage will be in the form of Lithium batteries?
I'm assuming currently proven tech of batteries. And we need to act now for climate change, with current tech.
Electricity to H2 to electricity has horrendous efficiency (about 20% at most IIRC). We'd be much better off CO2-speaking using it to replace coal in steel production, and replace gas in fertilizer production. Both of which are proven tech (but not globally deployed, as coal and gas are cheap)
Electricity to H2 to electricity has horrendous efficiency (about 20% at most IIRC). We'd be much better off CO2-speaking using it to replace coal in steel production, and replace gas in fertilizer production. Both of which are proven tech (but not globally deployed, as coal and gas are cheap)
Where are you getting that 20% number from?
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/round-trip-...
The round trip efficiency is 30% or more and rising with better electrolysis and reverse electrolysis being developed.
https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/round-trip-...
The round trip efficiency is 30% or more and rising with better electrolysis and reverse electrolysis being developed.
Power2Gas2Power has low round trip efficiency (say 40%), but as only a fairly small fraction of the energy flow goes through it that doesn't matter that much at the end of the day. If it did, that just means heavy industries would migrate to less seasonally variable places.
Inefficiency just requires extra capex, not opex. And the capex is capex is still falling at an exponential rate. So, no.
Personally, I expect something made with iron or sodium to take over.
For hydrogen, we have to solve the horrible cycle efficiency of its storage. It's not so bad for use as a fuel (e.g. for airplanes), but as static storage hydrogen is currently a very bad choice.
For hydrogen, we have to solve the horrible cycle efficiency of its storage. It's not so bad for use as a fuel (e.g. for airplanes), but as static storage hydrogen is currently a very bad choice.
Cycle efficiency is trivially resolved by feeding in more zero-opex power.
But hydrogen efficiency is improving as fast as all renewable tech.
But hydrogen efficiency is improving as fast as all renewable tech.
I agree that hydrogen efficiency doesn't matter here, but the capital expenditure to build a giant electrolyzer with 5% utilization doesn't really make sense. The cost of the electrolyzer is the things that needs to greatly fall if hydrogen is going to be used for long-term storage.
Electrolyzers driven by otherwise curtailed renewables would have a capacity factor much higher than 10%. If I go to https://model.energy/ and solve for the optimal solution for the US for 2011 weather and 2030 cost assumptions, the capacity factor of the electrolyzers is 43%.
That is more of a what-if. If there was more wind and solar built out there would be enough curtailed energy to run electrolyzers at 43% capacity factor. I am saying today it doesn't make sense because there isn't a lot of over-provisioning taking place. There should be but what investors are going to jump first with a curtailed energy electrolyzer when curtailed energy is low.
Demand for hydrogen for all uses will drive elecrolyser use to as close to 100% as available energy permits. Ultimately, other cheap storage will be used to drive them.
Well nuclear proponents handwave away the massively higher costs, the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world), and insurance for the case of a disaster.
> it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world
It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"
It's bizarre how anti-nuclear activists point at problems caused by anti-nuclear activism and ask, like Eric Andre, "how could nuclear power do this?"
Even a superficial glance would tell you that this doesn't make sense. We have had >70 years of peaceful nuclear power. A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years. So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues in the first 30 years? Moreover, why has France which hasn't had a significant antinuclear movement ever solved any of the issues?
A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years.
That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.
That anti-nuclear movement was huge in the 1970s, and was successful in many states and countries at creating major roadblocks to new power plants. Their success in California back then is big reason why the last plants are going offline now, and there haven't been any new plants since Diablo Canyon, which was started in the 1960s. To say that anti-nuclear groups weren't influential until the 21st century is absurd.
The storage problem has yet to be solved for the same reason why any nation has yet to solve the issue of pollution from fossil fuels. It cost money and any increase in energy costs is detrimental to growth.
The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.
The insurance issue is similar identical to other energy sources. Why isn't hydro power insured in the case of accidental flooding? If they were it wouldn't be possible to run them at current energy prices. We don't see fossil fuel plants being insured against increased air pollution, nor do they have to pay if people around them get sick. If a hydrodam causes a flood, then there will be a flood. Hopefully those people downstream has their own insurance.
No.
The storage problem has not been solved because we do not have the technology. There is no evidence that the technology os possible.
The long term waste (not much in quantity, but it does mount up. A few million litres at the moment I believe ??) has to be stored for periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
There is no way we can write a warning sign that we know can be read for that long.
We cannot build a structure that will last that long.
There are no places on this planet that we can be sure are stable for that long.
It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
The storage problem has not been solved because we do not have the technology. There is no evidence that the technology os possible.
The long term waste (not much in quantity, but it does mount up. A few million litres at the moment I believe ??) has to be stored for periods of time on the order of hundreds of thousands of years.
There is no way we can write a warning sign that we know can be read for that long.
We cannot build a structure that will last that long.
There are no places on this planet that we can be sure are stable for that long.
It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
[deleted]
>It is making future generations pay for our current consumption.
Okay, then in places where wind/solar/storage aren't up to snuff we'll just keep burning coal.
Okay, then in places where wind/solar/storage aren't up to snuff we'll just keep burning coal.
The US had a solution at Yucca Mountain, except the solution has been legally and politically sabotaged by activists.
> A significant anti nuclear movement has existed for maybe 40 years and it has clearly not been influencial until maybe the last 20 years.
O_o There's been a significant and influential anti-nuclear movement for the last 60 years...
O_o There's been a significant and influential anti-nuclear movement for the last 60 years...
> So why has the nuclear power industry not solved the issues
The technical issues are solved.
The political issue is that the "green lobby" will not accept any nuclear waste storage solution.
The technical issues are solved.
The political issue is that the "green lobby" will not accept any nuclear waste storage solution.
Nukes' problems are not caused by activists. They have nowhere near that much influence. Nukes' problems are inherent.
Biggest, by a large margin, is capex which simply prices it completely out of the market.
Biggest, by a large margin, is capex which simply prices it completely out of the market.
>the still unsolved long term storage problem (it's been >70 years of nuclear power and there still does not exist a long term storage facility in the world)
Storage has /been solved/ for decades.
High Level Waste is only a tiny fraction of total waste. As it stands, all of the HLW created by all the nuclear plants in the world could be kept in a football field sized area. The vast majority of the rest of the generated waste will decay to to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant.
HLW regulations around transport are so high in most countries that the standards for transport casks has made them practically indestructible. They can literally be hit by trains and no be breached. Solutions like those developed by Deep Isolation also effectively solve any long term storage problem for the HLW.
Storage has /been solved/ for decades.
High Level Waste is only a tiny fraction of total waste. As it stands, all of the HLW created by all the nuclear plants in the world could be kept in a football field sized area. The vast majority of the rest of the generated waste will decay to to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant.
HLW regulations around transport are so high in most countries that the standards for transport casks has made them practically indestructible. They can literally be hit by trains and no be breached. Solutions like those developed by Deep Isolation also effectively solve any long term storage problem for the HLW.
Here [1] is a picture of the temporary storage at the Yankee nuclear power plant temporary storage (sorry I could not find better pictures from above to give more accurate size). There are ~90 commercial nuclear reactor in the US. I can immediately see that this would not fit into a football field sized area. And this is for a single country and ignores waste that was already transported away. And no things will not decay to harmlessness during the lifetime of a plant. They decay to a level where the containers are not very warm anymore so they can be more easily transported. Also low level waste is not harmless either, and there's going to be a lot of it when decommissioning a plant.
Sorry here's the link:
https://vtdigger.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Aerial-from-...
I think the only one very valid criticism for nuclear is long term storage problem. But also I think it's sunk cost. It's a big problem to have 10000t of nuclear waste from zero, but adding another 15000t from 10000t can be ignored, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
Operation will start next year.
Operation will start next year.
At a minimum, the EV demand will solve this. 150 wh/kg Sodium Ion (good enough for likely 300 mile cars) is coming next year, and 230 wh/kg LFP is coming later this year (350-450 mile cars). Grid storage should be a core use case of Sodium Ion.
Lithium Sulfur looks VERY PROMISING, and other schemes and grid-specific chemistries will be developed.
Within the timeframe of any new nuclear construction, you cannot predict the cost targets with respect to any of these industries/technologies: they all are in prime economies of scale and technological improvement curves. I don't think they will improve as well as the last decade where solar dropped double-digits per year, but we'll see.
Nuclear keeps trying to say the scale isn't solvable with wind/solar/battery. That is a completely unproven/unsubstantiated claim. It's basically FUD. The materials being targeted for near-term alt energy will be massively scalable.
Lithium Sulfur looks VERY PROMISING, and other schemes and grid-specific chemistries will be developed.
Within the timeframe of any new nuclear construction, you cannot predict the cost targets with respect to any of these industries/technologies: they all are in prime economies of scale and technological improvement curves. I don't think they will improve as well as the last decade where solar dropped double-digits per year, but we'll see.
Nuclear keeps trying to say the scale isn't solvable with wind/solar/battery. That is a completely unproven/unsubstantiated claim. It's basically FUD. The materials being targeted for near-term alt energy will be massively scalable.
Why would you need 100% storage supply. Also note if France would go 100% nuclear they would need either significant overprovisioning or storage as well. Nuclear is not an load following source. Even less so if you want to operate economically.
> Nuclear is not an load following source
In France it is, and has been successfully for more than 33 years [1]
[1] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/
In France it is, and has been successfully for more than 33 years [1]
[1] https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01977209/
Ok I didn't know that they implemented load following in France. However, note thatbbecause nuclear power cost is almost completely capex dominated so doing this essentially increases your power cost by the factor that you use for load balancing. So out of economic reasons you hardly ever want to not run a nuclear plant at 100%.
Seems like grid scale storage could "solve" this, in precisely the way it does for renewables (ie. Treat nuclear as a sun that shines 24/7 and build storage to allow you to generate a bit above the average and follow the actual usage curve with storage).
That is, assuming that grid scale storage is in fact viable.
That is, assuming that grid scale storage is in fact viable.
Yup, but didn't we already say that renewables are cheaper per kWh? So then with any storage renewables should still be the cheap bulk generation.
You said that, that doesn't mean it is true. And it probably isn't true north of 50 degrees of latitute where lots of the people who need energy live.
France's nuclear fleet has an all-in cost of 7c/kWh, which is roughly the same as the cost of solar or wind power in France, but without the need for storage or smart grids that doubles the cost of solar/wind. (For all this remember that France has about a third of the insolation of California or Arizona per year, or maybe half at best in some places.)
France's nuclear fleet has an all-in cost of 7c/kWh, which is roughly the same as the cost of solar or wind power in France, but without the need for storage or smart grids that doubles the cost of solar/wind. (For all this remember that France has about a third of the insolation of California or Arizona per year, or maybe half at best in some places.)
For all this remember that France has about a third of the insolation of California or Arizona per year, or maybe half at best in some places.
I don't think that is correct. This is a table of average insolation for different cities around the world derived from NASA's Surface meteorology and Solar Energy data set: http://stalix.com/isolation.pdf
Los Angeles gets 5.4 kWh/m^2/day. San Francisco gets 4.9. Lyon, Paris, and Toulouse get 3.7, 3.3, and 3.7 respectively.
I don't think that is correct. This is a table of average insolation for different cities around the world derived from NASA's Surface meteorology and Solar Energy data set: http://stalix.com/isolation.pdf
Los Angeles gets 5.4 kWh/m^2/day. San Francisco gets 4.9. Lyon, Paris, and Toulouse get 3.7, 3.3, and 3.7 respectively.
I dunno if this is what gp meant to say but didn't convey properly, but the average per year is pretty irrelevant once you leave the subtropics. You need enough power for the lowest level of light part of the year, which is also the highest total energy use part of the year (much of that is achieved through individual home heating with burning fuel, but electrification is necessary to have any hope of even stalling climate trends).
Thank you for providing a trustable source.
> Why would you need 100% storage supply.
So you don't have power outages on windless nights.
So you don't have power outages on windless nights.
You generally use peaker plants or backup fossil fuel or hydro for that use case, at this point in time batteries are used to supply power for a couple of hours at best. You need that backup power anyway for when the nuclear plant is out of commission for some reason.
Regardless of how you're generating your power, you're going to need to overprovision your generation capacity slightly to account for downtime. You only need storage if all of your generation capacity is offline at the same time, which is inevitable with solar power (nighttime), possible with gas (pipeline failure?), but less inherently likely with nuclear.
> backup fossil fuel
In practice this means fossil fuels become the baseload power source.
> backup fossil fuel
In practice this means fossil fuels become the baseload power source.
> In practice this means fossil fuels become the baseload power source.
False. In the immediate future, synthetic anhydrous ammonia will displace it. Extracting NG will be too expensive to compete, because the only cost of ammonia will be capex. The more you make, the less it costs.
False. In the immediate future, synthetic anhydrous ammonia will displace it. Extracting NG will be too expensive to compete, because the only cost of ammonia will be capex. The more you make, the less it costs.
Your argument does not follow at all. I have the impression that you don't know what baseload is. Baseload is the minimum amount of demand over a given time (it is not a measure of supply at all).
The previous poster talked about using fossil (or any other means) to supply the mismatch between the supply and demand at the times where such a mismatch might exist. This is completely unrelated to baseload, it could in fact be larger than baseload. Note that such a mismatch would also exist for nuclear (dependent on overprovisioning). However it would in general be only needed of short periods of time.
The previous poster talked about using fossil (or any other means) to supply the mismatch between the supply and demand at the times where such a mismatch might exist. This is completely unrelated to baseload, it could in fact be larger than baseload. Note that such a mismatch would also exist for nuclear (dependent on overprovisioning). However it would in general be only needed of short periods of time.
It could be larger than baseload, but it's unlikely to be any less than baseload.
They are completely unrelated and yes in general they would be much smaller than baseload. Why wouldn't it? What the GP described is essentially what gas peakers do.
> yes in general they would be much smaller than baseload. Why wouldn't it?
Because if your baseload is your minimum power consumption (which generally occurs at night) and you have a windless night (therefore your renewables are generating 0 power), your "gas peakers" will have to provide the entire baseload amount of power.
Because if your baseload is your minimum power consumption (which generally occurs at night) and you have a windless night (therefore your renewables are generating 0 power), your "gas peakers" will have to provide the entire baseload amount of power.
I sincerely believe that HVDC is a game changer here, it allows you to move energy around at a fraction of the losses that were considered normal before allowing for overcapacity in one place to be used elsewhere eliminating a major requirement for storage, on that scale there is no lack of combined sun/wind availability.
Anyway transmission losses are immaterial when top-line generating capacity is so cheap.
China is building solar in Chile, at their antipodes, and a transmission line back to China with only 50% loss, for solar energy through the night.
China is building solar in Chile, at their antipodes, and a transmission line back to China with only 50% loss, for solar energy through the night.
> In practice this means fossil fuels become the baseload power source.
As the name baseload power implies, it would have to be providing power all the time and that's not what is needed.
As the name baseload power implies, it would have to be providing power all the time and that's not what is needed.
That is correct. The term I see by my government is "reserve energy". In practice this mean a country subsidize a fossil fuel plant to keep engines running when demand is low, and then the plant get paid a second time if and when the plant is running.
It is one of the main reason why investing in fossil fuel energy when countries turn to wind power is fairly good choice. The plant has lower costs in terms of fuels, when it burn fuel it does so when the market price is at the highest possible, and it get paid regardless from the government. The government are also locked into continuing this scheme as the alternative is to not have the reserve energy when needed which makes voters very angry.
Burning fossil fuels when the price is lowest and without any government subsidies is just something people with too much fossil fuel can afford to do.
It is one of the main reason why investing in fossil fuel energy when countries turn to wind power is fairly good choice. The plant has lower costs in terms of fuels, when it burn fuel it does so when the market price is at the highest possible, and it get paid regardless from the government. The government are also locked into continuing this scheme as the alternative is to not have the reserve energy when needed which makes voters very angry.
Burning fossil fuels when the price is lowest and without any government subsidies is just something people with too much fossil fuel can afford to do.
> So, would it make more economic sense for this 1GW battery-storage system to be replaced by a nuclear power plant? Australia after all is one of the places with the most high-grade uranium ore, being among the top three exporters.
As much as I detest the pro nuclear shilling, this isn't a valid comparison. 250MWh of storage is only useful for very short term energy arbitrage and isn't a replacement for always-on power.
The real answer is a mix of solar, solar-thermal, wind, storage, and combined cycle plants for the holes (ideally eventually powered by plant-based and solar-cracked hydrogen/methane/etc.). This mix costs a bit more than nuclear does now, but doesn't have the huge massive downsides of total dependency on and subservience to a handful of companies operating out of the five or so countries that are allowed to produce fuel (as well as all the existential risk stuff, concentration of risk to mistakes/attacks, horrible un-accounted externalities and supply chain fragility). It will also likely cost less to build it at a time such that it would still be completed before a nuclear plant which was comissioned now.
Of course that's all moot because the balance *right now* is running existing fossil fuel infrastructure more vs. building solar and not storing the energy. And in this equation, the cost of solar is a tiny fraction of nuclear.
As much as I detest the pro nuclear shilling, this isn't a valid comparison. 250MWh of storage is only useful for very short term energy arbitrage and isn't a replacement for always-on power.
The real answer is a mix of solar, solar-thermal, wind, storage, and combined cycle plants for the holes (ideally eventually powered by plant-based and solar-cracked hydrogen/methane/etc.). This mix costs a bit more than nuclear does now, but doesn't have the huge massive downsides of total dependency on and subservience to a handful of companies operating out of the five or so countries that are allowed to produce fuel (as well as all the existential risk stuff, concentration of risk to mistakes/attacks, horrible un-accounted externalities and supply chain fragility). It will also likely cost less to build it at a time such that it would still be completed before a nuclear plant which was comissioned now.
Of course that's all moot because the balance *right now* is running existing fossil fuel infrastructure more vs. building solar and not storing the energy. And in this equation, the cost of solar is a tiny fraction of nuclear.
Your final comparison there is an excellent example of hand-waving away the problem of intermittency. This is something that advocates of renewables regularly want to dismiss because the discussion is a difficult one.
Wind and solar are cheap now because their fuel cost is zero and the cost of grid reliability is borne by us - consumers. In a better world, the cost of balancing the grid at night should be borne by a solar PV generator because it caused the problem.
Even if you match the energy output of a solar and nuclear plant, the component of time is ignored. On a grid powered by solar, where will energy come from at night? How many batteries will you construct? The scale of these batteries is again something that’s dismissed by claims of continental-scale grids but has that been achieved anywhere? All the batteries in the world combined can power à giga watt scale grid for hours. That’s right, hours.
Nuclear is a solution in the here and now. It buys us time to sort through these problems while we work towards a better future.
Wind and solar are cheap now because their fuel cost is zero and the cost of grid reliability is borne by us - consumers. In a better world, the cost of balancing the grid at night should be borne by a solar PV generator because it caused the problem.
Even if you match the energy output of a solar and nuclear plant, the component of time is ignored. On a grid powered by solar, where will energy come from at night? How many batteries will you construct? The scale of these batteries is again something that’s dismissed by claims of continental-scale grids but has that been achieved anywhere? All the batteries in the world combined can power à giga watt scale grid for hours. That’s right, hours.
Nuclear is a solution in the here and now. It buys us time to sort through these problems while we work towards a better future.
Nuclear has the same issue of intermittency. You have to either overprovisioning if you use nuclear or use battery storage. Nuclear is much more expensive than wind/solar so if you follow an overprovisioning strategy the best is to build wind/solar capacity, because it buys you more. Moreover, the larger and more integrated grids become (this is happening already for economic reasons in Europe) the less this is an issue.
Also why do you only mention solar and not wind? Maybe because eit would make your argument less convincing? The wind still blows at night, so you do not need battery storage to provide all the demand during the night.
Why are the same simplistic arguments being brought forward again and again. They have all been debunked.
Also why do you only mention solar and not wind? Maybe because eit would make your argument less convincing? The wind still blows at night, so you do not need battery storage to provide all the demand during the night.
Why are the same simplistic arguments being brought forward again and again. They have all been debunked.
> You have to either overprovisioning if you use nuclear or use battery storage.
Whereas with solar and wind, you need to do both, because you need the overprovisioned capacity to recharge the batteries.
Whereas with solar and wind, you need to do both, because you need the overprovisioned capacity to recharge the batteries.
No with a reasonably large grid you only need to overprovison no need for battery.
But this is really a question of economics, the mix of how much storage you want to include is really a question of cost and the specific grid. One should also say that pretty much every grid already has some level of overprovisioning, because otherwise you run into problems when some exceptional events hit.
In the end why would you pay for more expensive nuclear if you can get more capacity for the same price with wind/solar. So it is cheaper to build the overprovisioning with that. Moreover if the current trends for storage prices continue then things become cheaper still.
But this is really a question of economics, the mix of how much storage you want to include is really a question of cost and the specific grid. One should also say that pretty much every grid already has some level of overprovisioning, because otherwise you run into problems when some exceptional events hit.
In the end why would you pay for more expensive nuclear if you can get more capacity for the same price with wind/solar. So it is cheaper to build the overprovisioning with that. Moreover if the current trends for storage prices continue then things become cheaper still.
> The wind still blows at night, so you do not need battery storage to provide all the demand during the night.
Is it enough wind to meet all the demand at night? And what happens when it stops blowing as much as expected for a long period of time[0]? You still need baseline power generation for quite some time to come until those questions that, well, keep getting hand waved away are solved.
0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-p...
Is it enough wind to meet all the demand at night? And what happens when it stops blowing as much as expected for a long period of time[0]? You still need baseline power generation for quite some time to come until those questions that, well, keep getting hand waved away are solved.
0: https://fortune.com/2021/09/16/the-u-k-went-all-in-on-wind-p...
There are many studies which showed how much overprovisioning you need to go to 100% renewable with different size grids. None of these are outrageous, but it's also nothing we currently need to think about. We can easily scale up renewable capacity to 70% without significant overprovisioning. So we really just need to build lots more renewables at the moment.
If you don't have renewables for a while, and transmission line availability flags, you import anhydrous ammonia from the tropics. So, you need only minimal over-provisioning and local storage.
But then you presumably need to build these extra power plants that can use that fuel?
A combined cycle powerplant is about 10% of the cost, per unit power output, of a nuclear power plant. So we could completely back up a renewable grid with CC plants and nuclear could still be much more expensive.
And, steam turbines cost more to keep working than CC turbines. But both are very mature, meaning costs won't change.
We have combined-cycle turbines already. More will be built wherever they will be needed.
> The wind still blows at night, so you do not need battery storage to provide all the demand during the night.
The wind doesn't blow as strongly at night. It's much calmer.
The wind doesn't blow as strongly at night. It's much calmer.
Yes and demand is also much lower what is your point? Apart from the fact that your statement is highly dependent on location (it is much less true for sea installations for example).
Grid scale storage need two things to be viable. Capacity and duration. The battery solutions being rolled right now are those that operate on the scale of hours, being charged each day and then discharge each night. When you can reliable assert that you can fully charge the storage each day, and reliable know you can sell the full charge each night at the price point when the market peaks, it becomes fairly trivial to determine when revenue will exceed that of investments.
Solar + battery is great in those locations, and basically no one is aruging using nuclear when solar and battery is viable for 365 days of the year. Australia has a fairly large desert where such assumption would be true. Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, UK and most of Europe do not have reliable 365 days of sun each year. There aren't many investors spending their money to build solar + storage in northern Finland.
Solar + battery is great in those locations, and basically no one is aruging using nuclear when solar and battery is viable for 365 days of the year. Australia has a fairly large desert where such assumption would be true. Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, UK and most of Europe do not have reliable 365 days of sun each year. There aren't many investors spending their money to build solar + storage in northern Finland.
>The battery solutions being rolled right now are those that operate on the scale of hours
The state where the mega batteries are installed uses about ~32 GWh total a day. An 850 MWh doesn't even come close to covering their needs. Covering ~2.6% of their load is equivalent to keeping power on for about 40 minutes.
>Solar + battery is great in those locations, and basically no one is aruging using nuclear when solar and battery is viable for 365 days of the year. Australia has a fairly large desert where such assumption would be true.
Deserts actually make for the worst place to install solar. Dust / sand covering panels substantially lowers their efficiency (to near zero), and keeping them clean involves a lot of water (Can you guess where it's hardest to get water? Yep, a desert). And lastly, because the deserts are so far away from everyone else, there is significant transmission loss.
The state where the mega batteries are installed uses about ~32 GWh total a day. An 850 MWh doesn't even come close to covering their needs. Covering ~2.6% of their load is equivalent to keeping power on for about 40 minutes.
>Solar + battery is great in those locations, and basically no one is aruging using nuclear when solar and battery is viable for 365 days of the year. Australia has a fairly large desert where such assumption would be true.
Deserts actually make for the worst place to install solar. Dust / sand covering panels substantially lowers their efficiency (to near zero), and keeping them clean involves a lot of water (Can you guess where it's hardest to get water? Yep, a desert). And lastly, because the deserts are so far away from everyone else, there is significant transmission loss.
850MW doesn't tell you how much energy it can store -- if you need 850MW to power your grid and your battery can supply 850MWh, where do you get power for the other 11 hours until the sun comes out?
For some reason, these journalists tend to drop the "h" portion of the rated capacity of energy projects. The battery capacity (I believe this will actually be a group of stand-alone installations) will be 850MWh, which is about 2.6% of that Australian state's daily consumption.
> the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant.
Yes this is generally my argument. If you take the money you would spend on nuclear and spend it instead on solar, wind, gridscale storage, as well as EV and home battery rebates, you end up with a much more robust distributed energy production grid with very low maintenance costs. I think the idea of including rebates for home batteries and EVs is an important one, because it means that when major parts of the power line system are knocked out for some reason, you still have a lot of distributed storage.
You can also begin energy production with a solar and battery roll out MUCH sooner than new nuclear construction. From a climate change perspective, producing clean energy sooner is a big deal.
And we should not overlook that nuclear energy is a single target for terrorist attack and requires a powerful state to manage security for the plant and its supply chain, while batteries and renewables require no such thing. From a libertarian/anarchist perspective, we can have a weaker state and still have good energy production with renewables.
EDIT: I am also realizing that handing out a bunch of rebates to the voters for new stuff (rooftop solar, home batteries, new EVs) would be WAY more politically popular than "lets pay now for a big monolithic nuclear power plant that takes 20 years to build." If you want a plan that actually works, keeping the voters happy seems like an important component.
Yes this is generally my argument. If you take the money you would spend on nuclear and spend it instead on solar, wind, gridscale storage, as well as EV and home battery rebates, you end up with a much more robust distributed energy production grid with very low maintenance costs. I think the idea of including rebates for home batteries and EVs is an important one, because it means that when major parts of the power line system are knocked out for some reason, you still have a lot of distributed storage.
You can also begin energy production with a solar and battery roll out MUCH sooner than new nuclear construction. From a climate change perspective, producing clean energy sooner is a big deal.
And we should not overlook that nuclear energy is a single target for terrorist attack and requires a powerful state to manage security for the plant and its supply chain, while batteries and renewables require no such thing. From a libertarian/anarchist perspective, we can have a weaker state and still have good energy production with renewables.
EDIT: I am also realizing that handing out a bunch of rebates to the voters for new stuff (rooftop solar, home batteries, new EVs) would be WAY more politically popular than "lets pay now for a big monolithic nuclear power plant that takes 20 years to build." If you want a plan that actually works, keeping the voters happy seems like an important component.
So you see a doubled cost for nuclear.
But you need to add that Renewable solution only last 20 years vs 60 for nuclear. That can be seen like triple the cost you factored in already.
And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity.
But you need to add that Renewable solution only last 20 years vs 60 for nuclear. That can be seen like triple the cost you factored in already.
And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity.
> So you see a doubled cost for nuclear.
I don’t know what you mean. I proposed spending the same total amount.
> And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity.
This was already factored in to the calculation I was agreeing with. They said that to get sufficient capacity in renewables considering reduced availability, it still costs 1/2 what nuclear costs.
I will copy and paste the relevant section from that comment for clarity:
>> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant."
> https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...
I don’t know what you mean. I proposed spending the same total amount.
> And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity.
This was already factored in to the calculation I was agreeing with. They said that to get sufficient capacity in renewables considering reduced availability, it still costs 1/2 what nuclear costs.
I will copy and paste the relevant section from that comment for clarity:
>> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant."
> https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...
LCOE is usually used to more easily compare the investment cost. While this leads to more resource usage... Because of economies of scale, wind turbines from 20 years into the future will be less expensive, more efficient and overall better.
I'm not sure what the service life of a wind turbine is, but 20 years is about right for a photovoltaic solar panel. The power output begins to fall off drastically at that point.
It's about 15-20 years for wind turbines, depending on the circumstances.
But if you just price in the cost of the rebates, aren’t you overlooking a large chunk of the cost, which is borne by homeowners? That’s still a cost, even if it’s not being directly paid by the government.
Batteries are not a feasable seasonal storage. They can store for a couple of hours, no more.
For seasonal storage you need a hydrogen economy. H2 is very very expensive and has never been rolled out at scale. Not a single large gas turbine to burn pure H2 has ever been build.
In the middle of a crisis it's better to go for proven and economic technologies than trying to invent something completely new and untestet.
For seasonal storage you need a hydrogen economy. H2 is very very expensive and has never been rolled out at scale. Not a single large gas turbine to burn pure H2 has ever been build.
In the middle of a crisis it's better to go for proven and economic technologies than trying to invent something completely new and untestet.
> Nuclear technology has been up to the task for the past fifty years.
Nuclear's position at this point is "we had a meh run, but next generation will be better, pinky promise".
On a global scale for the past fifty years we had 2 meltdowns, a country attacking another's nuclear facilities as a threat, and no clear replacement plan for the aging reactors in most countries even as they are way past the set date for decommission ing, and se still don't see how to cheaply deal with the waste.
People tend to brush the "political problems" under the rug, but they are real issues either way, so not taking them into account when doing comparisons wouldn't be fair.
Nuclear's position at this point is "we had a meh run, but next generation will be better, pinky promise".
On a global scale for the past fifty years we had 2 meltdowns, a country attacking another's nuclear facilities as a threat, and no clear replacement plan for the aging reactors in most countries even as they are way past the set date for decommission ing, and se still don't see how to cheaply deal with the waste.
People tend to brush the "political problems" under the rug, but they are real issues either way, so not taking them into account when doing comparisons wouldn't be fair.
In the same 50 years we’ve had the largest period of economic expansion in history, with virtually the entire economy directly dependent on cheap and plentiful energy.
There is an argument to say that on balance the pros outweigh the cons.
There is an argument to say that on balance the pros outweigh the cons.
> Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage and make a series of generous assumptions about future technology
Grid storage technology is already there with pumped hydro storage(PHS). As 90% of built and newly building grid storage is already PHS. It is political problems and inertia that's holding it back. To be clear, I'm referring to off the river closed-loop PHS, which doesn't need a huge river check dam, flood zone, huge population relocation or ecological issues. All it needs is two places with area of 1sqkm each some hundred meter elevation apart. There is ANU study that claims we have enough of such sites for needed storage. Look at how fast China is building PHS recently. I think PHS approvals, even for closed-loop, in US are as hard to get as nuclear, which is holding it back.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/01/05/sustainable-pumped-hy...
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/10/05/aussie-scie...
Grid storage technology is already there with pumped hydro storage(PHS). As 90% of built and newly building grid storage is already PHS. It is political problems and inertia that's holding it back. To be clear, I'm referring to off the river closed-loop PHS, which doesn't need a huge river check dam, flood zone, huge population relocation or ecological issues. All it needs is two places with area of 1sqkm each some hundred meter elevation apart. There is ANU study that claims we have enough of such sites for needed storage. Look at how fast China is building PHS recently. I think PHS approvals, even for closed-loop, in US are as hard to get as nuclear, which is holding it back.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/01/05/sustainable-pumped-hy...
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/10/05/aussie-scie...
> Sure, if you handwave the unsolved-at-scale technical problems....
> Seawater extraction is an option if that's ever a real concern
Hmmm.... Hand waving unsolved at scale technical problems
> Seawater extraction is an option if that's ever a real concern
Hmmm.... Hand waving unsolved at scale technical problems
Complains about renewables handwaving at scale, then suggests seawater uranium extraction and breeder reactors.
They have very high double standards in Nuclearstan.
They have very high double standards in Nuclearstan.
> They have very high double standards in Nuclearstan.
Don't worry, they're lobbying to lower those standards in order to be more cost-competitive with renewables.
Don't worry, they're lobbying to lower those standards in order to be more cost-competitive with renewables.
We've had breeder reactors for decades, what are you talking about?
We've had demo reactors with various issues, none of which demonstrated they could compete even with burner reactors.
I remind you the double standard involved criticizing renewables "at scale", so a few problematic breeder reactors won't dispel the hypocrisy.
I remind you the double standard involved criticizing renewables "at scale", so a few problematic breeder reactors won't dispel the hypocrisy.
For what it's worth, I'm not suggesting using breeder reactors as a primary source of electrical power, but as an option for reprocessing transuranic waste and spent fuel. So totally different levels of scale.
Also, the main reason we haven't invested in breeder reactors is that it turns out uranium isn't actually scarce enough to justify it.
Also, the main reason we haven't invested in breeder reactors is that it turns out uranium isn't actually scarce enough to justify it.
Oh but you have to use breeders (or perhaps sea water uranium extraction) for a global nuclear-powered economy. Burner reactors run out of sufficiently cheap uranium in less than a decade at that scale. That pesky "scale" thing again.
That doesn't mean every single reactor needs to be a breeder reactor; it means you have a small number of breeder reactors, which we've done over half a century ago.
.... and by the time any reactor design I'd be interested in seeing built (aka not old solid fuel rod plants susceptible to meltdowns), it would be ... 10 years? 20 years?
wind/solar/storage are on actively improving cost curves that even gas turbine is losing to. No one knows the price target of wind/solar/battery in 10-20 years, but I'd guess it is at least half the cost in real dollars of today.
Nuclear proponents are pushing all the media outlets because they are in the same boat as coal: LCOE is so much lower for wind/solar that electric companies lose money on them relative to alt energy. Only base load is a viable role onthe grid, and gas turbines beat them at that handily (although with a carbon tax who knows).
I'm not opposed to keeping existing nuclear plants online with some subsidies, but new nuclear plants? Come on. And I am a huge fan of those LFTR presentations and strongly believe next gen nuclear will be viable once a stable price point can be targeted.
wind/solar/storage are on actively improving cost curves that even gas turbine is losing to. No one knows the price target of wind/solar/battery in 10-20 years, but I'd guess it is at least half the cost in real dollars of today.
Nuclear proponents are pushing all the media outlets because they are in the same boat as coal: LCOE is so much lower for wind/solar that electric companies lose money on them relative to alt energy. Only base load is a viable role onthe grid, and gas turbines beat them at that handily (although with a carbon tax who knows).
I'm not opposed to keeping existing nuclear plants online with some subsidies, but new nuclear plants? Come on. And I am a huge fan of those LFTR presentations and strongly believe next gen nuclear will be viable once a stable price point can be targeted.
> the unsolved-at-scale technical problems with grid energy storage
What are these problems, exactly? I see videos and news stories about grid batteries being successfully deployed for short term management and how pumped hydro is basically a big cheap gravity battery, but I'm not a civil/electrical engineer, so I accept there could easily be elephants in the room here.
What are these problems, exactly? I see videos and news stories about grid batteries being successfully deployed for short term management and how pumped hydro is basically a big cheap gravity battery, but I'm not a civil/electrical engineer, so I accept there could easily be elephants in the room here.
It’s just scale. Those batteries and pumped hydro stories seem big. Relative to your house, they are. Relative to the grid as a whole, they are small.
That doesn't answer the question. What exactly is the problem that needs to be solved?
Scaling up capacity of the storage. There aren't that many sites that are geologically feasible for pumped storage (and it destroys a local ecosystem by flooding and draining it repeatedly) and batteries need rare earth metals (not actually that rare but environmentally toxic to produce).
We need O(100x) current production to fully switch away from hydrocarbons. That's a lot of reservoirs or a lot of cobalt that have to be mined.
We need O(100x) current production to fully switch away from hydrocarbons. That's a lot of reservoirs or a lot of cobalt that have to be mined.
Cobalt already eliminated from half of new Tesla batteries: https://electrek.co/2022/04/22/tesla-using-cobalt-free-lfp-b...
> batteries need rare earth metals
"Rare earths" are a column (edit: ha ha see below) in the periodic table, and are not used in batteries.
Some types of electric motors use rare earths, others do not.
Here's a primer: https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-batte...
"Rare earths" are a column (edit: ha ha see below) in the periodic table, and are not used in batteries.
Some types of electric motors use rare earths, others do not.
Here's a primer: https://blog.ucsusa.org/josh-goldman/electric-vehicles-batte...
"Rare earths" are actually the lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium [1], not one column of the periodic table. Good information otherwise!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanide#Etymology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanide#Etymology
Ha ha busted! Thanks. As an astronomer I think everything beyond He is a metal.
Globally the potential pumped storage resource is far larger than would be needed. You might be confused by assuming the pumped hydro has to be on existing rivers.
http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
http://re100.eng.anu.edu.au/global/
I don't understand why people don't talk about the water usage involved in pumped hydro when the vast majority of the Western United States is dealing with record low water levels + sinking due to groundwater usage.
Pumped hydro doesn't use up the water. It goes back and forth between the lower and the upper reservoirs. Some evaporates, for sure, but that's a tiny fraction of the water that would be evaporated cooling a NPP of the same power output.
Furthermore, putting floating solar on the reservoirs would eliminate much of the evaporation.
Sure it doesn't use water, but it's still taking water out of the ecosystem. Why is that not considered when we have record low water levels.
And, when it is used for storage, it is at higher altitude, so evaporates less.
PV can be used to desalinate sea water as well as pumping it up to the top of the reservoirs. It's also possible to extract energy from fresh water as it mixes with sea water to improve the system efficiency, but I don't want to even guess if that's better or worse overall than just cleaning the water and reusing it.
How is energy storage at scale unsolved when we can synthesize Methane quite easily? Grid scale storage is just a matter of cost. It's unclear which technology will be the most cost effective, but if we wanted to we could just store energy as Methane and pay the 50% efficiency cost.
If this is so simple, why don't we do it? Or is that the question you're asking?
Of course, that 50% efficiency cost seems like a bit of a bear in itself. If you lose half of the stored power, that would seem to significantly drive up the total lifecycle cost of a Watt of wind power. (Recognizing, of course, that not all of it must be stored.)
The cost and inefficiency (==cost) of storage seems like an unfortunate thing to handwave away in a conversation about relative costs.
Of course, that 50% efficiency cost seems like a bit of a bear in itself. If you lose half of the stored power, that would seem to significantly drive up the total lifecycle cost of a Watt of wind power. (Recognizing, of course, that not all of it must be stored.)
The cost and inefficiency (==cost) of storage seems like an unfortunate thing to handwave away in a conversation about relative costs.
No, it's obvious why we don't do it: it's fairly expensive and we currently don't have enough renewable supply to fill tanks with Methane. Grids can easily be 70+% renewable without any storage at all. Money is currently better spent increasing supply than building storage.
We do it already on a grand scale.
It's just that since we live in a world where we burn lots of gas, we don't need to do the "generate synthetic methane" step, we can just burn less of it.
Sure, we could spend billions on generating synthetic methane from renewables while at the same time burning natural methane, but that would be stupid.
It's just that since we live in a world where we burn lots of gas, we don't need to do the "generate synthetic methane" step, we can just burn less of it.
Sure, we could spend billions on generating synthetic methane from renewables while at the same time burning natural methane, but that would be stupid.
That is all capex. Renewable capex is still in free fall. Storage too.
The more you use it, the less it costs, per kWh.
The more you use it, the less it costs, per kWh.
The primary cost of nuclear is politically driven. I don't know if that matters in a world of actual energy scarcity, I guess we'll be finding out.
If you remove liability and the insanity of our current methods of waste storage the costs become outright cheap, especially in an imagined future where there is massive investment into new nuclear infrastructure.
By the metrics people use to judge nuclear, hydro would be the most expensive power source known to man if you were to build one today. Just the land costs would make the entire project nonsensical if viewed solely in that frame.
Those are just artificial constructs though. In a world where there is actual human suffering (in the west) due to physical energy shortages the politics (and thus cost models) may shift rapidly.
If you remove liability and the insanity of our current methods of waste storage the costs become outright cheap, especially in an imagined future where there is massive investment into new nuclear infrastructure.
By the metrics people use to judge nuclear, hydro would be the most expensive power source known to man if you were to build one today. Just the land costs would make the entire project nonsensical if viewed solely in that frame.
Those are just artificial constructs though. In a world where there is actual human suffering (in the west) due to physical energy shortages the politics (and thus cost models) may shift rapidly.
When you say 'primary cost' do you mean construction cost? Again, utility managers will be looking at lifecycle costs, from the cradle (construction) through use (fueling, security, cooling water, maintenance) to the grave (decomissioning).
The reason costs are high is not political, it's that the systems involved need to be over-engineered relative to say, a coal-fired power plant, where a breakdown or fire will create a big mess, but not a 100-year exclusion zone. Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.
For example, California's decision to close the San Onofre reactor was mostly related to maintenance costs, as their steam generator system was shaking itself to pieces and had to be shut down due to the radioactive loop leaking into the non-radioactive steam generation system. The rational conclusion is that long-term maintenance of nuclear reactors is an expensive proposition, due to catastrophic failure modes:
https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/san-onof...
The reason costs are high is not political, it's that the systems involved need to be over-engineered relative to say, a coal-fired power plant, where a breakdown or fire will create a big mess, but not a 100-year exclusion zone. Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.
For example, California's decision to close the San Onofre reactor was mostly related to maintenance costs, as their steam generator system was shaking itself to pieces and had to be shut down due to the radioactive loop leaking into the non-radioactive steam generation system. The rational conclusion is that long-term maintenance of nuclear reactors is an expensive proposition, due to catastrophic failure modes:
https://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/san-onof...
> Water pumps for nuclear reactor cooling systems, for example, are the most robustly engineered (and expensive) pumps ever built, as far as I know.
Which is not an issue with newer reactor designs, which are no less proven than grid storage.
Which is not an issue with newer reactor designs, which are no less proven than grid storage.
New reactor designs, even with closely regulated designs, are very unproven. The next gen French EDF design recently had some units come online, but they had to figure out some unexpected buildup in some byproducts. You are also validating more than the design, you are validating a manufacturing materials control in a very long term feedback cycle - which is generally terribly difficult for making improvements.
In comparison to something like grid storage where one can site, build and operate, in less time than the make a minor nuclear design correction. Grid storage can correct mistakes at very low cost and on a very rapid cycle compared to nuclear.
In comparison to something like grid storage where one can site, build and operate, in less time than the make a minor nuclear design correction. Grid storage can correct mistakes at very low cost and on a very rapid cycle compared to nuclear.
Grid storage is proven through dozens of working installations earning decent money for their operators, pushing gas peaker plants out of the market.
Newer reactor designs are well simulated but have zero real world implementation.
Newer reactor designs are well simulated but have zero real world implementation.
Grid storage is as simple as E = mgh. We do that industrially, billions of times a day, worldwide, and have for centuries.
To cite uncertainty about storage is only to admit you have no argument.
To cite uncertainty about storage is only to admit you have no argument.
A relevant piece of information that could be attached to the San Onofre reactor argument is that we are talking about a 1st generation reactor, from the late 60’s.
Proponents of new nuclear solutions would argue that reactor design, which is today at 4th generation, has greatly evolved and improved in too many ways to count since the late 60’s.
Proponents of new nuclear solutions would argue that reactor design, which is today at 4th generation, has greatly evolved and improved in too many ways to count since the late 60’s.
> The primary cost of nuclear is politically driven. I don't know if that matters in a world of actual energy scarcity, I guess we'll be finding out.
> If you remove liability and the insanity of our current methods of waste storage the costs become outright cheap, especially in an imagined future where there is massive investment into new nuclear infrastructure.
You are misinformed. Nuclear power operators do not have to covee liability costs (no insurance is willing to cover nuclear disaster, so this is a massive subsidy). Also the cost of long term storage is typically not included in cost calculations for nuclear power either. Despite of this nuclear is more expensive than renewables.
> By the metrics people use to judge nuclear, hydro would be the most expensive power source known to man if you were to build one today. Just the land costs would make the entire project nonsensical if viewed solely in that frame.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. In fact hydro projects have to typically compensate land owners when building a dam.
> If you remove liability and the insanity of our current methods of waste storage the costs become outright cheap, especially in an imagined future where there is massive investment into new nuclear infrastructure.
You are misinformed. Nuclear power operators do not have to covee liability costs (no insurance is willing to cover nuclear disaster, so this is a massive subsidy). Also the cost of long term storage is typically not included in cost calculations for nuclear power either. Despite of this nuclear is more expensive than renewables.
> By the metrics people use to judge nuclear, hydro would be the most expensive power source known to man if you were to build one today. Just the land costs would make the entire project nonsensical if viewed solely in that frame.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true. In fact hydro projects have to typically compensate land owners when building a dam.
> A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party. Yes, that's technologically possible, but would require massive economic investment.
I agree, but: It's 100% impossible to replace the need for gas in the short timespan of five months until the next winter, no matter how much money or resources we throw at the problem. The absolute majority of heating is done with gas and major parts of the electrical grid depend on it. We cannot replace it with renewables in time. We need gas or people will freeze to death in the worst case, there are no alternatives to the LNG imports in the short-term, IMO.
And the countries that can export LNG, including the US, are aware of their strong negotiating position and want long-term contracts.
Europe may not have a choice. :/
I agree, but: It's 100% impossible to replace the need for gas in the short timespan of five months until the next winter, no matter how much money or resources we throw at the problem. The absolute majority of heating is done with gas and major parts of the electrical grid depend on it. We cannot replace it with renewables in time. We need gas or people will freeze to death in the worst case, there are no alternatives to the LNG imports in the short-term, IMO.
And the countries that can export LNG, including the US, are aware of their strong negotiating position and want long-term contracts.
Europe may not have a choice. :/
[deleted]
> A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party.
“asap” LOL
Here in the real world, we have Germany, which has the strongest pro-green anti-nuclear agenda in Europe, but is (1) building coal plants, (2) financing Russian war and (3) blocking sanctions on Russia to save its economy (along with Hungary who are doing it for political reasons).
The green agenda is a massive failure in the real world. Maybe it will work in 50 years (when “possible technological development” in batteries catches up) but not right now.
“asap” LOL
Here in the real world, we have Germany, which has the strongest pro-green anti-nuclear agenda in Europe, but is (1) building coal plants, (2) financing Russian war and (3) blocking sanctions on Russia to save its economy (along with Hungary who are doing it for political reasons).
The green agenda is a massive failure in the real world. Maybe it will work in 50 years (when “possible technological development” in batteries catches up) but not right now.
> Germany ... is (1) building coal plants
That claim may be a little out of date, especially as the new government plans to phase out coal by 2030. It's true that a new coal power plant was opened in 2020, but it was "expected to be the last"[0]. Admittedly, it's also true that the country is temporarily reactivating old coal power plants to reduce Russian gas imports.[1]
[0] https://ifrf.net/combustion-industry-news/new-coal-power-pla...
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germany-reactiv...
That claim may be a little out of date, especially as the new government plans to phase out coal by 2030. It's true that a new coal power plant was opened in 2020, but it was "expected to be the last"[0]. Admittedly, it's also true that the country is temporarily reactivating old coal power plants to reduce Russian gas imports.[1]
[0] https://ifrf.net/combustion-industry-news/new-coal-power-pla...
[1] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germany-reactiv...
Sanctions blocked specifically by Germany and Hungary (and noone else)? The oil ban, FWIW, was blocked or watered down by Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic (and supported by Germany):
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/05/09/hungary-slovak...
https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-russian-oil-ban-stalls-a...
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/05/09/hungary-slovak...
https://www.politico.eu/article/eus-russian-oil-ban-stalls-a...
Germany is not building more coal plants it it shutting them down.
Let's not argue semantics. Building new plants, extending existing ones, digging more coal or importing it from abroad.
It's all the same. "Green" energy failed, even for one of its biggest proponents.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...
> In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018.
It's all the same. "Green" energy failed, even for one of its biggest proponents.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-coal-tops-wind-as-primary-elec...
> In the first half of 2021, coal shot up as the biggest contributor to Germany's electric grid, while wind power dropped to its lowest level since 2018.
Your definition of failure is a funny one. So renewables are now consistently supplying 20-30% of Germanys electricity despite decades of efforts by the fossil and nuclear lobby, which essentially destroyed Germanys wind and solar industry (which was world leading).
Nuclear on the other hand which, if you read what proponents said in the 50s, 60s and 70s, was going to give us unlimited free energy, is somehow deemed a success?
Now that renewables are essentially eating fossils and nuclears lunch we are supposed to believe that some sort of nuclear technological revolution is just around the corner and all the high costs are due to the "bad government regulations" anyway?
Nuclear on the other hand which, if you read what proponents said in the 50s, 60s and 70s, was going to give us unlimited free energy, is somehow deemed a success?
Now that renewables are essentially eating fossils and nuclears lunch we are supposed to believe that some sort of nuclear technological revolution is just around the corner and all the high costs are due to the "bad government regulations" anyway?
It's not semantics. Germany built its last ever coal plant several years ago and has been slowly turning them off for a while now.
Renewables are not dependent upon any battery development. Batteries work now, are getting cheaper at exponential rate, and are the most expensive form of storage.
> Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs. A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes.
If you eliminate gas and coal powered plants then the costs of nuclear plant lifecycle is incidental compared to economic losses that a country would encounter if they relied on solar and wind.
The dirty secret about "clean energy" is that it isn't actually very clean. When you eliminate big coal plants and try to use solar or wind, what you are actually doing is moving your dependence from coal to natural gas.
Those wind farms and solar farms require significant investment in numerous smaller style natural gas plants in order to function correctly.
So, right now, when people think they are moving away from fossil fuels they are really just moving to natural gas that is supplanted by solar and wind when conditions are ideal for them to work properly.
If you want to eliminate your dependence on natural gas, then, the only feasible option is nuclear.
If you eliminate gas and coal powered plants then the costs of nuclear plant lifecycle is incidental compared to economic losses that a country would encounter if they relied on solar and wind.
The dirty secret about "clean energy" is that it isn't actually very clean. When you eliminate big coal plants and try to use solar or wind, what you are actually doing is moving your dependence from coal to natural gas.
Those wind farms and solar farms require significant investment in numerous smaller style natural gas plants in order to function correctly.
So, right now, when people think they are moving away from fossil fuels they are really just moving to natural gas that is supplanted by solar and wind when conditions are ideal for them to work properly.
If you want to eliminate your dependence on natural gas, then, the only feasible option is nuclear.
> If you want to eliminate your dependence on natural gas, then, the only feasible option is nuclear.
no. you need gas for nuclear AND renewables. it really does not matter. it's bullshit to argue against it unless you show the world a way to have an on/off button for a nuclear plant. (if you do, you might be very very very rich)
no. you need gas for nuclear AND renewables. it really does not matter. it's bullshit to argue against it unless you show the world a way to have an on/off button for a nuclear plant. (if you do, you might be very very very rich)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant
> Load-following plants are typically in between base load and peaking power plants in efficiency, speed of start-up and shut-down, construction cost, cost of electricity and capacity factor.
as said, they don't remove gas and it's stupid to assume since your article specially talks about france which is heavy on gas for peaks.
> Load-following plants are typically in between base load and peaking power plants in efficiency, speed of start-up and shut-down, construction cost, cost of electricity and capacity factor.
as said, they don't remove gas and it's stupid to assume since your article specially talks about france which is heavy on gas for peaks.
>Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.
Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear? Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it. What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others.
Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear? Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it. What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others.
Nuclear plants are much more complex, take much longer to build, and are much less forgiving of error in construction or operation. As a result, they iterate and improve much more slowly than solar and storage, which have the property of being composed of large numbers of copies of loosely coupled elements.
Small reactors are not expected to be any cheaper than traditional reactors. They are a better bet right now because the traditional reactors keep getting mothballed in developed nations, and they have some clever technical innovations, but these are not complete game changers.
Each decade, nuclear builds also trend towards getting more expensive. Like it or not, it at least partially Fukushima Daiichi that killed the nuclear expansion US. The AP1000 had new missile shield requirements that was slowing it down before that happened, and then the Japan accident added even more regulation. There was an anti-nuclear chair of the regulatory commission at the time, and yes, this is fundamentally political, but it's hard to push back on these specifics.
Each decade, nuclear builds also trend towards getting more expensive. Like it or not, it at least partially Fukushima Daiichi that killed the nuclear expansion US. The AP1000 had new missile shield requirements that was slowing it down before that happened, and then the Japan accident added even more regulation. There was an anti-nuclear chair of the regulatory commission at the time, and yes, this is fundamentally political, but it's hard to push back on these specifics.
Countries will rational regulation will enjoy the nuclear progress, the others will buy from them or throw a lot of money on expensive batteries that will also cause problems with extraction, recycling, fires etc. My bet is US will use fosil fuel for a few decades still since is cheap.
Only a negligible fraction of storage will be batteries. They cost more. Only lithium, the most expensive, is fire-prone, among battery tech.
The alternatives are cheaper and cause no such problems.
The alternatives are cheaper and cause no such problems.
> >Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.
> Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear?
Nuclear had more than triple the amount of time and significantly more subsidies for showing this technological scaling.
> Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it.
People were super enthusiastic about nuclear for the first 40 years. Even after Tschernobyl nuclear opponents were largely portrait as unrealistic hippies in most countries and policies were certainly driven by people very favourable to nuclear. Even Germany one of the most nuclear sceptic countries only decided after fukushima to stop nuclear.
What is the technological breakthrough that we already know about that would suddenly change the progress massively?
>What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others.
What people tend to forget is that about 40-50% of a nuclear power plant is the same as any other thermal power plant. We generally don't build small coal plants either, the scales don't work well.
The reason why wind and solar have very different scaling is because their principle of electricity generation is very different.
If you have two stocks one in exponential just starting and the other being slowly growing linearly for a long time, which one would you invest in? In particular if indications are that both stocks will continue on the same curves. That's the situation we have with nuclear vs renewables.
> Why the progress is possible only for Solar and storage and in your opinion not possible for nuclear?
Nuclear had more than triple the amount of time and significantly more subsidies for showing this technological scaling.
> Nuclear could be cheaper if people would not be paranoid about it.
People were super enthusiastic about nuclear for the first 40 years. Even after Tschernobyl nuclear opponents were largely portrait as unrealistic hippies in most countries and policies were certainly driven by people very favourable to nuclear. Even Germany one of the most nuclear sceptic countries only decided after fukushima to stop nuclear.
What is the technological breakthrough that we already know about that would suddenly change the progress massively?
>What I think could happen is this new smaller reactors could be deployed in countries more rational, irrational countries will have to buy energy from the others.
What people tend to forget is that about 40-50% of a nuclear power plant is the same as any other thermal power plant. We generally don't build small coal plants either, the scales don't work well.
The reason why wind and solar have very different scaling is because their principle of electricity generation is very different.
If you have two stocks one in exponential just starting and the other being slowly growing linearly for a long time, which one would you invest in? In particular if indications are that both stocks will continue on the same curves. That's the situation we have with nuclear vs renewables.
> I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage.
Very unlikely. Nuclear costs are sky high only because in the last decades it was suppressed rather than invested in and improved. Had it seen the same level of support the wind and solar energy have, we'd have a dirt-cheap abundance of nuclear power, with very little carbon emissions. Take away the red tape and scaremongering, and wind/solar/storage combination will be left very far behind in costs and efficiency.
Very unlikely. Nuclear costs are sky high only because in the last decades it was suppressed rather than invested in and improved. Had it seen the same level of support the wind and solar energy have, we'd have a dirt-cheap abundance of nuclear power, with very little carbon emissions. Take away the red tape and scaremongering, and wind/solar/storage combination will be left very far behind in costs and efficiency.
> > I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage.
> Very unlikely. Nuclear costs are sky high only because in the last decades it was suppressed rather than invested in and improved. Had it seen the same level of support the wind and solar energy have, we'd have a dirt-cheap abundance of nuclear power, with very little carbon emissions. Take away the red tape and scaremongering, and wind/solar/storage combination will be left very far behind in costs and efficiency.
And your sources are? Nuclear power has received significantly more subsidies than solar and wind combined [1] (note you can find similar numbers for Europe) . The myth that somehow solar and wind received more subsidies is just propaganda.
[1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-S...
> Very unlikely. Nuclear costs are sky high only because in the last decades it was suppressed rather than invested in and improved. Had it seen the same level of support the wind and solar energy have, we'd have a dirt-cheap abundance of nuclear power, with very little carbon emissions. Take away the red tape and scaremongering, and wind/solar/storage combination will be left very far behind in costs and efficiency.
And your sources are? Nuclear power has received significantly more subsidies than solar and wind combined [1] (note you can find similar numbers for Europe) . The myth that somehow solar and wind received more subsidies is just propaganda.
[1] https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-S...
GP refers to "last decades" but that source is from 2011 with data ending at 2009. Do you have data for the last decade?
Why would we not look at the total subsidies over time? Here's the spending for Europe until 2007 [1], how much subsidies would have to be given to renewables to make up that difference? Here is some more data on hidden subsidies for later dates going to fossils and nuclear [2], but is not a comprehensive comparison of subsidies.
[1]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Too_much... [2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/greenpeace...
[1]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Too_much... [2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/greenpeace...
There is no way that any renewable subsidies in the past decade could match the many decades prior. And, those subsidies are still running.
South Korea has been constantly building nuclear for decades. The price has come down marginally, renewables are still far cheaper. Yes, the problem is largely political, I don't see a solution to that though.
Renewables are far cheaper on the margins but not necessarily if you want them to provide all your power needs.
Nuclear cost in South Korea, Japan, and India is generally under $3000/kW, according to this peer-reviewed study. See Figure 12: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
Now let's model overall grid costs, here: https://model.energy/
Pick a country and "fetch wind and solar." By default the modeler doesn't include nuclear, so click "show advanced assumption settings." Check "dispatchable technology 2."
This defaults to a nuclear cost of $6000/kW. Leave it there or try $3000. It assumes a nuclear plant lifespan of only 25 years; the average plant age in the US is 40 years and expected lifespan for many plants is 60 years, so set it to whatever you think is more realistic. The default also sets the discount rate for nuclear to twice what it has for everything else, so fix that.
Run the model. With any reasonable assumptions, many countries end up with at least some nuclear on their grid, and some get their lowest grid cost with all nuclear. The US has some of the best wind and solar resources and relatively high nuclear costs (for now anyway), but the US situation doesn't generalize to the whole world.
Nuclear cost in South Korea, Japan, and India is generally under $3000/kW, according to this peer-reviewed study. See Figure 12: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
Now let's model overall grid costs, here: https://model.energy/
Pick a country and "fetch wind and solar." By default the modeler doesn't include nuclear, so click "show advanced assumption settings." Check "dispatchable technology 2."
This defaults to a nuclear cost of $6000/kW. Leave it there or try $3000. It assumes a nuclear plant lifespan of only 25 years; the average plant age in the US is 40 years and expected lifespan for many plants is 60 years, so set it to whatever you think is more realistic. The default also sets the discount rate for nuclear to twice what it has for everything else, so fix that.
Run the model. With any reasonable assumptions, many countries end up with at least some nuclear on their grid, and some get their lowest grid cost with all nuclear. The US has some of the best wind and solar resources and relatively high nuclear costs (for now anyway), but the US situation doesn't generalize to the whole world.
The new Korean plants are designed for a lifespan of 60 years.
If governments provide guarantees for the loans, a discount rate of 3% is not unreasonable.
Set it like that, and it spits out a price of €32.6/MWh.
Now, to make it even more reasonable to emerging economies, assume that through mass production and a relaxation of security requirements to less paranoid levels, the overnight cost can be reduced to €1500, you get $21.3/MWh.
This is what the price of electricity SHOULD be, if we want the world to stop depending on hydrocarbons. (Not just a few rich countries.)
If governments provide guarantees for the loans, a discount rate of 3% is not unreasonable.
Set it like that, and it spits out a price of €32.6/MWh.
Now, to make it even more reasonable to emerging economies, assume that through mass production and a relaxation of security requirements to less paranoid levels, the overnight cost can be reduced to €1500, you get $21.3/MWh.
This is what the price of electricity SHOULD be, if we want the world to stop depending on hydrocarbons. (Not just a few rich countries.)
When your argument depends on all existing trends reversing, that tells us all we need to know about your conclusion.
You seem to ignore the fact that existing trends were artificially manipulated to suppress the nuclear energy use.
"The fact". I think not.
There is an abundance of data, if one is willing to look. Just first links from DDG:
"Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [1]
"Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [2]
"German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [3]
[1]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi...
[2]: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredi...
[3]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-brande...
"Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [1]
"Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [2]
"German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [3]
[1]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi...
[2]: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredi...
[3]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-brande...
This is a load of conspiracy theoretic BS, starting from the nonsense position that environmental groups are the source of nuclear's failure.
Yeah right, "Independent fact-checkers said the information is false".
The greens in Germany have consistently worked on destroying Germany's nuclear energy generation, and now it is completely dependent on gas import from Russia, funding Putin's war with Ukraine.
The greens in Germany have consistently worked on destroying Germany's nuclear energy generation, and now it is completely dependent on gas import from Russia, funding Putin's war with Ukraine.
I can fully agree that green groups have opposed nuclear.
I call bullshit on the absurd idea that the global failure of nuclear is due to these groups.
I call bullshit on the absurd idea that the global failure of nuclear is due to these groups.
Trends and fashions come and go. My daughter is wearing pants that look that the ones my mother wore some years before I was born. At that time, nuclear power was still popular. And now, perhaps, it is becoming so again.
Indeed, the NYT article in the topic is discussing this very question.
Indeed, the NYT article in the topic is discussing this very question.
Nukes get less competitive with each passing day. But that does not keep shills out of the NYT's pages. Fortunately actual investment does not follow shills.
Tell that to France, those losers still generate 70% of energy with nuclear plants, instead of following the lead of their German colleagues in denuclearizing their energy grid.
Yet, France has no plans to build replacements for the large majority of plants soon to age out. What they will build is purely politically motivated. Those probably will not be completed, as they would be uncompetitive, but ratepayers might be forced to make them profitable by paying way more for power than their neighbors.
Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue.
Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue.
> Germany elected to build out a great deal of wind generation capacity rather than refurbish a much smaller capacity of aged, ramshackle nukes. That has worked out extremely well, and they continue.
Really? It has worked really well?? Thanks to these really well policies, Germany has an unbreakable dependence on Russian has [1] and has paid billions of euros to Putin's murderous regime since the start of the war with Ukraine [2].
If this is 'really well', I'd rather pass.
In conclusion, I suggest you start looking more rationally on energy generation, I sense a lot of anger and unexplained hatred towards nuclear power ('aged, ramshackle nukes' is not a rational sensible argumentation).
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-...
[2]: https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/
Really? It has worked really well?? Thanks to these really well policies, Germany has an unbreakable dependence on Russian has [1] and has paid billions of euros to Putin's murderous regime since the start of the war with Ukraine [2].
If this is 'really well', I'd rather pass.
In conclusion, I suggest you start looking more rationally on energy generation, I sense a lot of anger and unexplained hatred towards nuclear power ('aged, ramshackle nukes' is not a rational sensible argumentation).
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/world/europe/germany-gas-...
[2]: https://crea.shinyapps.io/russia_counter/
Germany was dependent on fossil imports all along. What has changed is they import less, now, than when they ran the nukes. They will import decreasing amounts as they build out more renewables.
It is a fact that the nukes shut down would have needed a great deal of expensive work to continue operating. Germany elected to spend the money on wind, instead, and it bought them more actually delivered wattage than the shut-down nukes had provided.
If nukes were not the most expensive power source going, I would be all for it.
It is a fact that the nukes shut down would have needed a great deal of expensive work to continue operating. Germany elected to spend the money on wind, instead, and it bought them more actually delivered wattage than the shut-down nukes had provided.
If nukes were not the most expensive power source going, I would be all for it.
That's overnight cost, not included in model.energy. You also have to add in the financing cost during construction.
If we are talking about Korean export NPPs, the Barakh NPP has four reactors for a total of 24.4B$, producing 5.6GW(e). THis is about $4B/GW. If I plug in 4000 per MW (its euros, not $, but they're not too different right now) for the capital cost of nuclear in model.energy, increase the NPP lifetime to 40 years, and use US 2011 weather data, nuclear optimizes to zero.
I'll add that model.energy is looking at the best case for nuclear: providing baseload. Handling variability will incentivize storage, which means renewables will be at an increased advantage. Dispatchable demand of any kind, even slightly dispatchable (allowed to be off 10% of the time, say) also tilts the game toward renewables.
The 25 year lifespan for nuclear there may reflect economic obsolescence rather than technical lifespan. Energy technology is evolving quickly now, so investors may simply refuse to credit the promise of such long lifespans. Even in the US, there have been existing NPPs that shut down because they could not recoup their operating costs (granted, much of that was due to gas and also renewable subsidies, but with solar having dropped in cost by nearly an order of magnitude in the last decade it's a bold move to assume it won't keep falling.)
If we are talking about Korean export NPPs, the Barakh NPP has four reactors for a total of 24.4B$, producing 5.6GW(e). THis is about $4B/GW. If I plug in 4000 per MW (its euros, not $, but they're not too different right now) for the capital cost of nuclear in model.energy, increase the NPP lifetime to 40 years, and use US 2011 weather data, nuclear optimizes to zero.
I'll add that model.energy is looking at the best case for nuclear: providing baseload. Handling variability will incentivize storage, which means renewables will be at an increased advantage. Dispatchable demand of any kind, even slightly dispatchable (allowed to be off 10% of the time, say) also tilts the game toward renewables.
The 25 year lifespan for nuclear there may reflect economic obsolescence rather than technical lifespan. Energy technology is evolving quickly now, so investors may simply refuse to credit the promise of such long lifespans. Even in the US, there have been existing NPPs that shut down because they could not recoup their operating costs (granted, much of that was due to gas and also renewable subsidies, but with solar having dropped in cost by nearly an order of magnitude in the last decade it's a bold move to assume it won't keep falling.)
Do the same and use German data, and nuclear optimizes to 100%. The US has especially abundant wind and solar.
I would very much like to see a similar model that includes a demand curve. Preferably, customizable demand curves, to allow for modeling of e.g. flatter curves due to electric vehicle charging at night.
I would very much like to see a similar model that includes a demand curve. Preferably, customizable demand curves, to allow for modeling of e.g. flatter curves due to electric vehicle charging at night.
Yes, Europe (and particularly eastern Europe) are better places for nuclear, because of higher latitude and (away from coasts) lower winds.
This is all just delaying the crossing point though. Nuclear fans are betting nuclear's costs fall while renewables and storage run into brick walls and stop getting cheaper. It's not clear why one should assume this, or why an investor should bet on that outcome. And it is just a financial bet; in the worst case for renewables they just come in a bit more expensive than nuclear, so it's not like the economy explodes.
This is all just delaying the crossing point though. Nuclear fans are betting nuclear's costs fall while renewables and storage run into brick walls and stop getting cheaper. It's not clear why one should assume this, or why an investor should bet on that outcome. And it is just a financial bet; in the worst case for renewables they just come in a bit more expensive than nuclear, so it's not like the economy explodes.
Ok, but "I think renewables will get cheaper faster than nuclear" is a very different claim than "renewables are way cheaper than nuclear right now."
It's a different claim. It's looking at trends rather than at a specific point.
Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production (of the solar hardware). Solar is about 4% of global electricity production now, so scaling it to saturation (just for current electricity demand, which will grow as the world becomes richer and more electrification replaces fossil heat) would drop the cost by another factor of 3.
Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production (of the solar hardware). Solar is about 4% of global electricity production now, so scaling it to saturation (just for current electricity demand, which will grow as the world becomes richer and more electrification replaces fossil heat) would drop the cost by another factor of 3.
> Solar historically declines in cost by 24% for each cumulative doubling of production
This only worked while panels were the lion's share of the cost of a solar installation. These days, costs of real estate, installation and grid connection far exceed the cost of panels -- and those costs go up every year with labour costs rather than coming down.
This only worked while panels were the lion's share of the cost of a solar installation. These days, costs of real estate, installation and grid connection far exceed the cost of panels -- and those costs go up every year with labour costs rather than coming down.
Costs of installation only go up? There has been steady improvement there, particularly at utility scale. No more expensive poured concrete foundations, just screw earth anchors into the ground.
Or are you talking labor-intensive installation onto residential rooftops? Well, stop doing that, it's kind of stupid.
Real estate costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of installed solar in much of the US, and in much of the world. A solar powered global economy will not be putting many panels on the small fraction of the world's surface that's unusually expensive, but will focus those panels on places where it's cheaper. It's the same reason we don't grow wheat in Manhattan.
Or are you talking labor-intensive installation onto residential rooftops? Well, stop doing that, it's kind of stupid.
Real estate costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of installed solar in much of the US, and in much of the world. A solar powered global economy will not be putting many panels on the small fraction of the world's surface that's unusually expensive, but will focus those panels on places where it's cheaper. It's the same reason we don't grow wheat in Manhattan.
model.energy assumes a flat, constant energy demand.
Which isn't a ridiculous assumption, given their caveats and default options, unless you're trying to argue for 100% nuclear, in which case it renders any conclusion totally nonsensical.
Which isn't a ridiculous assumption, given their caveats and default options, unless you're trying to argue for 100% nuclear, in which case it renders any conclusion totally nonsensical.
I would really like to see a model that includes demand curves. Or an academic study that includes nuclear as a possibility, instead of just looking at wind/solar/storage. So far I haven't come across either.
(But if we start charging a lot of electric vehicles at night, the demand curves will flatten out anyway.)
(But if we start charging a lot of electric vehicles at night, the demand curves will flatten out anyway.)
Renewables are only cheaper if you ignore the challenges of using an intermittent energy source. There's no real cost estimate for storing and re-distributing electricity, because there's no feasible plan to build an energy storage system at relevant scales.
Attempting to build just one hour of storage via lithium ion batteries would case the cost of batteries to skyrocket because 1 hour of global electricity use equates to 2,500 GWh. And annual battery output is only around 300 GWh. Supply shock would immediately drive up the cost of batteries.
Attempting to build just one hour of storage via lithium ion batteries would case the cost of batteries to skyrocket because 1 hour of global electricity use equates to 2,500 GWh. And annual battery output is only around 300 GWh. Supply shock would immediately drive up the cost of batteries.
Annual battery production for EVs is estimated to grow from 160 gigawatt-hours (GWh) today to 6 600 GWh in 2030 – the equivalent
of adding almost 20 gigafactories each year for the next ten years.
So we're building those batteries anyway, because EVs are cheaper and better than ICE. It's just a bonus that they'll help roll out renewables too.
So we're building those batteries anyway, because EVs are cheaper and better than ICE. It's just a bonus that they'll help roll out renewables too.
Estimates are not the same thing as real production figures. People estimated we'd have 10Ghz single threaded cpu performance by now back in the 90s. Batteries are already approaching supply shortages for input materials: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev...
And as you correctly point out, most of these batteries are going to go to EVs rather than grid storage.
And as you correctly point out, most of these batteries are going to go to EVs rather than grid storage.
Yes, no-one can predict the future, maybe we'll all be riding horses.
But if, as basically everyone acklowledges, we'll all be driving EVs, then we will charge them from the grid. So they'll be better than grid storage, they'll be responsive demand (with grid storage you need to send the electricity back to the grid, which incurs another efficiency loss).
But if, as basically everyone acklowledges, we'll all be driving EVs, then we will charge them from the grid. So they'll be better than grid storage, they'll be responsive demand (with grid storage you need to send the electricity back to the grid, which incurs another efficiency loss).
Sure, if we have all our electricity produced through non intermittent sources we don't need grid storage. EVs charge from the grid and drive around just fine. Nobody doubts that.
But if we are going to predominantly use intermittent energy sources we'd need massive amounts of grid storage. Delivering this through batteries is not feasible. We need to conserve battery supply for things that cannot be directly powered from the grid, like vehicles. It's too precious to be squandered on grid storage
But if we are going to predominantly use intermittent energy sources we'd need massive amounts of grid storage. Delivering this through batteries is not feasible. We need to conserve battery supply for things that cannot be directly powered from the grid, like vehicles. It's too precious to be squandered on grid storage
For me, this is the biggest part of the debate. It's not whether solar is up to the task or not, it's whether supply chains can support solar. From what we've seen, no, they cannot. You can provision the solar plant and the storage array, but there likely just won't be enough panels or batteries being produced to build it. Pumped hydro storage is only viable in some places, and from what it seems to me all the other ideas for energy storage are theoretical at best.
I'm not opposed to investing heavily in solar...it's the best long-term energy source we can hope for until we crack the fusion nut. However, until we have the resources in place to make it happen, fission is our best bet. This shouldn't be an either-or: we should be building both, as fast as we can. And once we have enough solar to power our collective needs consistently, we can decommission our nuclear plants and put this behind us.
I'm not opposed to investing heavily in solar...it's the best long-term energy source we can hope for until we crack the fusion nut. However, until we have the resources in place to make it happen, fission is our best bet. This shouldn't be an either-or: we should be building both, as fast as we can. And once we have enough solar to power our collective needs consistently, we can decommission our nuclear plants and put this behind us.
The supply chain for solar is in a much healthier state than the supply chain for nuclear.
Yes, at the current scale. Can it scale up to the task of entirely replacing fossil fuels before we can build the nuclear plants that can give the same output?
Yes. Scaling up solar and wind is much easier. Nuclear reactors require very heavy industry (look at what's needed to forge the reactor pressure vessel of a PWR). Nuclear also requires much higher quality manufacturing. A 1% failure rate on PV modules is acceptable. A 1% failure rate on reactor components is not.
Installing wind and solar is also much easier than installing NPPs. Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor, again because the installations are robust to installation mistakes.
Installing wind and solar is also much easier than installing NPPs. Solar installation does not require expensive highly trained labor, again because the installations are robust to installation mistakes.
Grid storage cost is falling even faster than renewables cost. Which you already knew.
The costs are falling on white papers, not in actual storage projects. Unfortunately, we can't hook a white paper up to the grid :(
You may pretend all you like, but I will always correct you.
Correct me how?
By insisting that storage is a trivial problem to solve, yet neglecting to actually share what your supposed solution is?
By insisting that storage costs are falling yet neglecting to specify the cost and for what technology?
By all means "correct" me all you like.
By insisting that storage is a trivial problem to solve, yet neglecting to actually share what your supposed solution is?
By insisting that storage costs are falling yet neglecting to specify the cost and for what technology?
By all means "correct" me all you like.
This is like saying that the solution to climate change is largely political and you don't see that changing, so you don't think you need to be part of solving that.
In fact, it's quite exactly like saying that, because nuclear is the fastest path to solving climate change.
In fact, it's quite exactly like saying that, because nuclear is the fastest path to solving climate change.
No, nukes are the slowest, and worst performing.
Starting a nuke, we get no power out for a decade or more, and get much less power at the end than building renewables with the same money, which furthermore start displacing carbon immediately.
Starting a nuke, we get no power out for a decade or more, and get much less power at the end than building renewables with the same money, which furthermore start displacing carbon immediately.
You are missing the point. With continued investment and improvements to technology nuclear will be much cheaper and faster to deploy. Compare wind/solar prices from the year 2000, and imagine we've spent the last 22 years giving nuclear the same level of attention and promotion as them.
Investment and improvement in nukes are falling, not rising. For reasons.
There is no reasonable expectation for substantially better costs for nukes. Anywhere they have to compete with $0 opex renewables, they will run at well under 50% capacity, thus more than doubling their per-kWh cost, making them even less competitive.
There is no reasonable expectation for substantially better costs for nukes. Anywhere they have to compete with $0 opex renewables, they will run at well under 50% capacity, thus more than doubling their per-kWh cost, making them even less competitive.
Renewables are far from $0 opex, and your statement about 'no reasonable expectation' are somewhat unbased.
Nukes are concrete, steel, pumps, steam turbines, liability subsidy, decommissioning subsidy. None of those get cheaper.
Concrete and steel costs are negligible in the full costs of the nuclear plant. Complex machinery like turbines, reactors, etc have huge costs that fall of rapidly when you start mass producing them. If you make 2 plants/year the cost per item is X, if you make 100 plants/year the cost per item is X/10 or X/20. Huge part of costs goes into machinery that allows to build the thing. Once you have it, producing more parts becomes way easier.
Steam turbines are mature tech whose capex and opex are large and will not change. Likewise, high-pressure plumbing.
Thus, costs are not falling, and new starts are negligible. Even China, which asserts they will build 220 of them, has only started 10. The rest will be cancelled as their price is undercut, unless politics forces the matter. China is not cost- or value- driven. (Cf. "Ghost cities".)
Thus, costs are not falling, and new starts are negligible. Even China, which asserts they will build 220 of them, has only started 10. The rest will be cancelled as their price is undercut, unless politics forces the matter. China is not cost- or value- driven. (Cf. "Ghost cities".)
> Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage.
On what basis do you make this assertion?
Because when it comes to renewables, I very rarely see any inclusion of the costs of additional large scale energy storage (probably because it still remains an unsolved issue) and I never see any inclusion of the cost of new transmission lines from any new renewables site.
The Germans have invested billions upon billions in becoming wholly renewable, with miles of new grid infrastructure (but next to no energy storage) and they are still at the mercy of Russian gas supplies... and dependant upon French nuclear power.
It's time to face reality and start investing in fission again, at least until fusion becomes a viable alternative.
On what basis do you make this assertion?
Because when it comes to renewables, I very rarely see any inclusion of the costs of additional large scale energy storage (probably because it still remains an unsolved issue) and I never see any inclusion of the cost of new transmission lines from any new renewables site.
The Germans have invested billions upon billions in becoming wholly renewable, with miles of new grid infrastructure (but next to no energy storage) and they are still at the mercy of Russian gas supplies... and dependant upon French nuclear power.
It's time to face reality and start investing in fission again, at least until fusion becomes a viable alternative.
Controversial opinión: we should invest heavily into nuclear and renewables as they seem to synergize quite well
I agree we should invest in both.
The issue comes when people think that renewables are a panacea, and we should start building renewables capacity where it doesn't even make sense. For example; wind power is great in and around the North Sea, but makes little sense in central and eastern Europe. Solar power is great in Spain, Portugal and Italy, but the ROI is very poor anywhere north of the Alps.
The issue comes when people think that renewables are a panacea, and we should start building renewables capacity where it doesn't even make sense. For example; wind power is great in and around the North Sea, but makes little sense in central and eastern Europe. Solar power is great in Spain, Portugal and Italy, but the ROI is very poor anywhere north of the Alps.
It's not a controversial opinion, it's an incorrect opinion. Nuclear and renewables (except for hydro) synergize poorly in most cases.
As far as life-cycle costs go: what about end of life? That's the big elephant in the room.
Over the past decades, a couple of hundreds of plants have been build globally. Doing nuclear fission safely is a massively complex technological undertaking. While the basic principles are by and large the same, the concrete designs of each of those plants aren't similar. Therefor, decommissioning a nuclear plant is equally complex and expensive, and requires a per-case approach. And currently, there is a growing number of plants which are pretty much EOL, where upkeep costs outstrip revenue.
Sure, there's an argument to be made about the operational costs per kWh between solar / wind / nuclear relative to the revenue they generate over their lifespan. But compared to solar / wind, the perceived economical benefits of those solutions are also offset by their initial cost of construction and their decommissioning.
If consumers / voters / taxpayers assume that they get to enjoy cheap power while the costs of those won't ever land on their doorstep, they are in for a surprise.
Over the past decades, a couple of hundreds of plants have been build globally. Doing nuclear fission safely is a massively complex technological undertaking. While the basic principles are by and large the same, the concrete designs of each of those plants aren't similar. Therefor, decommissioning a nuclear plant is equally complex and expensive, and requires a per-case approach. And currently, there is a growing number of plants which are pretty much EOL, where upkeep costs outstrip revenue.
Sure, there's an argument to be made about the operational costs per kWh between solar / wind / nuclear relative to the revenue they generate over their lifespan. But compared to solar / wind, the perceived economical benefits of those solutions are also offset by their initial cost of construction and their decommissioning.
If consumers / voters / taxpayers assume that they get to enjoy cheap power while the costs of those won't ever land on their doorstep, they are in for a surprise.
Nuclear plants pay a fraction of their revenue through their life into special decommissioning funds that have so far been more than enough to perform full greenfield decommissioning.
For waste, there's a separate fund called the Nuclear Waste Fund in the US (and other nuclear-operating countries) that has a current balance of $55B.
For waste, there's a separate fund called the Nuclear Waste Fund in the US (and other nuclear-operating countries) that has a current balance of $55B.
False. They are collecting from the fund, instead.
> Doing nuclear fission safely is a massively complex technological undertaking.
Finland has proven this to be false.
...and frankly, so did the US even in the 1980s. The roadblock to storage misguided activism, not science or tachnology.
Reopen the Yucca storage facility. It has the space for literally ALL the US's spent fuel storage.
Finland has proven this to be false.
...and frankly, so did the US even in the 1980s. The roadblock to storage misguided activism, not science or tachnology.
Reopen the Yucca storage facility. It has the space for literally ALL the US's spent fuel storage.
False.
It took them more than a decade beyond schedule, and 5 billion euros beyond quoted cost.
The finally delivered only because it was clear the money would dry up either way. If they could have strung it out further, they would have
It took them more than a decade beyond schedule, and 5 billion euros beyond quoted cost.
The finally delivered only because it was clear the money would dry up either way. If they could have strung it out further, they would have
The problem with comparing the cost of different energy production means is that most of these have huge externalities. After all, this is why we're still burning hydrocarbons, because they seem cheap compared to anything else, except that we have massed up a huge debt by accelerating climate change. Something that may turn out to be nearly infinitely expensive.
Now the problem with solar and wind is that those also have pretty large energy investment needs at the beginning and given that we still mostly run on hydrocarbons these will also look cheap (include a sizeable amount of externalities).
Other than that, you're right that these articles rarely mention the problem of the fissile uranium supply. From what I've read and heard, without breeder reactors, the known U235 reserves won't last long if we plan to switch the world over. (Not that it's a viable plan to build so many reactors in time.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
Now the problem with solar and wind is that those also have pretty large energy investment needs at the beginning and given that we still mostly run on hydrocarbons these will also look cheap (include a sizeable amount of externalities).
Other than that, you're right that these articles rarely mention the problem of the fissile uranium supply. From what I've read and heard, without breeder reactors, the known U235 reserves won't last long if we plan to switch the world over. (Not that it's a viable plan to build so many reactors in time.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
> A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap,
How is this possible, technologically or economically? It sounds like absolute fantasy in anything less than a decade.
> plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA
Our refineries are at max capacity. How is hoarding crude going to help anything? Exporting crude allows foreign refineries to assist with relieving the global shortage of refined products.
How is this possible, technologically or economically? It sounds like absolute fantasy in anything less than a decade.
> plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA
Our refineries are at max capacity. How is hoarding crude going to help anything? Exporting crude allows foreign refineries to assist with relieving the global shortage of refined products.
I also don't think that Europe will and can go 100% renewable within a decade, though the current development of breeder reactors seem promising. When the technology will be ready, it can scale (relatively) fast and help get us off coal and gas way faster than wind and energy could.
https://you.com/search?q=Thorium%20breeder%20reactors
https://you.com/search?q=Thorium%20breeder%20reactors
edit: wind and solar of course
As far as Russia/Ukraine, the real agenda the US government seems to be pushing there is using that conflict to rapidly increase LNG exports to Europe from the US West/South coast, even though energy prices are spiking due to inflation (and plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA, allowed under that 2015 bill lifting that restriction)"
How are they pushing this and you claim it's "the real agenda", what are they claiming instead? Are you claiming the US got involved with the Ukrainian conflict in order to sell LPG to other countries?
How are they pushing this and you claim it's "the real agenda", what are they claiming instead? Are you claiming the US got involved with the Ukrainian conflict in order to sell LPG to other countries?
The problem with storage is that it needs to be planned for the worst case. Imagine three weeks without sun nor wind, even if that happens only once every 5 years it should be planned. And the cost of having batteries that can produce energy during 3 weeks is unlikely to be cheaper than nuclear
No. You need only enough storage to last until an order of fuel arrives. Which is what everybody does literally all the time, now.
There is little storage, yet, because it would be stupid to build out storage there is not enough renewable generating capacity, yet, to charge up. When there is, then storage will be built. All without you lifting a finger.
There is little storage, yet, because it would be stupid to build out storage there is not enough renewable generating capacity, yet, to charge up. When there is, then storage will be built. All without you lifting a finger.
Everybody always says that solar + storage is cheaper. And sometimes there are even studies to support it. But if that's true where is it?
China mostly:
2021 figures:
> China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW.
81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.
2021 figures:
> China was the biggest contributor, adding 121 GW to the continent’s new capacity. Europe and North America—led by the USA—took second and third places respectively, with the former adding 39 GW, and the latter 38 GW.
81% of new electricity generaton build globally was renewables last year.
That does not discuss storage AT ALL.
True solar with storage is not economical.
True solar with storage is not economical.
They are building massive pumped hydro storage too. A lot of closed-loop PHS is being built by China. Closed loop PHS doesn't have same ecological issues as traditional dams, but is not as trendy as batteries and has almost same political issues as traditional dams in west. So, it is generally ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroel...
PV + storage is cheaper than nuclear:
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
(you have to compare cost of nuclear on first page with wholesale PV+storage energy on subsequent pages).
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
(you have to compare cost of nuclear on first page with wholesale PV+storage energy on subsequent pages).
Storage cost is falling even faster than solar. Renewables + storage beats everything, hands down.
I don't dispute the economics of renewable generation on the existing grid. I'm talking about storage as replacement for baseload, which is purely hypothetical at this point. Right now we have very small scale storage as peaker capacity, but not as a baseload replacement.
Storage doesn't replace baseload.
Did the pumped hydro dams they built alongside nuclear power plants replace the baseload? No, they took the cheap energy that was produced at times when it wasn't needed and provided it back at peak times. They literally increased the base load by propping it up when it would otherwise droop at night (mostly).
Did the pumped hydro dams they built alongside nuclear power plants replace the baseload? No, they took the cheap energy that was produced at times when it wasn't needed and provided it back at peak times. They literally increased the base load by propping it up when it would otherwise droop at night (mostly).
Storage does, in fact, supply base load. That is its purpose.
Today, storage runs (i.e. supplies) when electricity prices peak, which broadly matches high demand.
It charges, when electricity prices are low, which generally means off peak overnight.
In a future renewable grid, with zero dispatchable power it might be used on occaision to help meet the baseload, but it's almost certainly going to be used more during demand peaks, because that's when most electricity is used. Maybe in equatorial regions with a lot of solar, not much wind and no other energy sources it'll share baseload duties with the solar that charges it during the day, but unless the term baseload has lost all meaning (which I fear it has) storage is not ever providing baseload, since that would imply supplying that amount constantly and storage needs to absorb more energy than it returns.
I can't see a definition of 'baseload' provider that storage meets that solar doesn't for example.
It charges, when electricity prices are low, which generally means off peak overnight.
In a future renewable grid, with zero dispatchable power it might be used on occaision to help meet the baseload, but it's almost certainly going to be used more during demand peaks, because that's when most electricity is used. Maybe in equatorial regions with a lot of solar, not much wind and no other energy sources it'll share baseload duties with the solar that charges it during the day, but unless the term baseload has lost all meaning (which I fear it has) storage is not ever providing baseload, since that would imply supplying that amount constantly and storage needs to absorb more energy than it returns.
I can't see a definition of 'baseload' provider that storage meets that solar doesn't for example.
In fact, there are NO studies that demonstrate that solar or wind AND STORAGE, are able to produce CONSISTENT power for a full year anywhere.
The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with economical tech.
The only studies you'll see are that they proved to be economical on a certain day, or maaaybe overnight. ...but there are zero studies that any solar and/or wind (even combined), can provide consistent power for a full year. ...because that is not currently possible with economical tech.
It’s worse than that. Storage can, at best, provide for some interval of backup while wind/solar aren’t providing enough power.
The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat.
Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.
The problem is that “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events will require more than currently stored. Then, potentially millions of people will be at risk of injury or death from cold or heat.
Reliable generation of at least enough to cover survival seems necessary.
> “100 year”, “1,000 year” or worse events
Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.
Okay, then we can keep gas power stations around for another 100 years and only turn them on for the few days they are needed. Probably, though, after 50 years we will have solved climate change and energy storage (or wiped ourselves out) anyway.
Anytime local storage runs low and transmission line capacity is exceeded, you order a shipment of synthetic ammonia or hydrogen from the tropics. There will be plenty competing for your business.
That's what hydrogen (stored underground at a storage capacity cost of $1/kWh) is for.
Top five countries with the highest wind energy capacity in 2020
China – 288.32 GW. ...
United States – 122.32 GW. ...
Germany – 62.85 GW. ...
India – 38.63 GW. ...
Spain – 27.24 GW.This means nothing if you don't factor in storage, or at least measure the CONSISTENT power output.
These are just PEAK numbers that are totally useless when planning a grid.
These are just PEAK numbers that are totally useless when planning a grid.
So, factor in storage. And, those are not peak.
Waiting for the CO2 taxes to rise high enough to drive off fossil fuels.
Many people support CO2 taxes to raise the price of fossil fuels when gas prices are low. When gas prices are high I see very few people cheering it on or attempting to claim credit for all their great work to raise the price.
It's tough to really get that ball rolling if that's your goal due to this marketing issue.
It's tough to really get that ball rolling if that's your goal due to this marketing issue.
Without CO2 taxes, we're globally screwed. I expect they will be forced through, and confiscatory tariffs on trade with countries that refuse to impose them.
It's hard to say how it will go. It's entirely possible carbon capture will become cheap enough that a couple of rich countries can just capture all the necessary carbon for the whole globe and it will be a rounding error in their budget. Then other countries can burn all the oil/coal they want and it will only be a local pollution problem rather than an existential risk to the globe.
Overview of the economics of a nuclear reactor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
Duration: 23 min
Speaker: David Ruzic, Prof of Nuclear Engineering at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
Duration: 23 min
Speaker: David Ruzic, Prof of Nuclear Engineering at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Sunlight and wind distribution is quite uneven.
Uranium ore distribution is also quite uneven. Fossil fuel distribution is also quite uneven.
Good thing you can pick it up and move it to other places.
Good thing electricity is cheap to transmit.
It's not though; that's one of the reasons all of the grids aren't interconnected yet.
"Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tapes" also applies here. The amount of energy you can deliver by transporting fuel rods by truck/train/ship is immense.
"Don't underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tapes" also applies here. The amount of energy you can deliver by transporting fuel rods by truck/train/ship is immense.
Transmission costs only capital. Opex for transmission is practically free.
And capital isn't free. With physical goods, there is already a number of existing roads, train tracks, and ports.
Capital costs is why Hawaii has traditionally imported oil versus having an undersea power connection to the continental US.
Capital costs is why Hawaii has traditionally imported oil versus having an undersea power connection to the continental US.
Hawaii has abundant sun and wind, and deep ocean hard by for cheap storage.
When costs are all capex, the more you use, the less it costs. (And, as with nukes, the less you use, the more it costs.)
When costs are all capex, the more you use, the less it costs. (And, as with nukes, the less you use, the more it costs.)
Transmitting power over long distances has its own problems and infrastructure costs. It isn't trivial.
Building pipelines for oil and gas isn't trivial either but we managed to do it.
I don't see what that has to do with nuclear plants or solar farms. My original point was that complaining that uranium isn't evenly distributed is a red herring because you don't build power plants on top of the mines. Whereas you do have to build solar farms where the sunny days are plentiful.
And you can deliver that renewable power wherever it is needed, for a one-time up-front cost, free thereafter.
No you can't. Transmission lines have upkeep.
You have to clear brush periodically, and repair them when they break.
Most places where people live have enough sun and/or wind to meet demand.
Oil and gas pipelines do not normally leak. Power lines do leak. It's called "line loss" and it's a significant factor in power distribution.
> Oil and gas pipelines do not normally leak.
But they do. Normally. A fraction of the fuel transmitted through the pipe will be lost, seals, punctures, breaks, medium changes, over-pressure release through venting and so on.
> Power lines do leak. It's called "line loss" and it's a significant factor in power distribution.
Not all that significant in short range transmission, and until we figured out HVDC a major factor in long range transmission but the number of HVDC links that are coming online is increasing rapidly making this much less of a problem. The gear used for this is very impressive stuff, it is a different level of semiconductor engineering than what you normally have kicking around the yard but it works and is deployed at scale already with very good results.
But they do. Normally. A fraction of the fuel transmitted through the pipe will be lost, seals, punctures, breaks, medium changes, over-pressure release through venting and so on.
> Power lines do leak. It's called "line loss" and it's a significant factor in power distribution.
Not all that significant in short range transmission, and until we figured out HVDC a major factor in long range transmission but the number of HVDC links that are coming online is increasing rapidly making this much less of a problem. The gear used for this is very impressive stuff, it is a different level of semiconductor engineering than what you normally have kicking around the yard but it works and is deployed at scale already with very good results.
They do in fact leak a bit.
Power losses are measured in single digit percents per 1000km. That's not nothing of course, but it's sufficiently low to transmit power from windy places to less windy places and from sunny places to less sunny places.
Power losses are measured in single digit percents per 1000km. That's not nothing of course, but it's sufficiently low to transmit power from windy places to less windy places and from sunny places to less sunny places.
When opex is free, and capex is falling exponentially, you just put in a little more power upstream.
> Oil and gas pipelines do not normally leak.
????
> Currently, the most complete bottom-up inventory of natural gas system emissions is the 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI). (2) It estimates an overall system-wide methane loss rate of 6.2 Tg/yr of methane, or 1.3% of methane transported (Supporting Information (SI), Section 16) and that the transmission and storage sector (T&S) is the largest emitting segment of the natural gas industry, (2) accounting for about one-third of methane emissions.
> For T&S stations that are required to report to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), this study estimates total emissions to be 260% [215% to 330%] of the reportable emissions for these stations, primarily due to the inclusion of emission sources that are not reported under the GHGRP rules, updated emission factors, and super-emitter emissions.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b01669
Gas will literally bleed right through the seals at a certain rate, especially with the compressor motors, which is no different to the electrical losses from stepping voltage up/down.
And this is actually a huge problem with natural gas specifically because methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas... around 30x as potent as CO2 over 100 years. Losing a couple percent of your methane is a big deal. That is actually what is driving the push for electric-driven heat pumps for home use... it's better to lose a little bit of electricity than to have thousands of miles of poorly-maintained residential gas distribution that even in the best case are leaking highly potent methane through seals.
????
> Currently, the most complete bottom-up inventory of natural gas system emissions is the 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI). (2) It estimates an overall system-wide methane loss rate of 6.2 Tg/yr of methane, or 1.3% of methane transported (Supporting Information (SI), Section 16) and that the transmission and storage sector (T&S) is the largest emitting segment of the natural gas industry, (2) accounting for about one-third of methane emissions.
> For T&S stations that are required to report to the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), this study estimates total emissions to be 260% [215% to 330%] of the reportable emissions for these stations, primarily due to the inclusion of emission sources that are not reported under the GHGRP rules, updated emission factors, and super-emitter emissions.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b01669
Gas will literally bleed right through the seals at a certain rate, especially with the compressor motors, which is no different to the electrical losses from stepping voltage up/down.
And this is actually a huge problem with natural gas specifically because methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas... around 30x as potent as CO2 over 100 years. Losing a couple percent of your methane is a big deal. That is actually what is driving the push for electric-driven heat pumps for home use... it's better to lose a little bit of electricity than to have thousands of miles of poorly-maintained residential gas distribution that even in the best case are leaking highly potent methane through seals.
Not only they leak, but, unlike electricity, leaked gas is terrible for the environment.
How does one transmit electricity across an ocean?
Undersea cables. There are plenty between Norway and Germany for example.
In case anyone is curious, I found this interesting background reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable
That said, there is only one submarine power cable connecting Norway and Germany, and it's been operational for one year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HVDC_Europe.svg
That said, there is only one submarine power cable connecting Norway and Germany, and it's been operational for one year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HVDC_Europe.svg
Comment was about undersea transmission, but I recently learned about DC transmission in the US West. Interesting advantages and trade-offs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
This is the future and it will eventually create a global connected grid. DC allows the coupling of 60 Hz and 50 Hz grids without a problem too.
Lots and lots are under construction. UK just committed to a 10 GW cable from Africa, that will be expanded later.
Thorium is an abundant alternative to uranium, and the technology to use it has existed since the 1960s.
I'm a layman so I'm trusting the smarty sounding guy on Reddit and his elaborate arguments, but it seems like Thorium reactors, while delivering on the promise of not being able to physically explode, involve materials so nightmarish to work with that it's been impossible to create one that's safe to operate by nuclear worksers
https://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/9unimr/dutch_satiric...
https://np.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/9unimr/dutch_satiric...
Thorium reactors never worked very well unfortunately.
What? They worked reliably and efficiently, and cost very little.
Maybe I'm misinformed. Which Thorium reactors worked reliably and cheaply?
You're not misinformed. Commercial thorium doesn't exist and prototypes have issues with proliferation risks and the lifecycle of the materials used to build the primary containment. It is promising and there are several groups working on these problems but it's a hard sell given that recent gen uranium reactors aren't gated by fuel costs and have established supply chains.
Indian Point tried thorium. They abandoned it, for reasons.
...and yet you'll find that there are very few people living in places with insufficient sun, insufficient wind and no geothermal/tidal sources.
Heavy industry is going to tend to move away from places with inadequate renewable energy. Why should they stay where energy is more expensive?
Those comparisons have been done and they always end up with an energy mix between hydro, nuclear, solar and wind - not 100% wind/solar.
It isn't enough to build solar and wind, you also have to build backup. This is currently done by coal and gas but in the future it has to switch to climate friendly sources of energy. A hydrogen economy is very very expensive.
Here's an example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
It isn't enough to build solar and wind, you also have to build backup. This is currently done by coal and gas but in the future it has to switch to climate friendly sources of energy. A hydrogen economy is very very expensive.
Here's an example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
The problem with a cost comparison is that currently renewables account for less than ten percent of global energy generation. What do you think will happen to the cost there as available resources dwindle, and demand for equipment increases?
Also, I’m not sure those comparisons take into account the ~20 year lifespan of solar panels and windmills, versus the ~40-50 year lifespan of nuclear plants.
Finally, another factor that may drastically reduce the cost of nuclear is the fabrication of small modular reactors which eliminate custom construction/permitting and simplify installation.
Also, I’m not sure those comparisons take into account the ~20 year lifespan of solar panels and windmills, versus the ~40-50 year lifespan of nuclear plants.
Finally, another factor that may drastically reduce the cost of nuclear is the fabrication of small modular reactors which eliminate custom construction/permitting and simplify installation.
The estimated life of solar panels is much greater than 20 years. There are 38 year old panels still in operation.
The 40-50 year lifespan of a nuclear plant is also somewhat illusory, as planning on achieving that is a bet that competing technologies don't keep getting better.
SMRs are talked about as being cheaper, but they have inherent diseconomies of scale. They need more materials and components per unit power output than large NPPs, and have inherently worse neutronics (this is why NPPs got large). The putative economies of scale of manufacturing are first consumed clawing back this loss, and it's not clear they can even do that.
The 40-50 year lifespan of a nuclear plant is also somewhat illusory, as planning on achieving that is a bet that competing technologies don't keep getting better.
SMRs are talked about as being cheaper, but they have inherent diseconomies of scale. They need more materials and components per unit power output than large NPPs, and have inherently worse neutronics (this is why NPPs got large). The putative economies of scale of manufacturing are first consumed clawing back this loss, and it's not clear they can even do that.
They'll build more factories to make the renewable equipment. What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built?
> What, you think there's some inherent limit on the number of factories that can be built?
No, but there are limits on the amount of raw materials that said factories can use to produce equipment.
No, but there are limits on the amount of raw materials that said factories can use to produce equipment.
Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific.
I believe a global renewable energy system can be constructed using only elements available in essentially unlimited amounts, and using those elements at a modest scale compared to industrial society as a whole.
I believe a global renewable energy system can be constructed using only elements available in essentially unlimited amounts, and using those elements at a modest scale compared to industrial society as a whole.
> Which raw material are you talking about? Be specific.
Uh Lithium?
Uh Lithium?
Batteries will be only a negligible fraction of utility storage, and a negligible fraction of those will be lithium. Lithium is the most expensive storage.
Utilities will choose the cheaper among many alternatives, not the most expensive; the which is why they are not building nukes.
Utilities will choose the cheaper among many alternatives, not the most expensive; the which is why they are not building nukes.
The lithium is there, it just needs capital investment.
Ironically ESG has guided capital away from extractive industries like this.
It's not a physical limitation, it's a timing of scaling limitation, and we haven't hit it in a hard way yet. Plenty of new lithium resources, and more being discovered all the time.
Ironically ESG has guided capital away from extractive industries like this.
It's not a physical limitation, it's a timing of scaling limitation, and we haven't hit it in a hard way yet. Plenty of new lithium resources, and more being discovered all the time.
It's as if you think Li-ion batteries are the only kind that can exist.
This is a generic problem with anti-renewable arguments: they argue against specific technologies rather than the entire class of possible technologies.
(And then they go and posit all sorts of as-yet unbuilt reactor types, blithely ignoring the irony.)
This is a generic problem with anti-renewable arguments: they argue against specific technologies rather than the entire class of possible technologies.
(And then they go and posit all sorts of as-yet unbuilt reactor types, blithely ignoring the irony.)
Is the environmentalist lobby ready to allow the amount of mining required to produce the copper, nickel, cobalt, and aluminum needed to support going "100% renewable asap"?
The environmentalist lobby doesn't allow or forbid. It has overwhelmingly less power than is projected on it by nuke advocates. Nukes are losing wholly on their own.
Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element on earth. Cobalt demand is already peaking. Copper and nickel have been produced in the millions of tons annually for a century, and will not slow down.
Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element on earth. Cobalt demand is already peaking. Copper and nickel have been produced in the millions of tons annually for a century, and will not slow down.
They are happy to support it when it is done outside their own country (speaking as an American)
By the number of downvotes, I'm going to take away the idea that, no, the environmentalist lobby does not approve of the increases in mining required to support going 100% renewable ASAP.
You would have concluded that regardless. And, regardless of any other facts.
It's an honest question, but I would challenge you to examine your response critically.
Cobalt is used in certain vehicle batteries. Are you assuming nuclear isn't going to do this, say by putting a nuclear reactor in each car?
I think the thing I never hear people talk about however is redundancy and consistency. Wind and Solar are great and likely should be a huge huge portion of our power production. Something like Nuclear though we can project huge consistency (assuming the plant does not get destroyed by a giant natural disaster) long term and day to day.
Personally though I really have always liked Geothermal!
Personally though I really have always liked Geothermal!
Nukes and geothermal both depend on steam turbines, which are down for very expensive maintenance 10-20% of the time. That is why those can't compete with 0% opex renewables + storage.
Nukes, of course, have lots of other opex on top of the turbines, and also crippling capex.
Geothermal might be able to compete at very high latitudes where the alternative is shipping in synthetic ammonia from the tropics when wind flags and transmission lines don't deliver.
But steam turbine s are absolutely not getting any cheaper or more reliable.
Nukes, of course, have lots of other opex on top of the turbines, and also crippling capex.
Geothermal might be able to compete at very high latitudes where the alternative is shipping in synthetic ammonia from the tropics when wind flags and transmission lines don't deliver.
But steam turbine s are absolutely not getting any cheaper or more reliable.
You’re completely ignoring infrastructure. No serious debate of a green future precludes nuclear in the next 30–50 years.
But conversely, no serious debate about nuclear would include new nuclear within 20 years. There's no way that nuclear can scale and contribute in any meaningful way before then.
What I'd expect to see from wind/solar/storage proponents is studies/simulations how much of each you would need based on actual historical weather data.
It should be possible to say, given that power grid and this amount of solar, wind..... this would have happened in this region during that year.
It should be possible to say, given that power grid and this amount of solar, wind..... this would have happened in this region during that year.
The gasoline prices in US have little to do with price of oil. In 2008 oil was 140 USD while gasoline was much cheaper. The real problem is underutilization of refineries . Some of them reduced output during Covid and was not able to restore production. Some where closed due to environmental regulations.
To add to your comment:
"U.S. oil refiners’ margins smash records, but few plan to build more plants"
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/05/23/u-s-oil-refiners-marg...
"U.S. oil refiners’ margins smash records, but few plan to build more plants"
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/05/23/u-s-oil-refiners-marg...
> A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap,
Something I've been thinking about for a while: the best course of action to secure a nation is to build out renewables until the need for external fossil fuels is zero. Even if that means using renewables to make fossil fuels via a process like Fischer–Tropsch as a stop gap.
I also think it would be advantageous to start thinking about how to drive the cost of generation and distribution down until electricity is free or nearly free. This might sound utopian but imagine how secure and prosperous a society could be if energy was super cheap or free? We are moving towards an electrified future and at some point we will have to heat homes and charge cars with electric that will place significant demand on an ageing grid.
Something I've been thinking about for a while: the best course of action to secure a nation is to build out renewables until the need for external fossil fuels is zero. Even if that means using renewables to make fossil fuels via a process like Fischer–Tropsch as a stop gap.
I also think it would be advantageous to start thinking about how to drive the cost of generation and distribution down until electricity is free or nearly free. This might sound utopian but imagine how secure and prosperous a society could be if energy was super cheap or free? We are moving towards an electrified future and at some point we will have to heat homes and charge cars with electric that will place significant demand on an ageing grid.
I don't think you understand the cost of implementing such a solution.
"Free" (as in, your taxes) energy for all is very likely to entirely wreck the economy.
Not to mention there are costs involved with maintenance which make that energy not free. Even ignoring the huge debt incurred by implementing such a solution, who will pay for the maintenance? Our taxes again?
What are the benefits of not paying energy? What innovation is not happening because the pesky electricity has a cost?
Most likely it would just become the country of choice to run computations (whether meaningful research or pointless crypto mining) - if we ignore the gargantuan tax rate this country will have.
Being independent is valuable, that's why I think everybody should source their electricity independently (eg. solar)
"Free" (as in, your taxes) energy for all is very likely to entirely wreck the economy.
Not to mention there are costs involved with maintenance which make that energy not free. Even ignoring the huge debt incurred by implementing such a solution, who will pay for the maintenance? Our taxes again?
What are the benefits of not paying energy? What innovation is not happening because the pesky electricity has a cost?
Most likely it would just become the country of choice to run computations (whether meaningful research or pointless crypto mining) - if we ignore the gargantuan tax rate this country will have.
Being independent is valuable, that's why I think everybody should source their electricity independently (eg. solar)
It will be cheaper to synthesize and burn ammonia or hydrogen. Which is, therefore, what will happen, anywhere it works at all. Freight shipping, first.
Probably the last big holdout for hydrocarbons will be aviation, but anywhere LH2 airframes start to move in, the old stuff will be wholly unable to compete. Transitioning the whole fleet will take a long time, though.
Probably the last big holdout for hydrocarbons will be aviation, but anywhere LH2 airframes start to move in, the old stuff will be wholly unable to compete. Transitioning the whole fleet will take a long time, though.
I just finished Bill Gates' "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster". Very good book, and it makes two points (among many others):
- To reduce carbon in the air, getting clean electricity is key. If we can do that, we can more easily reduce emissions from other areas.
- There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power.
- To reduce carbon in the air, getting clean electricity is key. If we can do that, we can more easily reduce emissions from other areas.
- There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power.
> There are no paths to clean energy by 2050 without nuclear power.
This is either stupidly wrong or stupidly right.
Stupidly right, there's fairly new nuclear plants in operation that there's no real reason to shut down, so will probably be running in 2050.
Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit.
IEA's net zero roadmap:
> In the net zero pathway, global energy demand in 2050 is around 8% smaller than today, but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more people. More efficient use of energy, resource efficiency and behavioural changes combine to offset increases in demand for energy services as the world economy grows and access to energy is extended to all.
> Instead of fossil fuels, the energy sector is based largely on renewable energy. Two-thirds of total energy supply in 2050 is from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy. Solar becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of energy supplies. Solar PV capacity increases 20-fold between now and 2050, and wind power 11-fold.
> Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. They fall from almost four-fifths of total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth by 2050. Fossil fuels that remain in 2050 are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities fitted with CCUS, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce.
> Electricity accounts for almost 50% of total energy consumption in 2050. It plays a key role across all sectors – from transport and buildings to industry – and is essential to produce low-emissions fuels such as hydrogen. To achieve this, total electricity generation increases over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050. At the same time, no additional new final investment decisions should be taken for new unabated coal plants, the least efficient coal plants are phased out by 2030, and the remaining coal plants still in use by 2040 are retrofitted. By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
This is either stupidly wrong or stupidly right.
Stupidly right, there's fairly new nuclear plants in operation that there's no real reason to shut down, so will probably be running in 2050.
Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit.
IEA's net zero roadmap:
> In the net zero pathway, global energy demand in 2050 is around 8% smaller than today, but it serves an economy more than twice as big and a population with 2 billion more people. More efficient use of energy, resource efficiency and behavioural changes combine to offset increases in demand for energy services as the world economy grows and access to energy is extended to all.
> Instead of fossil fuels, the energy sector is based largely on renewable energy. Two-thirds of total energy supply in 2050 is from wind, solar, bioenergy, geothermal and hydro energy. Solar becomes the largest source, accounting for one-fifth of energy supplies. Solar PV capacity increases 20-fold between now and 2050, and wind power 11-fold.
> Net zero means a huge decline in the use of fossil fuels. They fall from almost four-fifths of total energy supply today to slightly over one-fifth by 2050. Fossil fuels that remain in 2050 are used in goods where the carbon is embodied in the product such as plastics, in facilities fitted with CCUS, and in sectors where low-emissions technology options are scarce.
> Electricity accounts for almost 50% of total energy consumption in 2050. It plays a key role across all sectors – from transport and buildings to industry – and is essential to produce low-emissions fuels such as hydrogen. To achieve this, total electricity generation increases over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050. At the same time, no additional new final investment decisions should be taken for new unabated coal plants, the least efficient coal plants are phased out by 2030, and the remaining coal plants still in use by 2040 are retrofitted. By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
Expecting global energy consumption to drop 8% in the next 30 years (while also reducing fossil fuel usage to 20% and all of that with carbon capture and underground storage) is... hilariously unrealistic (or very pessimistic for overall energy usage trends). Here[1]'s a visualization of world energy usage over time. Here[2]'s a sketch I just made to show what the IEA apparently thinks will happen to get to net zero (per your post). Here[3]'s a tweet that looks at the IEA's other renewable energy forecasts over time (spoiler: they were laughably pessimistic, which doesn't instill confidence when they instead make a laughably optimistic forecast)...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
[2] https://imgur.com/a/xvkZSRi
[3] https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1064529619951513600
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
[2] https://imgur.com/a/xvkZSRi
[3] https://twitter.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1064529619951513600
8% reduction sounds incredible considering our energy usage patterns, but if you yearly world google energy usage, key areas like coal/petro are actually down over the past 5 years. Correspondingly NatGas and Renewables are up.
Conversion efficiency of Solar/EV/battery storage vs. extraction/refining/storage/burning just for transportation is like 10x better.
If EVs go with their curve (especially with petrol prices) we can project 80% are EVs on the road by 2040, that'd be a massive improvement in transport alone.
Conversion efficiency of Solar/EV/battery storage vs. extraction/refining/storage/burning just for transportation is like 10x better.
If EVs go with their curve (especially with petrol prices) we can project 80% are EVs on the road by 2040, that'd be a massive improvement in transport alone.
> key areas like coal/petro are actually down over the past 5 years.
The source I provided (current to 2019) does show coal down a hair (Peaked at ~45000 TWh in 2013, hovering around 44,000 TWh in 2019), but oil continuing to increase (49700 to 53600 over same period) and natural gas increasing even more (33700 to 39300). Renewables all increasing (solar 356-1793, Wind 1628-3540, even hydro 9765-10,455).
The part that I think is unrealistic is dropping the fossil fuels to 20% and simultaneously restricting growth to negative 8%. Increased energy usage is desirable for anyone, so while decreasing renewable cost will certainly encourage wider adoption, I think a more realistic prediction would be at least 20-30% growth over the next 30 years (compared with ~75% growth over the last 30 years, ~20% over the last 10 years alone). Fingers crossed we can do this simultaneously with abandoning current fossil assets.
The source I provided (current to 2019) does show coal down a hair (Peaked at ~45000 TWh in 2013, hovering around 44,000 TWh in 2019), but oil continuing to increase (49700 to 53600 over same period) and natural gas increasing even more (33700 to 39300). Renewables all increasing (solar 356-1793, Wind 1628-3540, even hydro 9765-10,455).
The part that I think is unrealistic is dropping the fossil fuels to 20% and simultaneously restricting growth to negative 8%. Increased energy usage is desirable for anyone, so while decreasing renewable cost will certainly encourage wider adoption, I think a more realistic prediction would be at least 20-30% growth over the next 30 years (compared with ~75% growth over the last 30 years, ~20% over the last 10 years alone). Fingers crossed we can do this simultaneously with abandoning current fossil assets.
It's easily possible because most energy we produce today is wasted as heat when burning it and dumping the carbon into the atmosphere.
Since we're going to stop doing that, by electrifying lots of things that currently burn fuel, we can achieve both goals at the same time.
The text on top of the graph you cite says this:
"Primary energy is calculated based on the 'substitution method' which takes account of the inefficiencies in fossil fuel production by converting non-fossil energy into the energy inputs required if they had the same conversion losses as fossil fuels."
It would be clearer to reduce the fossil fuel amounts by that percentage, since we currely don't use that energy, and in fact expend more energy trying to get rid of it as waste heat in many cases.
And, note the difference betwene energy and electricity, they say electricity will grow by nearly 3x ("To achieve this, total electricity generation increases over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050").
You should look up recent graphs of renewable growth, with hydro seperated out, to see that your quick mock-up looks positively sedate by the recent standards of growth.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-renewables?...
global renewables including hydro. Solar and Wind are barely noticeable until 2000, when wind, then solar (in 2010) grow from nothing to octuple previous hydro within about a decade:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-solar?tab=c...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-wind?tab=ch...
They have an article about why this is occuring too: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I didn't choose IEA to demonstrate because they are the only outlier that support my point. My whole claim is that even the boring, cautious industry analysts are saying broadly the same thing.
I think their assumptions about carbon capture are silly and more renewables will be built instead, but even their numbers make it clear than nuclear is a sideshow at best.
Since we're going to stop doing that, by electrifying lots of things that currently burn fuel, we can achieve both goals at the same time.
The text on top of the graph you cite says this:
"Primary energy is calculated based on the 'substitution method' which takes account of the inefficiencies in fossil fuel production by converting non-fossil energy into the energy inputs required if they had the same conversion losses as fossil fuels."
It would be clearer to reduce the fossil fuel amounts by that percentage, since we currely don't use that energy, and in fact expend more energy trying to get rid of it as waste heat in many cases.
And, note the difference betwene energy and electricity, they say electricity will grow by nearly 3x ("To achieve this, total electricity generation increases over two-and-a-half-times between today and 2050").
You should look up recent graphs of renewable growth, with hydro seperated out, to see that your quick mock-up looks positively sedate by the recent standards of growth.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-renewables?...
global renewables including hydro. Solar and Wind are barely noticeable until 2000, when wind, then solar (in 2010) grow from nothing to octuple previous hydro within about a decade:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-solar?tab=c...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-wind?tab=ch...
They have an article about why this is occuring too: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I didn't choose IEA to demonstrate because they are the only outlier that support my point. My whole claim is that even the boring, cautious industry analysts are saying broadly the same thing.
I think their assumptions about carbon capture are silly and more renewables will be built instead, but even their numbers make it clear than nuclear is a sideshow at best.
>Stupidly wrong, it seems to be placing some entirely unwarranted implication that without nuclear we'd be lost, when most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80% of energy production, which doesn't really leave much room for nuclear to take all the credit.
>IEA's net zero roadmap...
I'd like to make a slightly vague rebuttal to your slightly vague rebuttal (ofc not your fault if the IEA doesn't explicitly say anything about nuclear, not blaming you). The IPCC has said that nuclear is necessary if we want to hit our climate goals.
>IEA's net zero roadmap...
I'd like to make a slightly vague rebuttal to your slightly vague rebuttal (ofc not your fault if the IEA doesn't explicitly say anything about nuclear, not blaming you). The IPCC has said that nuclear is necessary if we want to hit our climate goals.
It gets a mention, just not a starring role:
> By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
So "no path to clean energy without solar" and "no path to clean energy without wind" are a bit more defensible, though in both cases, we'd just build more of the other one.
"no path to clean energy without hydro"? Maybe, again we'd just build more solar and wind.
So, if someone waves a wand and magically makes nuclear disappear (or just economically unattractive) then I think the our path is still fairly clear. No real need to take that path unless nuclear becomes much more relatively expensive, but it's definately an option, and possibly one we'll gladly take because it's cheaper.
> By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
So "no path to clean energy without solar" and "no path to clean energy without wind" are a bit more defensible, though in both cases, we'd just build more of the other one.
"no path to clean energy without hydro"? Maybe, again we'd just build more solar and wind.
So, if someone waves a wand and magically makes nuclear disappear (or just economically unattractive) then I think the our path is still fairly clear. No real need to take that path unless nuclear becomes much more relatively expensive, but it's definately an option, and possibly one we'll gladly take because it's cheaper.
> By 2050, almost 90% of electricity generation comes from renewable sources, with wind and solar PV together accounting for nearly 70%. Most of the remainder comes from nuclear.
In other words, IPCC counts nuclear as "renewable"?
In other words, IPCC counts nuclear as "renewable"?
No, the "remainder" that is nuclear is the 10% that renewables don't cover. The renewables other than solar/wind are things like hydro, geothermal, and waste/biomass.
Ok, thx.
> most serious analysis agree that renewables will be about 80%
Well, let's see them; and see how much they rely on yet to be proven industrially new storage tech (and without humongous mining activity)
Well, let's see them; and see how much they rely on yet to be proven industrially new storage tech (and without humongous mining activity)
Yep!
Once battery storage doesn't pan out(and it won't currently for trucks), I see synth hydrocarbons picking up the transport slack. But that will require alot of energy..
Once battery storage doesn't pan out(and it won't currently for trucks), I see synth hydrocarbons picking up the transport slack. But that will require alot of energy..
If there is mass production of synfuels, that means mass production of hydrogen (which is either used directly as the synfuel, or used to make the synfuel). And as soon as there's mass hydrogen production, it's an ENORMOUS amount of dispatchable demand, which solves the intermittency problem of renewables (even if the hydrogen is never turned back into electricity.)
Bill Gates, while wealthy and renowned for his tech contributions, has had some missteps in the climate energy space slowing down actual progress with his diversions (i.e. putting money/political will into new moon shots and saying that we don't have the technology to deal with this yet -- instead of deploying readily available technology which is ready).
Bill Gates has not, in fact, been responsible for tech contributions. His effect has been balefully negative, from the get-go.
He is personally responsible for "have you tried turning it off and on again?". Before MS, that was plenty of reason to demand a refund.
He is personally responsible for "have you tried turning it off and on again?". Before MS, that was plenty of reason to demand a refund.
> instead of deploying readily available technology
Well there's no opportunity for him to make inflated profits off a technology that he can't patent...
https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bi...
Well there's no opportunity for him to make inflated profits off a technology that he can't patent...
https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-world-loses-under-bi...
How many GW of wind, solar, and nuclear can we bring online in the next 28 years?
In 2021, we added this many new gigawatts: 183 PV[0], 100 wind[1], 7.88 nuclear (but 8.6 nuclear was also shut down)[2]
28 times that, ignoring the shutdowns (I don't actually know how long wind lasts, IIRC nuclear is "about 50-70 years" and PV is "about 30 years"), gives a total of: 5124 GW PV, 2800 GW wind, 218 GW nuclear.
But that's a lower bound for PV, as that's growing with what looks like an approximately exponential long-term trend (since 1992) of 36.5% per year.
While such a growth rate is physically possible to maintain for 28 years even without going into space, given that if we did make so much we wouldn't merely give everyone an American lifestyle but also be able to get the entire human population continuously flying[3], I'm assuming it will turn into a sigmoid before then.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
[3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28105*1.365%5E%2828%2B...
28 times that, ignoring the shutdowns (I don't actually know how long wind lasts, IIRC nuclear is "about 50-70 years" and PV is "about 30 years"), gives a total of: 5124 GW PV, 2800 GW wind, 218 GW nuclear.
But that's a lower bound for PV, as that's growing with what looks like an approximately exponential long-term trend (since 1992) of 36.5% per year.
While such a growth rate is physically possible to maintain for 28 years even without going into space, given that if we did make so much we wouldn't merely give everyone an American lifestyle but also be able to get the entire human population continuously flying[3], I'm assuming it will turn into a sigmoid before then.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...
[3] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28105*1.365%5E%2828%2B...
The thing is, 183GW from PV is like 20-30GW of nuclear, because nuclear's capacity factor is near 100% and PV's is often near 10%.
Storage seems hard and expensive. We're going to need a whole lot of approaches:
- Wind taking a bigger share of renewables
- Whatever storage we can reasonably build, including some exotic stuff like power-to-gas-to-power.
- Nuclear filling in a little bit
- PV comically overbuilt and routinely throwing away a lot of power midday on most days.
- Still peaking off natural gas, a little bit.
Storage seems hard and expensive. We're going to need a whole lot of approaches:
- Wind taking a bigger share of renewables
- Whatever storage we can reasonably build, including some exotic stuff like power-to-gas-to-power.
- Nuclear filling in a little bit
- PV comically overbuilt and routinely throwing away a lot of power midday on most days.
- Still peaking off natural gas, a little bit.
For the USA, utility scale PV runs at a capacity factor of over 25% in the sunbelt and mid teens elsewhere. I suppose that may qualify as "often near 10%" but I think you are overstating it a bit, as really household PV is the only one that really is around 10%.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31755603
Note non-utility scale solar is 75% of the installed watts, too-- so you have a huge share of it pulling towards that 10-12% number.
Note non-utility scale solar is 75% of the installed watts, too-- so you have a huge share of it pulling towards that 10-12% number.
Even at 10% capacity factor, and with a sudden cessation of the long term exponential trend in PV, and assuming the 2021 numbers for new nuclear power while ignoring that more was shut down, that still leaves more than twice as much new PV as new nuclear.
Sure, but I think we already know that we build a lot more PV than nuclear. The question is, should we build a bit more nuclear? Even a small change would be equivalent to a lot of PV production, and provide power at times when PV can't.
Well on that point I agree completely, although mainly because I think it's a good idea to have a diversity of supply and not because it's the most cost effective.
From what I've seen, the cheapest solution is a few square meters' cross section of HVDC encircling the planet, but that would almost certainly take a big increase in global metal mining even on these time scales and even when ignoring the political issues.
From what I've seen, the cheapest solution is a few square meters' cross section of HVDC encircling the planet, but that would almost certainly take a big increase in global metal mining even on these time scales and even when ignoring the political issues.
PV throwing off excess during peak is fine - if we have storage. Storage is has only recently become feasible, it would likely be utility-grade storage, Powerwall/home storage or Vehicle2Grid integration by the 2050 timeframe.
Storage cost being excessive means it's early adoption timeframe. As the need for it becomes clear options will open up.
Storage cost being excessive means it's early adoption timeframe. As the need for it becomes clear options will open up.
> PV throwing off excess during peak is fine
PV throwing off excess during peak is fine even if we don't have storage, because it means PV is adequate for a bigger fraction of the morning and evening (and in turn, the needs for storage become a little less because of the over-provisioning of production).
PV throwing off excess during peak is fine even if we don't have storage, because it means PV is adequate for a bigger fraction of the morning and evening (and in turn, the needs for storage become a little less because of the over-provisioning of production).
Storage is cheap and getting cheaper even faster than solar.
Batteries will only ever be a tiny fraction of storage.
Batteries will only ever be a tiny fraction of storage.
Renewables' capacity factor is much greater than 10%, in practice. If you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
> > The thing is, 183GW from PV is like 20-30GW of nuclear, because nuclear's capacity factor is near 100% and PV's is often near 10%.
> Renewables' capacity factor is much greater than 10%, in practice. If you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
Residential/commercial PV -- e.g. rooftop solar-- very often is 10% or less.
If you want to only look at utility-scale fixed tilt, instead, recent deployments average near (not quite) 20%.
https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors
Nuclear's capacity factor is 93%. In which case, 183GW from utility-scale, fixed-tilt PV is like 183/.93 * .20 = 39GW. Which, admittedly, is outside of my range of 20-30, but also relies on generous assumptions (utility scale projects only-- which are only ~25% of US solar wattage).
If you consider only tracking, you can get all the way to 49GW, which still doesn't eliminate the point.
Perhaps the bigger point is looking at the eastern seaboard. Shipping power 2000 miles is not super practical for various reasons, and the capacity factors for a whole region of the US are pretty poor.
> Renewables' capacity factor is much greater than 10%, in practice. If you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
Residential/commercial PV -- e.g. rooftop solar-- very often is 10% or less.
If you want to only look at utility-scale fixed tilt, instead, recent deployments average near (not quite) 20%.
https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors
Nuclear's capacity factor is 93%. In which case, 183GW from utility-scale, fixed-tilt PV is like 183/.93 * .20 = 39GW. Which, admittedly, is outside of my range of 20-30, but also relies on generous assumptions (utility scale projects only-- which are only ~25% of US solar wattage).
If you consider only tracking, you can get all the way to 49GW, which still doesn't eliminate the point.
Perhaps the bigger point is looking at the eastern seaboard. Shipping power 2000 miles is not super practical for various reasons, and the capacity factors for a whole region of the US are pretty poor.
How much solar capacity is actually residential? I'd say quite small since solar is hard to deploy residential + lack of home value improvement.
Nuclear should be part of the equation (it has it's own issues with wastewater) but if adding nuclear means not investing equally or more in solar/wind renewables, that's completely misguided.
Nuclear should be part of the equation (it has it's own issues with wastewater) but if adding nuclear means not investing equally or more in solar/wind renewables, that's completely misguided.
> How much solar capacity is actually residential?
I'm not sure how much is residential, but about 25% is utility-scale projects. The rest is stuff on commercial buildings and homes-- which have an average capacity factor around 12%.
> Nuclear should be part of the equation (it has it's own issues with wastewater) but if adding nuclear means not investing equally or more in solar/wind renewables, that's completely misguided.
I totally agree. I think our priorities should be, in order:
- Wind
- Pumped storage
- Improved utility interties
- Demand-side management
- PV
- Nuclear
- Battery storage
- Electrolyzers, etc
But even the lowest priority item should be aggressively pursued.
I'm not sure how much is residential, but about 25% is utility-scale projects. The rest is stuff on commercial buildings and homes-- which have an average capacity factor around 12%.
> Nuclear should be part of the equation (it has it's own issues with wastewater) but if adding nuclear means not investing equally or more in solar/wind renewables, that's completely misguided.
I totally agree. I think our priorities should be, in order:
- Wind
- Pumped storage
- Improved utility interties
- Demand-side management
- PV
- Nuclear
- Battery storage
- Electrolyzers, etc
But even the lowest priority item should be aggressively pursued.
Utility scale solar is greater than small scale (< 1 MW) solar in the US, and this is disparity is projected to increase through 2050. This is good, because utility scale solar is cheaper per unit output than small scale solar.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50357
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50357
> Utility scale solar is greater than small scale (< 1 MW) solar in the US
Your graph shows in total generated energy per year it's roughly even--- not in nameplate power. Because the capacity factor is worse, you need a lot more nameplate power at non-utility installations to get the same energy out.
> This is good, because utility scale solar is cheaper per unit output than small scale solar.
Yup. Small scale solar really needs to stop, other than for installations that have special requirements (e.g. need for power backup / diversity).
Your graph shows in total generated energy per year it's roughly even--- not in nameplate power. Because the capacity factor is worse, you need a lot more nameplate power at non-utility installations to get the same energy out.
> This is good, because utility scale solar is cheaper per unit output than small scale solar.
Yup. Small scale solar really needs to stop, other than for installations that have special requirements (e.g. need for power backup / diversity).
You would forbid me to buy panels?
Since we know your use of panels isn't going to be efficient compared to utility scale--- I sure wouldn't subsidize you, and would subsidize the utility scale stuff instead.
Better that production go to installations that have good capacity factors than to your roof.
It's also time to reconsider how good an idea net metering at retail electrical prices is. Grandfather existing customers, but ... sure looks like we need a grid, so maybe only buy power from new end customers at wholesale rates (this further incents storage!)
Better that production go to installations that have good capacity factors than to your roof.
It's also time to reconsider how good an idea net metering at retail electrical prices is. Grandfather existing customers, but ... sure looks like we need a grid, so maybe only buy power from new end customers at wholesale rates (this further incents storage!)
Nukes' utility factor will fall rapidly as renewables and storage undercut them. Each decrease in utility factor multiplies their per-kWh cost, making them increasingly uncompetitive, and that at a steadily increasing rate.
Nukes will shortly be mothballed, to perhaps be fired up once in a while in response to spiking demand.
Nukes will shortly be mothballed, to perhaps be fired up once in a while in response to spiking demand.
You continually do this: reply to the same comments multiple times from different angles hours apart; make unsupported assertions that storage will fix everything, etc.
It doesn't lead to productive conversation.
It doesn't lead to productive conversation.
Shipping power 2000 miles is absolutely super-practical.
China has a project to send it 8000 miles from solar farms they are building in Chile, for use during nighttime in China.
China has a project to send it 8000 miles from solar farms they are building in Chile, for use during nighttime in China.
> Shipping power 2000 miles is absolutely super-practical.
DC interconnect makes it more practical, and it's better than storage, but losses and costs accumulate.
> China has a project to send it 8000 miles from solar farms they are building in Chile
Chile has proposed a project to do just that. It is in exceptionally early conceptual planning stages-- but look at you acting like it's a fait accompli!
DC interconnect makes it more practical, and it's better than storage, but losses and costs accumulate.
> China has a project to send it 8000 miles from solar farms they are building in Chile
Chile has proposed a project to do just that. It is in exceptionally early conceptual planning stages-- but look at you acting like it's a fait accompli!
Chile does not drive massive energy projects. China is in the driver seat.
I doubt it will end up built, but that will not be because it is impractical. It will be because local generation and storage will turn out to be cheaper and less vulnerable to geopolitical upset.
I doubt it will end up built, but that will not be because it is impractical. It will be because local generation and storage will turn out to be cheaper and less vulnerable to geopolitical upset.
> Chile does not drive massive energy projects. China is in the driver seat.
Chile proposes it, hoping that Asia invests a very large amount of money into Chile to make it happen. Thus far, this latter bit has not happened.
https://www.gob.cl/en/news/president-pinera-presents-proyect...
Any evidence it has progressed past the Chile-showing-other-countries-Slideware-phase?
You tend to uncritically read the most positive, tentative stuff about PV/storage and accept it as absolute fact.
Chile proposes it, hoping that Asia invests a very large amount of money into Chile to make it happen. Thus far, this latter bit has not happened.
https://www.gob.cl/en/news/president-pinera-presents-proyect...
Any evidence it has progressed past the Chile-showing-other-countries-Slideware-phase?
You tend to uncritically read the most positive, tentative stuff about PV/storage and accept it as absolute fact.
Last time I looked at this, antipodal HVDC was several (2? 3? Can't remember) orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries at the scale of continental electrical requirements; the limit is needing so much metal you become a dominant player in the world metal mining industry just for this project.
Batteries are the most expensive storage. A negligible fraction of utility storage will be batteries unless some new battery chemistry is very, very cheap.
Almost all current utility storage is gravity. That probably won't change.
Almost all current utility storage is gravity. That probably won't change.
Hmm. Last time I suggested that[0], I was quickly shot down. I still don't really know why, but as I'm no geologist or civil engineer, I'm willing to believe either a yes or a no at this point.
I definitely don't see any other gravity batteries being useful on this scale.
[0] specifically I suggested that there was a lot of room for a lot of additional pumped hydro — I don't mean my more recent claim, which is merely that existing pumped hydro is cool
I definitely don't see any other gravity batteries being useful on this scale.
[0] specifically I suggested that there was a lot of room for a lot of additional pumped hydro — I don't mean my more recent claim, which is merely that existing pumped hydro is cool
* No paths to nighttime clean energy without nuclear power
Babcock and Wilcox have gotten out of the nuclear business.
What business have they gotten into? Thermal storage of grid energy with a > 50% round trip efficiency. It heats sand with a compact resistive heater, stores the sand in insulated silos, and recovers the energy by a Brayton cycle system with a really interesting and compact fluidized bed heat exchanger. Storage capacity is sized for 100 hours of operation. Not just overnight, but four days.
https://www.babcock.com/home/about/corporate/news/babcock-wi...
Westinghouse is also doing thermal grid storage now. Pumped TES can have a round trip efficiency > 60%.
https://www.energy-storage.news/nuclear-power-company-westin...
What business have they gotten into? Thermal storage of grid energy with a > 50% round trip efficiency. It heats sand with a compact resistive heater, stores the sand in insulated silos, and recovers the energy by a Brayton cycle system with a really interesting and compact fluidized bed heat exchanger. Storage capacity is sized for 100 hours of operation. Not just overnight, but four days.
https://www.babcock.com/home/about/corporate/news/babcock-wi...
Westinghouse is also doing thermal grid storage now. Pumped TES can have a round trip efficiency > 60%.
https://www.energy-storage.news/nuclear-power-company-westin...
You both just said the same thing.
poster added provision Nighttime energy.
I believe parent was making a point that the nighttime vs daytime distinction is irrelevant, because the grid never goes to to sleep. Having sufficient clean energy during daytime only is not acceptable.
That’s the same thing
Why is that?
Here is a 2016 map of Nuclear power plants operating and under construction.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-power-...
Some things I found interesting:
Under development: 11 in China, 3 in US
Operating: Over 40 in the US and no major accidents since Three Mile Island (1979).
Some things I found interesting:
Under development: 11 in China, 3 in US
Operating: Over 40 in the US and no major accidents since Three Mile Island (1979).
This appears to be out of date. Watts Bar 2 [1] is completed and operating. Summer 2-3 were cancelled [2]. Sounds like Vogtle is getting close to coming online [3]
1: https://www.tva.com/newsroom/watts-bar-2-project
2: https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-...
3: https://www.southerncompany.com/innovation/vogtle-3-and-4.ht...
1: https://www.tva.com/newsroom/watts-bar-2-project
2: https://www.chooseenergy.com/news/article/failed-v-c-summer-...
3: https://www.southerncompany.com/innovation/vogtle-3-and-4.ht...
The US ones, anyway, will be cancelled. Each dollar poured down the rathole first, diverted from renewable build-out, brings climate catastrophe nearer. That has thus far not stoped the pouring.
One thing I don't understand is the uninhabitable zone around Chernobyl is not that big, and the U.S. has plenty of space. And electricity can be transmitted decently far, right?
So... is it unreasonable to have lots of fairly low-regulated nuclear power plants in, say, 50 mile uninhabited areas (maybe even make it a nature preserve or something for animals)? And if one or two meltdown, oh well?
So... is it unreasonable to have lots of fairly low-regulated nuclear power plants in, say, 50 mile uninhabited areas (maybe even make it a nature preserve or something for animals)? And if one or two meltdown, oh well?
The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors. The design was bad to begin with and it really didn't have any sort of containment or bunker or anything like that to speak of.
This is why they go on and about the "sarcophagus" required to keep it contained. They had to build a proper containment unit after the fact. You want that stuff built BEFORE you have a nuclear reactor. Not wait until after one blows up.
I, very literally, would love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard if it's off the correct design. A design that depends on physics to be safe, not human operators.
Which is entirely possible. You can build a nuclear reactor in such a way that if the worst possible case happened it would meltdown and dump it's guts into a container. Then just sit there until it cooled to the point were it could be processed correctly.
This is why they go on and about the "sarcophagus" required to keep it contained. They had to build a proper containment unit after the fact. You want that stuff built BEFORE you have a nuclear reactor. Not wait until after one blows up.
I, very literally, would love to have a nuclear reactor in my backyard if it's off the correct design. A design that depends on physics to be safe, not human operators.
Which is entirely possible. You can build a nuclear reactor in such a way that if the worst possible case happened it would meltdown and dump it's guts into a container. Then just sit there until it cooled to the point were it could be processed correctly.
> The solution to Chernobyl style accidents is to not build Chernobyl style nuclear reactors
Or, indeed, any at all. Thus, also no Fukushimas, and no TMIs, and no Santa Susanas.
Or, indeed, any at all. Thus, also no Fukushimas, and no TMIs, and no Santa Susanas.
you know that "nuclear energy fear" is conceptually equal to "airplane fear" in trasportation?. Both are the most safe by output (kwh vs miles travelled) against deaths in their own categories.
Rendering large areas uninhabitable is plenty of harm. And death is not the only detrimental health impact.
Santa susana is bad and something I’m even vocal about, but that was nuclear experiments, not nuclear power
It was officially enforced lying about nukes causing a public health disaster. Nukes is nukes, first of all.
The Chernobyl power plant did not have a containment building around the reactors until after the meltdown. Every Western nuclear power plant has a containment building around the reactors. That's the single biggest factor.
TMI and Fukushima had containment, for all the good it did.
It did a lot of good? TMI slagged the core but the containment held, and Fukushima's cores (the ones that melted, obviously) was still mostly covered, the hydrogen explosion was the major problem.
TMI vented a very large amount of radioactive krypton. (Given its density, it would better be described as dumped to the river, where it spread out along the banks downstream, gassing riverfront neighborhoods.)
Fukushima's containment exploded in hydrogen detonations, and vented a great deal of radioisotopes. They are today flushing tritium to the ocean, which seems wasteful; we will want the 3He that decays to.
Fukushima's containment exploded in hydrogen detonations, and vented a great deal of radioisotopes. They are today flushing tritium to the ocean, which seems wasteful; we will want the 3He that decays to.
Mushrooms in Germany are still contaminated today from the Chernobyl fallout: https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...
EVERYTHING around us is contaminated in some way or another. We are constantly bombarded by cosmic radiation with doses far in excess of the expose you will get from eating those mushrooms.
Below 100mSv, there is "no evidence" that exposure leads to any elevation of cancer risk. At levels covered by the article, ie 1000Bq/kg / 80000 Bq/mSv = 0.0125 mSv/kg.
In other words, you can eat 8 tons of those mush before there is any measurable increase in cancer risk.
And breating the air in Berlin for 1 year is MUCH more dangerous than eating those 8000 kg of mushrooms. (Not to speak about taking a single shot of covid vaccine.)
In other words, dispite being scientifically "true", the net effect of an article like this, is to mislead people into thinking that radiation is a lot more dangerous than it is in reality.
If nuclear were to be treated like other health hazards in our environment, the thresholds should be set somewhere between 10000-100000Bq/kg, depending on how much people would eat of that food in a year, not at 600Bq/kg.
Below 100mSv, there is "no evidence" that exposure leads to any elevation of cancer risk. At levels covered by the article, ie 1000Bq/kg / 80000 Bq/mSv = 0.0125 mSv/kg.
In other words, you can eat 8 tons of those mush before there is any measurable increase in cancer risk.
And breating the air in Berlin for 1 year is MUCH more dangerous than eating those 8000 kg of mushrooms. (Not to speak about taking a single shot of covid vaccine.)
In other words, dispite being scientifically "true", the net effect of an article like this, is to mislead people into thinking that radiation is a lot more dangerous than it is in reality.
If nuclear were to be treated like other health hazards in our environment, the thresholds should be set somewhere between 10000-100000Bq/kg, depending on how much people would eat of that food in a year, not at 600Bq/kg.
The website is official information from the German federal agency for radiation protection. While the risk now is low, and the article is actually giving a useful comparison to radiation exposure in airplane travel, you probably still wouldn’t want to eat those mushrooms or game every day, and the contamination was much higher in the first months/years after Chernobyl. The overall point is that the impact was not restricted to a 50 mile radius as suggested by the GP.
> you probably still wouldn’t want to eat those mushrooms or game every day
For the mushrooms, as a side order, even every day would be harmless. If you follow some stone age diet, eating only meat, then MAYBE eating those boars every day might cause a measurable increase in cancer risk. Probably still less than simply breathing the air in a city, though.
> and the contamination was much higher in the first months/years after Chernobyl
In the first days and months after Chernobyl, there were real reasons to be somewhat careful. That was before the short-lived isotopes had decayed. Once the decays of those isotopes took over, and Cs-137 became the main source, the levels were pretty safe, even if they were double compared to today (the half-life of Cs137 is 30 years).
> The overall point is that the impact was not restricted to a 50 mile radius as suggested by the GP.
And this is where my main objection is. The "impact" as counted in measurable increase in cancer risk, is nil.
By employing the ultra-conservative "linear no-threshold model" (LNT) of radiatino risk, then theoretically, over a very large population, you could calculate some number of expected cancer cases. But there is (last time I checked) no consensus that the LNT hypothesis matches data better than a null-hypothesis that doses under about 100mSv are harmless.
In any case, at that level, the risk for any given individual is so small, that it disappears next to any other risk you can imagine from pollutants or similar, so there is no reason to take such hypothetical risks into account for your personal behavior.
For the mushrooms, as a side order, even every day would be harmless. If you follow some stone age diet, eating only meat, then MAYBE eating those boars every day might cause a measurable increase in cancer risk. Probably still less than simply breathing the air in a city, though.
> and the contamination was much higher in the first months/years after Chernobyl
In the first days and months after Chernobyl, there were real reasons to be somewhat careful. That was before the short-lived isotopes had decayed. Once the decays of those isotopes took over, and Cs-137 became the main source, the levels were pretty safe, even if they were double compared to today (the half-life of Cs137 is 30 years).
> The overall point is that the impact was not restricted to a 50 mile radius as suggested by the GP.
And this is where my main objection is. The "impact" as counted in measurable increase in cancer risk, is nil.
By employing the ultra-conservative "linear no-threshold model" (LNT) of radiatino risk, then theoretically, over a very large population, you could calculate some number of expected cancer cases. But there is (last time I checked) no consensus that the LNT hypothesis matches data better than a null-hypothesis that doses under about 100mSv are harmless.
In any case, at that level, the risk for any given individual is so small, that it disappears next to any other risk you can imagine from pollutants or similar, so there is no reason to take such hypothetical risks into account for your personal behavior.
Arguing that leaked radioactive contamination is less harmful than often assumed does not make habitually leaky nukes seem any more attractive, vs. alternatives that leak nothing hazardous at all, ever.
" the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy"
From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
We seem to have been fine burning coal and not thinking about the radiation that puts into the surrounding environment.
It's also disingenuous to think that there aren't negative environmental externalities from the production and operation of "renewables".
All forms of energy production will have some negative consequences and we need to understand what those are and think of ways to mitigate them, rather than just pointing to what's bad about one form and ignore what's bad about others.
From: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
We seem to have been fine burning coal and not thinking about the radiation that puts into the surrounding environment.
It's also disingenuous to think that there aren't negative environmental externalities from the production and operation of "renewables".
All forms of energy production will have some negative consequences and we need to understand what those are and think of ways to mitigate them, rather than just pointing to what's bad about one form and ignore what's bad about others.
Coal is on the way out, so immaterial to argument now. Only just enough coal is burnt to fill in for insufficiently built-out renewables and storage.
In many places that role is being moved to NG. The immediate hiccup is a short-term setback that will be fixed the way we are doing, building out renewables, later storage.
In many places that role is being moved to NG. The immediate hiccup is a short-term setback that will be fixed the way we are doing, building out renewables, later storage.
For someone who understands science, it actually DOES make them more attractive, when they realize that the "contamination" is at concentrations usually associated with homeopathy.
Nobody wants to need to pay attention to them wholly unnecessarily when the alternative is overwhelmingly cheaper besides.
These different radiation types are NOT equivalent.
The purpose of the Sievert scale is precisely to to provide a measure that enables equivalent comparisons of radiation doses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
Even if it's not perfectly accurate, it's probably quite close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert
Even if it's not perfectly accurate, it's probably quite close.
How radioactive are covid vaccines?
They are bioactive, not very radioactive....
Then why bring them up here at all? I hope it's not to push some backwards anti-vaccine bs.
Quite the contrary. It is based on the obvious premise that it's a good idea to get vaccinated.
Just because it is well known that vaccines come with a tiny, tiny risk of some complication doesn't mean we should not take them. They save a lot more lives than they take.
is the same as
Just because it is well know that nuclear power come with a tiny, tiny risk of some complication doesn't mean we should not use it. It saves a lot more lives than it takes.
Just because it is well known that vaccines come with a tiny, tiny risk of some complication doesn't mean we should not take them. They save a lot more lives than they take.
is the same as
Just because it is well know that nuclear power come with a tiny, tiny risk of some complication doesn't mean we should not use it. It saves a lot more lives than it takes.
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying!
Planning nuclear power plants based upon the Chernobyl disaster is kinda like planning road and bridge construction based upon the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse - ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940) )
Such disasters should only be a small - if bright red - footnote to a good policy: "NEVER build anything resembling this historic disaster. And if anything ever shows operational characteristics remotely resembling it, then shut it down IMMEDIATELY."
Such disasters should only be a small - if bright red - footnote to a good policy: "NEVER build anything resembling this historic disaster. And if anything ever shows operational characteristics remotely resembling it, then shut it down IMMEDIATELY."
They all resemble a historic disaster, more or less. Renewables don't, though.
Ah, no. The (numerous) historic disasters which most renewables resemble are those where civilizations implicitly assumed that the current climate - patterns of wind, rain, temperature, etc. - would continue indefinitely. Then...SH*T, the climate changed, often over rather large areas, and the civilization(s) which had conveniently assumed that that couldn't happen suffered or failed.
(If you're not familiar with this in the context of renewable energy, then you might want to google for news stories on what the long-term drought in the western U.S. is doing to the "sure thing, forever" supply of hydroelectricity at many of the major dams.)
(If you're not familiar with this in the context of renewable energy, then you might want to google for news stories on what the long-term drought in the western U.S. is doing to the "sure thing, forever" supply of hydroelectricity at many of the major dams.)
Moving goalposts, much?
The environs of Hoover Dam are exactly as safe today as 10,000 years ago, and will reliably be as safe 10,000 years in the future provided no nukes blow up upwind or upstream.
Solar panels floating on the Hoover Dam reservoir will happily produce as much power as the dam at full tilt, with enough left over to pump water back up to it for overnight use, reduce evaporation enough that water drought will be substantially less problematic, and provide power for desalination besides.
Floating, water-chilled panels will last at least 50 years, by which time they will likely not be needed anymore.
The environs of Hoover Dam are exactly as safe today as 10,000 years ago, and will reliably be as safe 10,000 years in the future provided no nukes blow up upwind or upstream.
Solar panels floating on the Hoover Dam reservoir will happily produce as much power as the dam at full tilt, with enough left over to pump water back up to it for overnight use, reduce evaporation enough that water drought will be substantially less problematic, and provide power for desalination besides.
Floating, water-chilled panels will last at least 50 years, by which time they will likely not be needed anymore.
Probably the issue is that access to water (for cooling) correlates highly with access to water (for human civilization).
There was also no real incentive to clean up the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The town of Pripyat existed for the purpose of supporting the nuclear power plants. So when the plants closed, there's no reason to clean up the contamination. This is in contrast to Fukushima, in which the majority of the exclusion zone has been rehabilitated.
I don't disagree with your main point, but what's the point of making a nature preserve in an already uninhabited area? Since it's uninhabited right now the animals are probably doing just fine. Also, power plants (of any kind) need heavy machinery for construction as well as regular maintenance.
A nature preserve is there to keep somebody sweeping in anytime and eliminating the habitat. Which happens all the damn time.
Starbase, e.g.
Starbase, e.g.
If you're willing to dedicate that much land you could just cover it in solar panels and generate 1500GW of peak electricity for less money.
Except those solar panels generate energy intermittently. Not just in the short term due to the day/night cycle, but also over the long term with weather and seasonal shifts.
Nuclear is unique in that it's the only geographically independent, and non-intermittent energy source. Hydroelectricity and geothermal are non-intermittent but are geographically dependent. And also fossil fuels, but those emit carbon dioxide.
Nuclear is unique in that it's the only geographically independent, and non-intermittent energy source. Hydroelectricity and geothermal are non-intermittent but are geographically dependent. And also fossil fuels, but those emit carbon dioxide.
As has been explained to you numerous times, intermittency is a trivial technical matter that cannot justify diverting capital to nuke construction or operation.
Repeating your falsehoods here does not make them true.
Repeating your falsehoods here does not make them true.
And as has been explained to you numerous times, intermittency is an incredibly difficult problem and cannot be solved without some miraculous storage mechanism that makes energy storage effectively free. It's so trivial to solve, yet you neglect to mention the solution.
As per your previous comments, you assume that hydrogen, compressed air, or some other form of energy storage will be this silver bullet. This is a very risky assumption. We have no cost history for these systems being built at scale. There's a massive difference between writing a white-paper promising a super cheap storage cost, and actually building an energy storage facility and looking at the bill.
As per your previous comments, you assume that hydrogen, compressed air, or some other form of energy storage will be this silver bullet. This is a very risky assumption. We have no cost history for these systems being built at scale. There's a massive difference between writing a white-paper promising a super cheap storage cost, and actually building an energy storage facility and looking at the bill.
Interesting that you can understand this concept when its applied to development of grid-scale storage.
But you think its easier and risk free to develop from where we are to R&D plus supply chain, operating procedures, and workforce for safe and cost effective nuclear power?
Grid storage has no cost history. Nuclear power has a known cost history of being too expensive, and its had trillions of dollars of investment so theres no low hanging fruit.
Grid storage has existing components used in other industries and applications, nuclear power doesn't.
But you think its easier and risk free to develop from where we are to R&D plus supply chain, operating procedures, and workforce for safe and cost effective nuclear power?
Grid storage has no cost history. Nuclear power has a known cost history of being too expensive, and its had trillions of dollars of investment so theres no low hanging fruit.
Grid storage has existing components used in other industries and applications, nuclear power doesn't.
The grid storage that has actually been deployed like hydroelectric and battery storage does have cost history. But it's too expensive, and are geographically limited in the case of the former. The grid storage systems like hydrogen electric storage, or ammonia have not been deployed at scale and has no cost history. I'm not inclined to gamble the future of civilization on technologies that we have zero experience building and operating.
By comparison, we have 70 years of experience building and operating nuclear plants. We only need to build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid. The cost history of nuclear power shows a clear trend that serial production is cheaper than one off builds.
And you are incorrect about nuclear power not sharing components with existing applications. Nuclear power plants use steam generators, turbines, dynamos, and cooling towers. These are used in other heat engine based power plants.
By comparison, we have 70 years of experience building and operating nuclear plants. We only need to build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid. The cost history of nuclear power shows a clear trend that serial production is cheaper than one off builds.
And you are incorrect about nuclear power not sharing components with existing applications. Nuclear power plants use steam generators, turbines, dynamos, and cooling towers. These are used in other heat engine based power plants.
>build 4 nuclear plants for each one we currently have to achieve a 100% decarbonized grid
Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Increasing 4x nuclear plants would increase fossil fuel consumption in the nuclear supply chain.
Nuclear isn't some secret technology you've just discovered thats being suppressed by environmentalists. It literally ended the biggest war ever and was pursued for decades afterwards. Unless you know a secret, if its feasible it would have been done.
Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy. Increasing 4x nuclear plants would increase fossil fuel consumption in the nuclear supply chain.
Nuclear isn't some secret technology you've just discovered thats being suppressed by environmentalists. It literally ended the biggest war ever and was pursued for decades afterwards. Unless you know a secret, if its feasible it would have been done.
> Uhh, mining and uranium enrichment and transportation all require fossil fuels, and more fossil fuel energy than a fueled nuclear produces in electrical energy.
Incorrect. Nuclear power actually has the second lowest net CO2 emissions per energy source, second only to hydroelectricity. Less than solar and wind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
Incorrect. Nuclear power actually has the second lowest net CO2 emissions per energy source, second only to hydroelectricity. Less than solar and wind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
So wrong its funny. Maybe if you assume the pre-existance of the nuclear supply chain due to a weapons program.
I challenge you to actually follow the sources on any of estimates like that, or the hilarious "12g c02/kwhr" quote. It's all ESTIMATES (not measurements) FROM The nuclear industry. But keep on believing.
The estimates are from the IPCC, not from the nuclear industry. This is stated in the article.
The IPCC did not do primary research. They cite a source. That source did not do primary research, either. The actual data comes from an estimate from the industry itself. The estimates came from costs. Estimating embodied fossil fuel energy based on cost is a not a bad estimation technique except when a huge amount of your supply chain is subsidized.
And, all more expensive to operate than alternative methods.
Which is why nukes are today uncompetitive, and get less so every day. The cost to build all those nukes would build far more renewable generating capacity and storage, far more than we will need. So, we will instead spend far less and get all the power we need. Existing nukes will shortly be too expensive to continue operating, and will be mothballed. Their eventual dismantling will consume a not insubstantial fraction of our much reduced energy budget.
Which is why nukes are today uncompetitive, and get less so every day. The cost to build all those nukes would build far more renewable generating capacity and storage, far more than we will need. So, we will instead spend far less and get all the power we need. Existing nukes will shortly be too expensive to continue operating, and will be mothballed. Their eventual dismantling will consume a not insubstantial fraction of our much reduced energy budget.
I'm not familiar with this area. Can you explain why it's a trivial technical matter, and what the solution(s) are?
[deleted]
Many billions of dollars are today going into constructing factories worldwide to produce equipment for storage of numerous kinds. It takes time to build the factories, and then time to run them to build out the storage capacity.
There is, thus far, little use for storage, because there is not enough renewable generating capacity yet to charge up storage. (Charging it by burning fossil fuels would be stupid.) By the time we need much of it, it will be very, very cheap. In the meantime, building generating capacity and factories is the right use of capital.
Although people insisting there is a problem love to talk about expense of batteries, only a tiny fraction of utility-scale storage will ever be batteries. The cheapest storage is gravity, exemplified by pumped hydro, which represents today almost all utility storage. But there are many variations that all work.
The only uncertainty is which ones will be cheapest. Each is a different mix of build cost, maintenance cost, storage cost, charging cost, and discharging cost, with capex and opex for each. Different users will favor different places on those axes. Best for most uses are those that cost only capex, and store as much energy as you care to, cheaply.
Synthetic ammonia and hydrogen are attractive storage media, despite some higher costs, because they may be sold, and burned in gas turbines.
Liquifying nitrogen is extremely mature tech and, like the synthetic fuels, valuable in its own right. Power is extracted by boiling in ambient air to drive a turbine.
Compressing air underground, adiabatically, is another mature method. Compressing to a sea-floor bladder through a hose from a compressor onshore, likewise. Turbines, again.
Buoyancy, drawing a float down toward a pulley on the sea floor, using a winch onshore; and raising a very, very heavy weight up a disused mine shaft are other, very similar examples of gravity storage. Both have startup time of seconds, and are useful for stabilizing grids. Energy is released by running the winch out, driving a generator.
There are various battery chemistries, for cases where batteries are useful at all. All under consideration are much cheaper than lithium. Farthest along may be iron-air, molten-metal, and sodium-bromide, none of which are prone to fires.
Storage costs of all kinds are falling much faster than solar generating capacity. Utilities will build whatever is cheapest when they finally need any. As prices change, the mix will change. There is no value in picking just one, and plentiful value in using the right one for immediate circumstances.
Nobody needs very much storage, because you can always import and burn fuel. The cheapest fuel will be surplus ammonia and hydrogen, although burning aluminum powder for direct process heat has been used in production at local scales. Scrap aluminum is very cheap.
There is, thus far, little use for storage, because there is not enough renewable generating capacity yet to charge up storage. (Charging it by burning fossil fuels would be stupid.) By the time we need much of it, it will be very, very cheap. In the meantime, building generating capacity and factories is the right use of capital.
Although people insisting there is a problem love to talk about expense of batteries, only a tiny fraction of utility-scale storage will ever be batteries. The cheapest storage is gravity, exemplified by pumped hydro, which represents today almost all utility storage. But there are many variations that all work.
The only uncertainty is which ones will be cheapest. Each is a different mix of build cost, maintenance cost, storage cost, charging cost, and discharging cost, with capex and opex for each. Different users will favor different places on those axes. Best for most uses are those that cost only capex, and store as much energy as you care to, cheaply.
Synthetic ammonia and hydrogen are attractive storage media, despite some higher costs, because they may be sold, and burned in gas turbines.
Liquifying nitrogen is extremely mature tech and, like the synthetic fuels, valuable in its own right. Power is extracted by boiling in ambient air to drive a turbine.
Compressing air underground, adiabatically, is another mature method. Compressing to a sea-floor bladder through a hose from a compressor onshore, likewise. Turbines, again.
Buoyancy, drawing a float down toward a pulley on the sea floor, using a winch onshore; and raising a very, very heavy weight up a disused mine shaft are other, very similar examples of gravity storage. Both have startup time of seconds, and are useful for stabilizing grids. Energy is released by running the winch out, driving a generator.
There are various battery chemistries, for cases where batteries are useful at all. All under consideration are much cheaper than lithium. Farthest along may be iron-air, molten-metal, and sodium-bromide, none of which are prone to fires.
Storage costs of all kinds are falling much faster than solar generating capacity. Utilities will build whatever is cheapest when they finally need any. As prices change, the mix will change. There is no value in picking just one, and plentiful value in using the right one for immediate circumstances.
Nobody needs very much storage, because you can always import and burn fuel. The cheapest fuel will be surplus ammonia and hydrogen, although burning aluminum powder for direct process heat has been used in production at local scales. Scrap aluminum is very cheap.
Note that none of these exotic storage systems have ever actually been deployed commercially. Yes, liquid nitrogen is used for things like cooling. But no one has deployed a grid-scale storage system using liquid nitrogen. Liquid hydrogen has been used in rocket launches, but has not been used for energy storage. These technologies are mature in applications besides energy storage. They are not at all mature in the context of energy storage. Grid-scale storage systems using these technologies remains the stuff of prototypes and white papers.
This commenter is also incorrect in the claim that there is not enough renewable capacity to charge up storage. California , Hawaii, and other energy markets often hit days of excess renewable production. Proponents of energy storage promised that companies would swoop in to store and resell this excess energy. But this has not materialized, because energy storage is not nearly so simple or cheap as this commenter claims it is.
This commenter is also incorrect in the claim that there is not enough renewable capacity to charge up storage. California , Hawaii, and other energy markets often hit days of excess renewable production. Proponents of energy storage promised that companies would swoop in to store and resell this excess energy. But this has not materialized, because energy storage is not nearly so simple or cheap as this commenter claims it is.
You can insist until you are blue in the face that these are all untried and exotic, but you will be wrong throughout. And you know you are wrong as you say it.
If in fact they were exotic and untried, billions of dollars would not already be committed to factories to produce them in industrial volume. The processes involved are used industrially billions of times worldwide every day.
You only wish they were exotic because you imagine it would make nukes more appealing. But nothing can make nukes appealing. They get less so with each passing day.
If in fact they were exotic and untried, billions of dollars would not already be committed to factories to produce them in industrial volume. The processes involved are used industrially billions of times worldwide every day.
You only wish they were exotic because you imagine it would make nukes more appealing. But nothing can make nukes appealing. They get less so with each passing day.
> If in fact they were exotic and untried, billions of dollars would not already be committed to factories to produce them in industrial volume. The processes involved are used industrially billions of times worldwide every day.
Yes, for purposes different from energy storage. The massive amounts of ammonia synthesized through the Haber process for fertilizer production does nothing to demonstrate ammonia's viability for electric grid storage.
Likewise the hydrogen used in space rockets has no bearing on the feasibility of electrolyzing water, storing the hydrogen, and converting it back to electricity. If anything, the fact that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation highlights the difficulties of electrolysis at scale.
We have plenty of experience with flywheels. Almost every car has a flywheel in it. Does that mean it's guaranteed to be extremely cheap and scalable to store electricity by spinning a bunch of giant flywheels? That's the kind of leap you're making here.
When someone actually builds and operates a facility that takes in electricity, produces ammonia, and then taps that stored ammonia to produce electricity later, then we can actually measure real-world cost of such a storage system. Until then, it's just optimistic predictions. And optimistic predictions don't actually store any energy.
Yes, for purposes different from energy storage. The massive amounts of ammonia synthesized through the Haber process for fertilizer production does nothing to demonstrate ammonia's viability for electric grid storage.
Likewise the hydrogen used in space rockets has no bearing on the feasibility of electrolyzing water, storing the hydrogen, and converting it back to electricity. If anything, the fact that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation highlights the difficulties of electrolysis at scale.
We have plenty of experience with flywheels. Almost every car has a flywheel in it. Does that mean it's guaranteed to be extremely cheap and scalable to store electricity by spinning a bunch of giant flywheels? That's the kind of leap you're making here.
When someone actually builds and operates a facility that takes in electricity, produces ammonia, and then taps that stored ammonia to produce electricity later, then we can actually measure real-world cost of such a storage system. Until then, it's just optimistic predictions. And optimistic predictions don't actually store any energy.
ncmncm(1)
Every air separation plant (you know, the kind used to make oxygen for steelmaking) employs expanders for recovering energy from cryogenic nitrogen. This is an off the shelf technology.
It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage.
We have plenty of experience with flywheels. I bet there's millions of cars built every year that have a flywheel in them. Does that mean energy storage using giant flywheels is guaranteed to be insanely cheap and way cheaper than the existing storage systems?
Just because we have plenty of experience using a given technology in one application doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a smash hit in a different application.
We have plenty of experience with flywheels. I bet there's millions of cars built every year that have a flywheel in them. Does that mean energy storage using giant flywheels is guaranteed to be insanely cheap and way cheaper than the existing storage systems?
Just because we have plenty of experience using a given technology in one application doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be a smash hit in a different application.
Air separation is not a chemical process. It's a physical process, involving compression, heat exchangers, and expanders. You know, just like an energy storage system using cryogenic gases. None of this is magical unknown technology. The components are literally in use today and have been for years.
Now, whether LN2 (or LAir) energy storage is practical is another matter. The efficiency seems poor unless you have a source of waste heat to juice the process.
Now, whether LN2 (or LAir) energy storage is practical is another matter. The efficiency seems poor unless you have a source of waste heat to juice the process.
Air separation is mostly used for chemical processes [1] to isolate certain gases like oxygen or nitrogen. This is what I wrote in my previous comment:
> It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage.
The while point I'm making in these last few comments is that just because a certain technology is effective for one application doesn't guarantee it's effectiveness for a different application.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation#Applications
> It's off the shelf technology for chemical processes. It's not off the shelf technology for energy storage.
The while point I'm making in these last few comments is that just because a certain technology is effective for one application doesn't guarantee it's effectiveness for a different application.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_separation#Applications
So what if it's used for chemical processes? To make it efficient, there is careful transfer of heat from the input stream to the outgoing streams, with compression/expansion to convert the heat energy back to work. Making this efficient involves just the kinds of components that are needed in a cryogenic energy store.
*in the right conditions, ignoring nighttime, winter, northern hemisphere, etc etc...
Okay, put in batteries, still an order of magnitude cheaper than a nuclear plant without any risk of doomsday
Not even remotely true. Global battery production is around 300 GWh per year. The US alone uses 12.5 TWh of electricity per day. The world uses ~60TWh. That's 8 years of global battery output to fulfill just one hour of electricity storage.
> Global battery production is...
Now repeat the same math for global production of new nuclear power plants, in GW/year.
While writing your reply about how this isn't the right way to think about the future of nuclear power, realize that those exact same arguments apply to batteries, too.
Now repeat the same math for global production of new nuclear power plants, in GW/year.
While writing your reply about how this isn't the right way to think about the future of nuclear power, realize that those exact same arguments apply to batteries, too.
No, the same arguments do not apply. Lithium ion battery production is essentially a chemical industry. It cannot become cheaper than its input materials. Most of the cobalt produced goes to lithium ion batteries [1]. Eventually, the battery industry hits the ceiling of what extraction industries can supply and shortages are already on the horizon [2].
Nuclear power plants are mostly steel, concrete, and copper. They need to be manufactured to precise tolerances, but the cost of a nuclear plant isn't driven by the cost of concrete and steel as rae inputs. The nuclear industry accounts for a negligible share of steel, copper, and concrete consumption. The lion's share of the cost is in the design, approval, and construction of the plants. Unlike batteries, these are factors that benefit from building the same repeated design. A serial run of 40 heat exchangers is a lot cheaper than a one-off production of 3 or 4 heat exchangers. This is why nuclear plants were so much cheaper in the 1970s and 80s when the same designs were built repeatedly.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143399/global-cobalt-co...
2. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev...
Nuclear power plants are mostly steel, concrete, and copper. They need to be manufactured to precise tolerances, but the cost of a nuclear plant isn't driven by the cost of concrete and steel as rae inputs. The nuclear industry accounts for a negligible share of steel, copper, and concrete consumption. The lion's share of the cost is in the design, approval, and construction of the plants. Unlike batteries, these are factors that benefit from building the same repeated design. A serial run of 40 heat exchangers is a lot cheaper than a one-off production of 3 or 4 heat exchangers. This is why nuclear plants were so much cheaper in the 1970s and 80s when the same designs were built repeatedly.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143399/global-cobalt-co...
2. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/shortages-flagged-ev...
There are two flaws with your argument. First, it’s actually somewhat unlikely that lithium ion batteries are going to be the cheapest grid storage. Second, natural resources almost always get cheaper to extract as demand increases, especially when they’re not actually scarce (there’s tons of Lithium out there).
> First, it’s actually somewhat unlikely that lithium ion batteries are going to be the cheapest grid storage
Then please share what storage mechanism is going to be cheaper.
> Second, natural resources almost always get cheaper to extract as demand increases, especially when they’re not actually scarce (there’s tons of Lithium out there).
Incorrect, as easily accessible reserves get depleted more and more remote reserves must be tapped. This increases cost of extraction.
Then please share what storage mechanism is going to be cheaper.
> Second, natural resources almost always get cheaper to extract as demand increases, especially when they’re not actually scarce (there’s tons of Lithium out there).
Incorrect, as easily accessible reserves get depleted more and more remote reserves must be tapped. This increases cost of extraction.
You’d think so but in reality extraction costs just drop as technology improves. For example, lithium..
Lithium prices have more than doubled over the last decade: https://www.metalary.com/lithium-price/
They've increased more than sixfold since 2000.
They've increased more than sixfold since 2000.
"Past performance does not indicate future returns."
All you're doing is repeating the fact that we've been under-investing in lithium (and other energy minerals[0]) for the past decade+. Everyone already knows that.
Nothing indicates lithium mining & refining is at its physical or technology limits. Far from it: we see large low-hanging fruit for process improvements in both.
Ion exchange and/or membrane and/or electrochemical separation vs ponds, lithium carbonate intermediate vs lithium hydroxide, clay vs spodumene, etc. Lots of exciting stuff going on!
[0] https://youtu.be/Keja23R2N7g
All you're doing is repeating the fact that we've been under-investing in lithium (and other energy minerals[0]) for the past decade+. Everyone already knows that.
Nothing indicates lithium mining & refining is at its physical or technology limits. Far from it: we see large low-hanging fruit for process improvements in both.
Ion exchange and/or membrane and/or electrochemical separation vs ponds, lithium carbonate intermediate vs lithium hydroxide, clay vs spodumene, etc. Lots of exciting stuff going on!
[0] https://youtu.be/Keja23R2N7g
Lithium ion is just one type of battery. There are many including quite a few that don't involve exotic materials. For grid storage, energy density is a lot less important.
Even so, we're on track to produce li on batteries for cars by the twh per year. And most of those will have a second life in grid storage. That's before considering the effects of vehicle to grid storage.
There are no plans for nuclear anywhere close to the same scale. Changing that will require a debate about cost. This article does a great job of avoiding that topic entirely.
Even so, we're on track to produce li on batteries for cars by the twh per year. And most of those will have a second life in grid storage. That's before considering the effects of vehicle to grid storage.
There are no plans for nuclear anywhere close to the same scale. Changing that will require a debate about cost. This article does a great job of avoiding that topic entirely.
Why are you comparing cost with industrial output?
There is absolutely no need for batteries to provide for storage, so that is a misleading assertion.
And what, pray tell, would we be using for storage instead? Surely you're not going to suggest some untested and unproven storage mechanism like hydrogen storage, ammonia, thermal batteries, etc. Those technologies have never been built at anything remotely close to grid-scale, and thus we have no idea what they'd actually cost when we attempt to build them at grid scale.
Batteries and hyrodelectric storage are the only energy storage mechanisms for which we have any meaningful cost history.
Batteries and hyrodelectric storage are the only energy storage mechanisms for which we have any meaningful cost history.
> what ... would we be using for storage instead?
You are already well aware of numerous alternatives. Insisting they are "untested" is not fooling anybody.
You are already well aware of numerous alternatives. Insisting they are "untested" is not fooling anybody.
Yes I'm well aware of the numerous alternatives you repeatedly insist are incredibly cheap and scalable, despite the fact that no such systems have been deployed.
Are thermal batteries unproven? I thought they were at the "available for purchase from Siemens and GE" stage of development.
They exist in prototypes, I am not aware of any grid scale energy storage facilities using thermal batteries.
Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities? Remember the US uses 8GWh of electricity per minute.
Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities? Remember the US uses 8GWh of electricity per minute.
> Are there any >1GWh thermal battery facilities?
I don't know about that, but for comparison, the "world’s biggest battery storage system" opened last year in California[0] at 400MW / 1,600MWh.
[0] https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-complete-at-worlds...
I don't know about that, but for comparison, the "world’s biggest battery storage system" opened last year in California[0] at 400MW / 1,600MWh.
[0] https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-complete-at-worlds...
Which is a lithium ion battery facility. Not a thermal batter facility.
Yes, I realise that. That's why I said "I don't know" and "for comparison".
My point was that GWh-scale thermal battery proposals would be competing with already existing (and possibly cheaper) chemical batteries, and that energy storage on this scale is not unheard of.
My point was that GWh-scale thermal battery proposals would be competing with already existing (and possibly cheaper) chemical batteries, and that energy storage on this scale is not unheard of.
Certainly there are >1GWh thermal storage systems. I'm not sure if any are set up to generate electricity though.
The only deployed thermal storage systems are in solar thermal arrays. Those have costs that aren't not competitive with nuclear, and they're still subject to seasonal output variability due to weather and Earth's inclination.
And district heating systems. Where a 1-2GWh thermal accumulator will be used.
That's why you mix in wind too.
And there are still days (like during Texas' winter power fiasco) where neither the sun, nor the wind are strong enough to generate sufficient power from renewables alone. How people still believe that you can get by without any baseload power generation capacity is beyond me.
How do we get by without "base load power" today?
Answer: We import fuel. We will have no reason to give up the ability to import fuel at need. We might even stockpile some.
Answer: We import fuel. We will have no reason to give up the ability to import fuel at need. We might even stockpile some.
This was the original (1040s, Fermi) idea, hence reactors in Idaho (after becoming alarmed that they had constructed a reactor in downtown Chicago). I think however there's a reason this isn't done now: it acknowledges that large reactors aren't safe (which they're not), therefore begs the question why build them at all. For the idea to become viable, climate change would need to become a much more immediate pressing concern, allowing the trade off to be made between irradiating some Utah desert vs boiling the planet.
Lots of reasons invite the question, why build them at all? There is no answer, because we have overwhelmingly more attractive alternatives.
Please can the nuclear industry stop paying PR consultants.
We have one use for the nuclear industry - building scientists who can then build nuclear bombs. IMO this is a reasonable use of public funds - the strategic needs of nuclear weapons are not going away.
But please please just accept that and move on. Stop getting in a vital public debate.
Nuclear fission is a terrible civilian technology - vastly expensive, the effects of a catastrophic failure are massive and the costs to avoid it (yes you can build safe nuclear plants) are huge - basically nuclear projects need to be on the A game - all the time, year after year, constantly upgrading and improving for decades to come.
I might believe that for five or six plants run to just build weapons. But i refuse to believe we can build 1,000s of the fuckers in every country on earth and think that they will be all maintained to standards better than Fukijyma
We have one use for the nuclear industry - building scientists who can then build nuclear bombs. IMO this is a reasonable use of public funds - the strategic needs of nuclear weapons are not going away.
But please please just accept that and move on. Stop getting in a vital public debate.
Nuclear fission is a terrible civilian technology - vastly expensive, the effects of a catastrophic failure are massive and the costs to avoid it (yes you can build safe nuclear plants) are huge - basically nuclear projects need to be on the A game - all the time, year after year, constantly upgrading and improving for decades to come.
I might believe that for five or six plants run to just build weapons. But i refuse to believe we can build 1,000s of the fuckers in every country on earth and think that they will be all maintained to standards better than Fukijyma
China is going to do it, and you seem to believe the safety profile of nuclear energy technology has been frozen for 50 years. It's extremely strange to think something as broad as the process of nuclear fission can be spoken about as having a universal, never changing risk-profile, regardless of technological advancement. We don't do this for any other technology.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-cli...
The fundamentals of that risk profile haven't changed — you still have high concentration of radioactive materials in a single geographic location. The risk profile for nuclear is unlike that of other technologies.
They told us it was safe back then. They tell us its safe today. They will always tell us it's safe. The fundamentals tell us they're wrong.
They told us it was safe back then. They tell us its safe today. They will always tell us it's safe. The fundamentals tell us they're wrong.
"The fundamentals" is doing a lot of work there. It's fundamentally unsafe to move at a high velocity in a meat-based body. Does this mean the risk profile of high speed transportation is invariant across technology?
The "fundamentals" you speak of boil down to the first principles analysis, based on physics, of the possible states a nuclear energy production system can get into. This is not invariant with regards to technology. It seems far too reductive to claim "putting radiocative materials together in the same location" should box out all civilian use of a energy production mechanism.
The "fundamentals" you speak of boil down to the first principles analysis, based on physics, of the possible states a nuclear energy production system can get into. This is not invariant with regards to technology. It seems far too reductive to claim "putting radiocative materials together in the same location" should box out all civilian use of a energy production mechanism.
All failures of nukes thus far have been direct consequences of inadequately competent and scrupulous administration.
Administration and adherence to standards of excellence are not improving.
Administration and adherence to standards of excellence are not improving.
The Chinese nukes will be mothballed long short of their design life, just because they will be unable to compete on cost.
That will save us from an absolute rash of accidents as habitually corrupt administration fails to operate at necessary standards. With some luck, most of those planned will be cancelled before completion as their operating cost is recognized as already undercut.
That will save us from an absolute rash of accidents as habitually corrupt administration fails to operate at necessary standards. With some luck, most of those planned will be cancelled before completion as their operating cost is recognized as already undercut.
China is building out mostly solar and wind.
nuclear fission is actually the safest electricity generation we have right now, and modern reactors are pretty safe and are hard to cause to melt down even intentionally, all of this non-sense is mostly just fearmongering
Managing nuclear fission is something that can be done safely. At fukushima they had (from memory) 6 reactors - 4 had been upgraded and 2 were left un-improved for cost / benefit reasons. The 4 that were upgraded safely failed in the flood - the other 2 caused the problem.
And this is my argument - the reactors were not on their A-game. One slip, one B-level decision, one in decades and decades and the price is paid.
And this is for one of the richest countries on Earth. Who is going to build and run the nuclear reactors in Argentina, Sudan, Belize. Will they be on their A-game in 2045?
Why choose the option with the high cost and the nasty downside when you literally do not have to.
And this is my argument - the reactors were not on their A-game. One slip, one B-level decision, one in decades and decades and the price is paid.
And this is for one of the richest countries on Earth. Who is going to build and run the nuclear reactors in Argentina, Sudan, Belize. Will they be on their A-game in 2045?
Why choose the option with the high cost and the nasty downside when you literally do not have to.
I will hazard that the problems with nuclear are not technological but political, and the economic problems with nuclear are there because of political reasons.
France gets ~75% of its power from nuclear, safely and economically. France inhabits the same physical world as the rest of us, but is different politically.
If there were a will, there would be a way. If the environmental movement had paid more attention to James Hansen's testimony in 1989 than it did to Chernobyl in 1986 then we would be living in a different world.
There is no amount of damage from nuclear accidents that will be worse than what we are suffering from climate change, with no end in sight. Proliferation is another story, but how's that going anyway...?
France gets ~75% of its power from nuclear, safely and economically. France inhabits the same physical world as the rest of us, but is different politically.
If there were a will, there would be a way. If the environmental movement had paid more attention to James Hansen's testimony in 1989 than it did to Chernobyl in 1986 then we would be living in a different world.
There is no amount of damage from nuclear accidents that will be worse than what we are suffering from climate change, with no end in sight. Proliferation is another story, but how's that going anyway...?
France is not using their reactors economically. They have been told multiple times by the EU that the reserves that operators have to provide for decommissioning of plants are much too low. So this means that the government/the taxpayers have to foot the bill. And we have not even talk about long term storage cost which are typically never taken into account.
So yes it is a political decision, France is willing to highly subsidise their nuclear industry.
So yes it is a political decision, France is willing to highly subsidise their nuclear industry.
> France is willing to highly subsidise their nuclear industry.
And most of the world is willing to subside Oil and Gas to the tune of $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of the _world's_ GDP. [0]
Tax payer's money will be sunk anyway, choose your poison.
[0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
And most of the world is willing to subside Oil and Gas to the tune of $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of the _world's_ GDP. [0]
Tax payer's money will be sunk anyway, choose your poison.
[0] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...
This is afaik true about nuclear power plants in general. They are one of the least cost-efficient energy generation sources out there because of their insane construction and running costs. In some countries they never make their money back, even if run by private companies, and only exist because of subsidies when they were built.
However, they are by far the most practical and safe way to generate ludicrous amounts of environmentally friendly energy out of all technologies that we have available. Even solar can't match up. If you factor in the really long term cost on every country on this planet due to climate change for example, this footed bill is chump change.
However, they are by far the most practical and safe way to generate ludicrous amounts of environmentally friendly energy out of all technologies that we have available. Even solar can't match up. If you factor in the really long term cost on every country on this planet due to climate change for example, this footed bill is chump change.
Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.
Starting a new nuke means burning coal for an extra decade, and at the end of that decade getting much less power per euro, displacing correspondingly less CO2, than if you had built out renewables instead.
There is simply no contest.
Even refurbishing a nuke instead of building out renewables is a losing proposition. Just continuing to operate a nuke instead of building out and then operating renewables is a losing proposition.
The only legitimate use for keeping a nuke running is while you are waiting to bring enough renewables you are building online to wholly displace it, because what you are spending operating it is using up money that could be building more renewables.
This is the magic of exponentially falling costs.
At the point where enough spare renewable generating capacity is available to charge storage, it will be time to start building out increasingly cheap storage.
Starting a new nuke means burning coal for an extra decade, and at the end of that decade getting much less power per euro, displacing correspondingly less CO2, than if you had built out renewables instead.
There is simply no contest.
Even refurbishing a nuke instead of building out renewables is a losing proposition. Just continuing to operate a nuke instead of building out and then operating renewables is a losing proposition.
The only legitimate use for keeping a nuke running is while you are waiting to bring enough renewables you are building online to wholly displace it, because what you are spending operating it is using up money that could be building more renewables.
This is the magic of exponentially falling costs.
At the point where enough spare renewable generating capacity is available to charge storage, it will be time to start building out increasingly cheap storage.
> have been told multiple times by the EU that the reserves that operators have to provide for decommissioning of plants are much too low
Why is the EU more trustworthy on these estimates than the French?
Why is the EU more trustworthy on these estimates than the French?
Well in fairness, the French government currently in power have an economic incentive to kick the can down the road to subsequent governments. Reduce reserve requirements now, next generation of taxpayers foot the bill later.
Does the EU have an incentive to inflate the reserve requirement?
Does the EU have an incentive to inflate the reserve requirement?
The "EU" is just the client countries of the EU. Some countries neighbouring france are strongly against nuclear energy, and thus would have cause to exaggerate the costs.
You don’t have to hazard. This subject has been studied extensively and there are clear answers.
The high cost of nuclear is due to the inherent complexity of nuclear power plants, and the rise in particular is principally due to a nuclear industry that no longer knows how to construct plants affordably, with increased regulatory compliance a minor contributor.
Source: https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
The result of that high cost is that nuclear is a lot more expensive to build than renewables for the same amount of energy. This difference is growing and not shrinking, because the solar and wind industries keep getting better at cheaply rolling out capacity.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
Because most of a nuclear project’s cost is upfront, earned back over the lifetime of the plant, a profitable project has to be able to assume it can outcompete renewables + storage over multiple decades. This already is not the case today, and less so in the coming years. No private business can make these numbers work, so no private business is willing to fund a nuclear plant without subsidies. Renewables however can and are being funded privately to a large degree, because they turn a profit more quickly and can be built in smaller increments.
Subsidies come out of taxes, which means the money can’t be spent on something else. Government budgets are already stressed. Between the choice of a largely privately funded solar/wind/hydrogen/storage path and a mostly government-funded nuclear path governments around the world are choosing the cheaper option.
And yes, there is the public perception of nuclear which doesn’t help. But people are also opposed to solar and wind projects. NIMBY is always a thing. Besides, even if you could convince people of the safety of nuclear energy, the numbers still wouldn’t work out.
There are challenges to rolling out solar and wind at scale with grid redesign and hydrogen storage and distribution, but nuclear at scale has similarly sized problems. TANSTAAFL when it comes to energy production.
The high cost of nuclear is due to the inherent complexity of nuclear power plants, and the rise in particular is principally due to a nuclear industry that no longer knows how to construct plants affordably, with increased regulatory compliance a minor contributor.
Source: https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
The result of that high cost is that nuclear is a lot more expensive to build than renewables for the same amount of energy. This difference is growing and not shrinking, because the solar and wind industries keep getting better at cheaply rolling out capacity.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
Because most of a nuclear project’s cost is upfront, earned back over the lifetime of the plant, a profitable project has to be able to assume it can outcompete renewables + storage over multiple decades. This already is not the case today, and less so in the coming years. No private business can make these numbers work, so no private business is willing to fund a nuclear plant without subsidies. Renewables however can and are being funded privately to a large degree, because they turn a profit more quickly and can be built in smaller increments.
Subsidies come out of taxes, which means the money can’t be spent on something else. Government budgets are already stressed. Between the choice of a largely privately funded solar/wind/hydrogen/storage path and a mostly government-funded nuclear path governments around the world are choosing the cheaper option.
And yes, there is the public perception of nuclear which doesn’t help. But people are also opposed to solar and wind projects. NIMBY is always a thing. Besides, even if you could convince people of the safety of nuclear energy, the numbers still wouldn’t work out.
There are challenges to rolling out solar and wind at scale with grid redesign and hydrogen storage and distribution, but nuclear at scale has similarly sized problems. TANSTAAFL when it comes to energy production.
France is currently not building enough reactors to replace those that will need to be shut down due to age in the near future. They would need to build a lot more if they wanted to satisfy demand for heating and transportation. I assume they have good reasons not to build more reactors.
That's in large part due to the work of the german-influenced green movement which did manage to get France to stop building reactors for 30 years or so. In the meantime, the french nuclear industry lost the competency to build new one as demonstrated by the struggling EPR project in Normandy. But at least the many older reactors have been producing low-carbon power since then...
Germany's electricity production has emitted about 8 times more CO2 emission than France over the last 30 years: I blame the german political ecologists for being directly responsible for a massive amount of our current ecological woes by demonising the nuclear industry and limiting it's spread across the world for the last 30 years.
It's really a sad story to be so misguided to end up contributing to destroy the one thing you wanted to save...
Germany's electricity production has emitted about 8 times more CO2 emission than France over the last 30 years: I blame the german political ecologists for being directly responsible for a massive amount of our current ecological woes by demonising the nuclear industry and limiting it's spread across the world for the last 30 years.
It's really a sad story to be so misguided to end up contributing to destroy the one thing you wanted to save...
> In the meantime, the french nuclear industry lost the competency to build new one as demonstrated by the struggling EPR project in Normandy.
If the French (of all people) can no longer get it together to build new reactors even remotely on time and on budget, then maybe we just need to be honest and give up on the "build lots of new nuclear plants, quickly" as a credible medium-term component of a plan to deal with climate change.
"France's Flamanville 3 reactor will cost 300 million euros more than forecast and fuel loading is being pushed back by up to six months, EDF (EDF.PA) said on Wednesday, in the latest setback for a project already running more than a decade late.
EDF now estimates the total cost of the project at 12.7 billion euros ($14.42 billion). Its expected cost has more than quadrupled from the first estimate made in 2004."[0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de...
If the French (of all people) can no longer get it together to build new reactors even remotely on time and on budget, then maybe we just need to be honest and give up on the "build lots of new nuclear plants, quickly" as a credible medium-term component of a plan to deal with climate change.
"France's Flamanville 3 reactor will cost 300 million euros more than forecast and fuel loading is being pushed back by up to six months, EDF (EDF.PA) said on Wednesday, in the latest setback for a project already running more than a decade late.
EDF now estimates the total cost of the project at 12.7 billion euros ($14.42 billion). Its expected cost has more than quadrupled from the first estimate made in 2004."[0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de...
It's very possible that you are right, that it's too late, that we can't redevelop enough nuclear capacity in time, that we are doomed to see the world burn.
That won't prevent me from blaming the anti-nuclear crowd that put us in that situation in the first place.
Yes, nuclear is expensive, yes it can be messy but it was our best shot to produce abundant amount of low carbon power. All this talk about switching to wind and solar power omit the inconfortable fact that the current low prices for those technologies are low because we are using fossil fuel to make them.
When you have to make advanced renewable tech with only renewable energy, you will see that it's no longer possible to make it economically either.
That won't prevent me from blaming the anti-nuclear crowd that put us in that situation in the first place.
Yes, nuclear is expensive, yes it can be messy but it was our best shot to produce abundant amount of low carbon power. All this talk about switching to wind and solar power omit the inconfortable fact that the current low prices for those technologies are low because we are using fossil fuel to make them.
When you have to make advanced renewable tech with only renewable energy, you will see that it's no longer possible to make it economically either.
We are not doomed to see the world burn. We know what to do: just build renewables. It is dishonest to claim that using carbon to build them is a problem. The more we build, the less carbon is used on them.
When you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
When you need falsehoods to make your case, you have no case.
Falsehood ? What do you know about building windmills ?
I admit that I don't myself know much, but I can tell you that you need at least:
- A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal
- Possibly a chemical industry to make composite material
- A logistic industry to move components around the world using petrol (all the solar and wind renewable production is based in china)
- Cement to build your fondation (using gas)
Remove all this and try to build it locally and see how much they cost you...
I admit that I don't myself know much, but I can tell you that you need at least:
- A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal
- Possibly a chemical industry to make composite material
- A logistic industry to move components around the world using petrol (all the solar and wind renewable production is based in china)
- Cement to build your fondation (using gas)
Remove all this and try to build it locally and see how much they cost you...
> A modern metallurgy industry using coal to make steal
Nuclear reactors also require steel (and a chemical industry and cement) but fortunately that doesn't require coal:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-...
Nuclear reactors also require steel (and a chemical industry and cement) but fortunately that doesn't require coal:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/19/green-steel-...
Sure but that wasn't the point.
The point is that those that claim that we can replace fossils fuel entirely by wind and solar based on the current price of wind and solar production produced by an industry doped with fossil fuels at every stage are deluding themselves.
The point is that those that claim that we can replace fossils fuel entirely by wind and solar based on the current price of wind and solar production produced by an industry doped with fossil fuels at every stage are deluding themselves.
It's precisely the point for ALL primary energy sources.
everything is built with the current fossil fuel powered industry. cement, steel, uranium mining and enrichment all is subsidized by the fossil fuel doped industry. Same with wind and solar.
The fact that nuclear power costs more than fossil fuel power is really a reflection that its whole supply chain is consuming more fossil fuel energy than its producing. it is not the magical bullet you think it is.
furthermore, as certain installations of solar and wind are actually producing power cheaper than fossil fuels, its contributing to a trajectory where the % fossil fuels in industry can actually diminish.
everything is built with the current fossil fuel powered industry. cement, steel, uranium mining and enrichment all is subsidized by the fossil fuel doped industry. Same with wind and solar.
The fact that nuclear power costs more than fossil fuel power is really a reflection that its whole supply chain is consuming more fossil fuel energy than its producing. it is not the magical bullet you think it is.
furthermore, as certain installations of solar and wind are actually producing power cheaper than fossil fuels, its contributing to a trajectory where the % fossil fuels in industry can actually diminish.
ncmncm(1)
Koreans and Russians (political refugees) have still the skills to build reactors at time and "costs"
Even though there are political reasons, the biggest reason is... we had enough reactors for our own usage.
We built them so fast, that even if we had cross-partisan will to keep forever using nuclear, we'd still have 30-40 years of gap without making any new reactor. And after a generation of engineers, we need to make reactors again and we're basically doing it from scratch again.
There are other reasons: people's fear of nuclear became quite real (either because of greenpeace, or local green political parties). There's also a bit of hubris I think, rather than making some "easy" "usual" reactor model, we decided to do our brand new own, which has its own cost: If Flamanville's EPR had succeeded, we would likely have made more reactors and we would already be producing >100% of nuclear power
We built them so fast, that even if we had cross-partisan will to keep forever using nuclear, we'd still have 30-40 years of gap without making any new reactor. And after a generation of engineers, we need to make reactors again and we're basically doing it from scratch again.
There are other reasons: people's fear of nuclear became quite real (either because of greenpeace, or local green political parties). There's also a bit of hubris I think, rather than making some "easy" "usual" reactor model, we decided to do our brand new own, which has its own cost: If Flamanville's EPR had succeeded, we would likely have made more reactors and we would already be producing >100% of nuclear power
Only a third of France's primary power consumption comes from nuclear. That's a long way to go to carbon neutrality.
In other words, France needs to hurry up and double if not triple their nuclear capacity, so they can switch to electric cars and heating.
Somewhere to the north-east of Strasbourg would be ideal, not only for the abundant water supply, but also because the location is ideal for export to places in Europe that have not invested enough in stable sources of energy, lately. And if France plans to import power when the wind is blowing in those countries, the grid capacity out of that area will be needed anyway.
Somewhere to the north-east of Strasbourg would be ideal, not only for the abundant water supply, but also because the location is ideal for export to places in Europe that have not invested enough in stable sources of energy, lately. And if France plans to import power when the wind is blowing in those countries, the grid capacity out of that area will be needed anyway.
The more nukes they build, the farther behind the rest of the world they will get.
The rest of the world will be building out renewables, and getting much more power for each euro than France will. France will have more expensive power than everyone else in exact proportion to their nuke construction.
Ultimately, the French will buy their power from outside, because the nukes will be unable to deliver at a matching price, and the plants will be mothballed. French taxpayers will be the poorer.
The rest of the world will be building out renewables, and getting much more power for each euro than France will. France will have more expensive power than everyone else in exact proportion to their nuke construction.
Ultimately, the French will buy their power from outside, because the nukes will be unable to deliver at a matching price, and the plants will be mothballed. French taxpayers will be the poorer.
> Ultimately, the French will buy their power from outside.
My prediction is the opposite, that nuclear will remain cheaper than wind in northern temperate climates for another generation.
I suppose time will tell.
My prediction is the opposite, that nuclear will remain cheaper than wind in northern temperate climates for another generation.
I suppose time will tell.
Nukes are already more expensive. Renewables cost is still in free-fall.
The reasons are political… just like in the United States.
HBO with their Chernobyl miniseries single-handedly undid years of progress in the perception of nuclear energy.
HBO with their Chernobyl miniseries single-handedly undid years of progress in the perception of nuclear energy.
> HBO with their Chernobyl miniseries single-handedly undid years of progress
Wait, seriously? That miniseries was not perfect, but I thought it did a pretty good job of pointing out the issues with Chernobyl were largely political and not technical. (Sure the RBMK reactors were flawed, that is a technical issue. But the only reason that escalated into a disaster was due to gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of safety systems...)
Wait, seriously? That miniseries was not perfect, but I thought it did a pretty good job of pointing out the issues with Chernobyl were largely political and not technical. (Sure the RBMK reactors were flawed, that is a technical issue. But the only reason that escalated into a disaster was due to gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of safety systems...)
> gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of safety systems...
Gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of safety systems are inevitable, inherent features of power utilities. If your technology is disastrous without perfect handling, your technology is disastrous.
Gross mismanagement and flagrant disregard of safety systems are inevitable, inherent features of power utilities. If your technology is disastrous without perfect handling, your technology is disastrous.
> your technology is disastrous without perfect handling, your technology is disastrous
Did we watch the same miniseries? Chernobyl went beyond gross negligence. To say nothing of perfection. In the reactor design, in its operation and in post-crisis management.
Did we watch the same miniseries? Chernobyl went beyond gross negligence. To say nothing of perfection. In the reactor design, in its operation and in post-crisis management.
No, it was absolutely typical gross negligence, with unfortunately outsized consequences. Fukushima was exactly equal negligence, with absolutely expected consequences.
They didn't need perfect handling, just halfway competent.
But since the rest of the world doesn't build reactors of that type, and never built any without even a containment building AFAIK, it's not really applicable to modern nuclear power plant designs.
But since the rest of the world doesn't build reactors of that type, and never built any without even a containment building AFAIK, it's not really applicable to modern nuclear power plant designs.
[deleted]
The Chernobyl miniseries greatly distorted the impact of the meltdown. They cited the "bridge of death" where everyone supposedly died. In reality there are zero known deaths among people who watched the meltdown from that overpass, and there's even interviews with people who were there. They cited a death estimate of 60,000 when reputable sources estimate 200-1,700 deaths.
Nuclear in inherently vulnerable to politics, mismanagement and attempts at cover-up. As it happened in Fukushima as well as Chernobyl.
Because it's centralized, quite isolated from the public eye and with the potential to cause invisible environmental impact.
Because it's centralized, quite isolated from the public eye and with the potential to cause invisible environmental impact.
The ascendancy of wind and cheap natural gas probably had a greater effect, considering the miniseries is only a couple years old.
I suppose now that some of the sources of such gas is being cut, those French nuclear plants will be extremely profitable for a while.
Or perhaps the reasons are economical. Recently nuclear construction projects became a lot more expensive and took a lot longer than initially planned.
Some of those economical problems are burdened on the nuclear industry because of political problems.
For example, because everyone is terrified of nuclear, regulations may require an absurd level of safety expenses that no other energy producer is burdened with. If the political climate lead to burdening fossil fuel burners with costs to reduce their pollution and GHG emissions that directly and indirectly lead to orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear ever has, then nuclear might actually be price competitive.
As another example, since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the US started in 1975, they have never, not once, approved the construction of a new nuclear site in the US. They've approved expansion of existing sites, but never a new one. In fact, it was a huge deal when the NRC approved the expansion of a site several years ago, for the first time in 30 years, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-license/nrc-a...
How much pain and death is the NRC ultimately responsible for for holding nuclear energy to such a high safety standard that it's been literally impossible to build a new site for almost 50 years? Because all that means, is that we've burned drastically more fossil fuel than necessary over the past 50 years.
Shame on the NRC and the US government for using irrational fear to protect the fossil fuel industry at the expense of nuclear energy. And shame on environmentalists for falling for the same trap and failing to think holistically and systemically.
For example, because everyone is terrified of nuclear, regulations may require an absurd level of safety expenses that no other energy producer is burdened with. If the political climate lead to burdening fossil fuel burners with costs to reduce their pollution and GHG emissions that directly and indirectly lead to orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear ever has, then nuclear might actually be price competitive.
As another example, since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the US started in 1975, they have never, not once, approved the construction of a new nuclear site in the US. They've approved expansion of existing sites, but never a new one. In fact, it was a huge deal when the NRC approved the expansion of a site several years ago, for the first time in 30 years, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-license/nrc-a...
How much pain and death is the NRC ultimately responsible for for holding nuclear energy to such a high safety standard that it's been literally impossible to build a new site for almost 50 years? Because all that means, is that we've burned drastically more fossil fuel than necessary over the past 50 years.
Shame on the NRC and the US government for using irrational fear to protect the fossil fuel industry at the expense of nuclear energy. And shame on environmentalists for falling for the same trap and failing to think holistically and systemically.
> because everyone is terrified of nuclear, regulations may require an absurd level of safety expenses that no other energy producer is burdened with
"The researchers start out with a historic analysis of plant construction in the US. The basic numbers are grim. The typical plant built after 1970 had a cost overrun of 241 percent—and that's not considering the financing costs of the construction delays [..] while safety regulations added to the costs, they were far from the primary factor [...] In the end, the conclusion is that there are no easy answers to how to make nuclear plant construction more efficient. And, until there are, it will continue to be badly undercut by both renewables and fossil fuel."[0]
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plan...
"The researchers start out with a historic analysis of plant construction in the US. The basic numbers are grim. The typical plant built after 1970 had a cost overrun of 241 percent—and that's not considering the financing costs of the construction delays [..] while safety regulations added to the costs, they were far from the primary factor [...] In the end, the conclusion is that there are no easy answers to how to make nuclear plant construction more efficient. And, until there are, it will continue to be badly undercut by both renewables and fossil fuel."[0]
[0] https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plan...
The cost overruns are inherent in the process. Actual cost is actual cost.
Really, actual cost is much more than reported cost, because disaster insurance and decommissioning are always omitted from cost accounting.
Really, actual cost is much more than reported cost, because disaster insurance and decommissioning are always omitted from cost accounting.
scale matter expecially with brand new designs and constructions teams/tecnologies
The reasons are economic. France has been heavily subsidizing nuclear for years and can swap to cheaper alternatives for less money.
It’s not that nuclear is any worse, it’s just that the alternatives got better.
It’s not that nuclear is any worse, it’s just that the alternatives got better.
Wind and solar got better, but it seems fundamentally problematic to me to suggest that those are the alternatives to nuclear. They're not.
Fossil fuel is the alternative to nuclear (and possibly battery supported wind/solar) as the base load. Fossil fuels are fundamentally cheaper because they can more easily avoid paying the cost of their negative externalities than nuclear can. If we could actually internalize the negatives of fossil fuel burning (i.e. by carbon tax) then nuclear might actually be the most economical option for the base load with solar and wind picking up the slack.
Fossil fuel is the alternative to nuclear (and possibly battery supported wind/solar) as the base load. Fossil fuels are fundamentally cheaper because they can more easily avoid paying the cost of their negative externalities than nuclear can. If we could actually internalize the negatives of fossil fuel burning (i.e. by carbon tax) then nuclear might actually be the most economical option for the base load with solar and wind picking up the slack.
Even with that line of thinking, France was well past the point of using Nukes for base load power.
France had nuclear capacity factors around 70% when America and much of the worlds nuclear power plants where closer to 90%. It physically worked, but dramatically increased production cost per KWH.
Assuming they cut back to 30% or even 40% of all electricity being supplied by nuclear that’s still a significantly reduction.
France had nuclear capacity factors around 70% when America and much of the worlds nuclear power plants where closer to 90%. It physically worked, but dramatically increased production cost per KWH.
Assuming they cut back to 30% or even 40% of all electricity being supplied by nuclear that’s still a significantly reduction.
Renewables + storage is the alternative to nukes. And, there is simply no contest. Nukes have been left far behind.
According to perceptions and advertising about nuclear we should have unlimited power and everything from our cars to our stoves would be running of nuclear. All this should have been possible with just a containers worth of nuclear waste (experts in the 50s,60s seriously said operating a whole country of nuclear would result in maybe a ton of nuclear waste).
Nuclear completely undelivered on this promise. Tschernobyl was just the nail in the coffin.
On top of that has the nuclear industry been one of the strongest lobbying groups against wind and solar, mainly to protect their investments. I would argue on the whole we would have been much further in terms of renewable energy if it wasn't for the nuclear industry.
Nuclear completely undelivered on this promise. Tschernobyl was just the nail in the coffin.
On top of that has the nuclear industry been one of the strongest lobbying groups against wind and solar, mainly to protect their investments. I would argue on the whole we would have been much further in terms of renewable energy if it wasn't for the nuclear industry.
If something cant operate without lavish subsidies it automatically becomes political.
E.g. Bill Gates' nuclear startup would be dead in the water without its subsidies. That makes it political.
E.g. Bill Gates' nuclear startup would be dead in the water without its subsidies. That makes it political.
6 + an additional 8 are being planned at the moment. It is still dependent on legislative elections (starting this weekend), and on the EU energy taxonomy (currently going final rounds in the EU parliament)
Both should be sort of ok, fingers crossed.
But this is only replacement. If we're serious and want to reduce iron ore with hydrogen for our steel needs, and use the same electrolytic hydrogen for fertilizers, we would need to build about 50 of them.
The technology is there, but yes, it is more of a political issue in France as well.
Both should be sort of ok, fingers crossed.
But this is only replacement. If we're serious and want to reduce iron ore with hydrogen for our steel needs, and use the same electrolytic hydrogen for fertilizers, we would need to build about 50 of them.
The technology is there, but yes, it is more of a political issue in France as well.
France has over fifty nuclear plants, most of them older than 40 years. You probably want to replace most of them in the next twenty years or so. Since building one can easily take a decade or two from planning to power output, you would want to have a couple of dozen in the planning stage right now if you expect to continue producing the same amount of power. Since only about a third of France's primary power consumption is satisfied by nuclear, realistically they'd need to drastically increase the number of reactors in the next decades to reach climate goals.
> the economic problems with nuclear are there because of political reasons. France gets ~75% of its power from nuclear, safely and economically.
EDF, Areva have a long history of bailouts, buyouts and subsidies by the French government. You are right that it's a political decision that France has so much nuclear, but it is not an economical one.
Even though they decided to replace old reactors with new ones, they do not manage to build enough reactors fast enough and especially not economically. Flamanville has a budget overrun of around 500% and time overrun of around 300%.
Nuclear is neither fast nor economical enough to be built. Only building renewables can help push down CO2 emissions fast and cheap enough.
EDF, Areva have a long history of bailouts, buyouts and subsidies by the French government. You are right that it's a political decision that France has so much nuclear, but it is not an economical one.
Even though they decided to replace old reactors with new ones, they do not manage to build enough reactors fast enough and especially not economically. Flamanville has a budget overrun of around 500% and time overrun of around 300%.
Nuclear is neither fast nor economical enough to be built. Only building renewables can help push down CO2 emissions fast and cheap enough.
The most reliable output of the nuke industry has always been dishonesty and corruption. Power is a distant second.
The problems with Nuclear are simple and straight forward:
(1) Economic not viable if you include the total life cycle cost of the system (i.e. nuclear waste storage and dismantling the asset.
Theres a large difference between building new reactors vs running the old ones until the end of life (in terms of economics).
Also the modular reactors that are getting a lot of hype right now also still have a nuclear waste disposal issue.
I would like to see Nuclear thrive but until it gets the cost / waste disposal resolved it's a tough sell.
Theres a large difference between building new reactors vs running the old ones until the end of life (in terms of economics).
Also the modular reactors that are getting a lot of hype right now also still have a nuclear waste disposal issue.
I would like to see Nuclear thrive but until it gets the cost / waste disposal resolved it's a tough sell.
> not viable if you include the total life cycle cost of the system (i.e. nuclear waste storage and dismantling the asset.
On the contrary! Nuclear plants pay a fraction of their revenue through their life into special decommissioning funds that have so far been more than enough to perform full greenfield decommissioning.
For waste, there's a separate fund called the Nuclear Waste Fund in the US (and other nuclear-operating countries) that has a current balance around $50B.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33461.pdf
On the contrary! Nuclear plants pay a fraction of their revenue through their life into special decommissioning funds that have so far been more than enough to perform full greenfield decommissioning.
For waste, there's a separate fund called the Nuclear Waste Fund in the US (and other nuclear-operating countries) that has a current balance around $50B.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33461.pdf
Sorry should have been more clear. True cost of permanent waste disposal. They cant find anywhere to put it so while 50B sounds nice it doesn't have a home and the lifetime cost of operating a facility is probably significant higher (if they can find one).
Read: problem not resolved.
Read: problem not resolved.
It's being done in Finland and Sweden [1] just fine, and for reasonable cost. NIMBY is a big problem but once we figure out how to solve that in the USA like Finland did, then it is basically a solved problem.
[1] https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html
[1] https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html
How much nuclear waste does Sweden and Finland produce? For scale purposes their population isn't larger than the metropolitan area of Los Angeles.
I think the scale of the issue is significantly larger in the US.
Yucca isn't viable politically and there isn't anyone who lives close by.
I think the scale of the issue is significantly larger in the US.
Yucca isn't viable politically and there isn't anyone who lives close by.
US nukes are, in fact, not paying into any waste fund. Operators are actually being paid out of the previous balance from the previous waste fund.
Legal shenanigans. They got a court decision declaring the waste fund as a lie because there is no viable plan for waste.
Legal shenanigans. They got a court decision declaring the waste fund as a lie because there is no viable plan for waste.
Yet, waste disposal is the smallest of problems nukes pose.
If you can't insure something reasonably it's not economical. The risk is just externalized.
If fossil and biofuel had to insure against air pollution health effects they directly cause (8 million deaths/yr according to WHO), and climate change, then clean/carbon-free nuclear fission would absolutely dominate today.
Fossil and bio fuel are not what nukes and nuke construction are competing with, so mentioning them at all is an attempt to distract.
We are not distracted.
We are not distracted.
The entire energy project right now is to decarbonize rapidly. The world energy mix is more than 80% fossil and biofuel. Nuclear is competing with fossil and biofuel.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
No, nuke construction competes with renewables construction, and nuke operation with renewables operation. Nukes are absolutely obliterated on both.
Only political bias allows nukes to continue.
Only political bias allows nukes to continue.
France has nuclear plants because in the 1970s it decided it didnt want to be dependent on middle eastern oil.
It was very very expensive. It was also nothing to do with global warming.
Those plants are fully paid off but nearly all close to death. Replacing them will still be very very expensive. Extending their lives will be dangerous. France isnt quite sure what to do.
If there's unlimited money and patience for years long delays then yes nuclear power is just fine.
If you want it reasonably priced it either wont happen at all or you're risking catastrophe.
It was very very expensive. It was also nothing to do with global warming.
Those plants are fully paid off but nearly all close to death. Replacing them will still be very very expensive. Extending their lives will be dangerous. France isnt quite sure what to do.
If there's unlimited money and patience for years long delays then yes nuclear power is just fine.
If you want it reasonably priced it either wont happen at all or you're risking catastrophe.
> France isnt quite sure what to do.
Yes it is ( big nuclear buildout to replace most of the current fleet, while also doing lots of renewables and experimenting with small modular reactors):
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220210-announcing-new-r...
Yes it is ( big nuclear buildout to replace most of the current fleet, while also doing lots of renewables and experimenting with small modular reactors):
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220210-announcing-new-r...
The usual outcome lately is to cancel construction after billions of euros are spent, as it is realized the result will be unable to be competitive.
Occasionally, ratepayers are forced to pay far above market rates in order to keep the plants in operation.
Coercing users does not make nukes look more viable.
Occasionally, ratepayers are forced to pay far above market rates in order to keep the plants in operation.
Coercing users does not make nukes look more viable.
>Those plants are nearly all close to death.
No, these plants are close to the end of their original grant for exploitation. Many of them get renewed for 10, 20 years easily. The US has had plants renewed for 40 years and are still running just fine.
> France isnt quite sure what to do.
We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do. The non-renewal of nuclear plants is purely a political play to gain votes.
Stop spreading your ignorant, fearmongering, unsubstantiated opinions.
No, these plants are close to the end of their original grant for exploitation. Many of them get renewed for 10, 20 years easily. The US has had plants renewed for 40 years and are still running just fine.
> France isnt quite sure what to do.
We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do. The non-renewal of nuclear plants is purely a political play to gain votes.
Stop spreading your ignorant, fearmongering, unsubstantiated opinions.
> We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do.
The ones who underestimated Flamanville's cost by 80%? (and it's still not in production)
Let's maybe not trust them completely, and have our eggs in other baskets as well.
The ones who underestimated Flamanville's cost by 80%? (and it's still not in production)
Let's maybe not trust them completely, and have our eggs in other baskets as well.
No, you don't know what you are talking about. The budget, that's EDF. EDF builds things, the ASN ensures the safety is up to standards. Hell, the ASN _is_ responsible for these costs because they are the ones ensuring everything is up to par. There are many EPRs running, in Finland, in China, but none of these have safety requirements as drastic as the Flamanville EPR.
Additionally, EDF offered multiple estimates at the time of construction, from "everything goes well" to "oh dear god so many delays". Many of these estimates were perfectly in line with the current costs. It is, once again, political decisions that only allocated the minimal budget, while knowing full well that it would go over (but that EDF would take the blame, and not the government).
And once again, this is also a result of letting our nuclear industry decay for 40 years, losing every single person that has the knowledge on how to build nuclear plants either to retirement or other countries.
Additionally, EDF offered multiple estimates at the time of construction, from "everything goes well" to "oh dear god so many delays". Many of these estimates were perfectly in line with the current costs. It is, once again, political decisions that only allocated the minimal budget, while knowing full well that it would go over (but that EDF would take the blame, and not the government).
And once again, this is also a result of letting our nuclear industry decay for 40 years, losing every single person that has the knowledge on how to build nuclear plants either to retirement or other countries.
Anything that results in fewer nukes at minimal cost is a net good.
In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission employs 2000 people to reject nuke construction plans. They are cheap at the price.
In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission employs 2000 people to reject nuke construction plans. They are cheap at the price.
> The ones who underestimated Flamanville's cost by 80%? (and it's still not in production)
It's an entirely new design of a complicated piece of technology, of course it will be over budget and delayed. Grand Paris Express and the Paris Philharmonic were also over budget and delayed, does that invalidate the opinion of all experts involved in both projects?
It's an entirely new design of a complicated piece of technology, of course it will be over budget and delayed. Grand Paris Express and the Paris Philharmonic were also over budget and delayed, does that invalidate the opinion of all experts involved in both projects?
Being over budget and off schedule is most of the purpose. Once a plant is delivered, the gravy train stops. No one actually involved wants that.
The Finns recognized the gravy train would stop soon, anyway, and elected to deliver a (more-or-less) working reactor, after consuming 5B euros beyond the 3B quoted cost, more than a decade late. In the US, corruption is secure enough to go far, far beyond that price, with no demand to deliver.
The Finns recognized the gravy train would stop soon, anyway, and elected to deliver a (more-or-less) working reactor, after consuming 5B euros beyond the 3B quoted cost, more than a decade late. In the US, corruption is secure enough to go far, far beyond that price, with no demand to deliver.
> does that invalidate the opinion of all experts involved in both projects
demonstrably, yes?
demonstrably, yes?
Because the most important thing about a project as complex as a big acoustic-friendly building or multiple hundreds of kms of automated metros or a nuclear power plant is that the predictions about budget and time are perfect?
I wonder what that means for software developers who notoriously struggle to predict basically the same stuff, only on much less drastic scales (if an engineer underestimates how much time and effort a feature will take, usually people don't die. If a building crumbles or a nuclear power plant has an accident or a train crashes people do die).
I wonder what that means for software developers who notoriously struggle to predict basically the same stuff, only on much less drastic scales (if an engineer underestimates how much time and effort a feature will take, usually people don't die. If a building crumbles or a nuclear power plant has an accident or a train crashes people do die).
> >Those plants are nearly all close to death.
> No, these plants are close to the end of their original grant for exploitation. Many of them get renewed for 10, 20 years easily. The US has had plants renewed for 40 years and are still running just fine.
The moving goal post by nuclear proponents never cease to amaze. When we talk about safety the argument is always: "don't look at these old designs, all these modern designs are 100% safe". Then when we talk about cost it is: "don't look at the cost of building new plants, just extend the operation of these 40 year old plants by another 40 years". And the they complain about regulations for nuclear, while at the same time arguing that regulations about decommissioning a plant after its regulated lifetime ran out should not apply to nuclear plants.
Why should the rules about safe operation lifetimes not apply to nuclear plants?
> > France isnt quite sure what to do.
> We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do. The non-renewal of nuclear plants is purely a political play to gain votes.
> Stop spreading your ignorant, fearmongering, unsubstantiated opinions.
They are not fear mongering or unsubstantiated. Plants were build/commissioned with an expected lifetime. There are reasons for this, aging of components and materials especially under exposure to radiation, aging of computer systems...
> No, these plants are close to the end of their original grant for exploitation. Many of them get renewed for 10, 20 years easily. The US has had plants renewed for 40 years and are still running just fine.
The moving goal post by nuclear proponents never cease to amaze. When we talk about safety the argument is always: "don't look at these old designs, all these modern designs are 100% safe". Then when we talk about cost it is: "don't look at the cost of building new plants, just extend the operation of these 40 year old plants by another 40 years". And the they complain about regulations for nuclear, while at the same time arguing that regulations about decommissioning a plant after its regulated lifetime ran out should not apply to nuclear plants.
Why should the rules about safe operation lifetimes not apply to nuclear plants?
> > France isnt quite sure what to do.
> We know what to do, every single scientist from the ASN knows what to do, every economist knows what to do. The non-renewal of nuclear plants is purely a political play to gain votes.
> Stop spreading your ignorant, fearmongering, unsubstantiated opinions.
They are not fear mongering or unsubstantiated. Plants were build/commissioned with an expected lifetime. There are reasons for this, aging of components and materials especially under exposure to radiation, aging of computer systems...
> don't look at these old designs, all these modern designs are 100% safe
This is only said as an answer to all the people screaming "but Chernobyl was horrible". Old designs are pretty safe too ( especially when terrible bugs like the one that caused Chernobyl are fixed), precisely because they keep getting updated to newer norms during refreshes and refits. There are nuclear power plants out there that were constructed in the 1950s that still work.
OP's point is that most nuclear power plants can have their life extended, at some cost, which is negligible compared to the cost of a new plant, and there's rarely a case where that doesn't make sense ( usually when for some reason the retrofit to update to new standards is too expensive). Why waste that? Prolong the life of existing plants, and build new ones to expand production and eventually replace the old ones.
This is only said as an answer to all the people screaming "but Chernobyl was horrible". Old designs are pretty safe too ( especially when terrible bugs like the one that caused Chernobyl are fixed), precisely because they keep getting updated to newer norms during refreshes and refits. There are nuclear power plants out there that were constructed in the 1950s that still work.
OP's point is that most nuclear power plants can have their life extended, at some cost, which is negligible compared to the cost of a new plant, and there's rarely a case where that doesn't make sense ( usually when for some reason the retrofit to update to new standards is too expensive). Why waste that? Prolong the life of existing plants, and build new ones to expand production and eventually replace the old ones.
Yes and the reasons that they don't get extended indefinitely is because it gets increasingly expensive to modernise and follow the new rules. On top of that is that regulators are becoming more reluctant to extend the lifetime, because the unknown factors increase (cue complaints about regulation). The reason they don't get extended that it is not economical compared to using wind/solar instead. Why do you think coal plants don't get operated indefinitely?
The only way plants are extended is if they meet current nuclear safety rules, not the rules from 40 years ago. Please do literally five minutes of research.
[deleted]
I recently read the Serhii Plokhy book Atoms and Ashes, where he discusses 6 most notable nuclear accidents in depth.
And his conclusion was pretty grim. Paraphrasing: If we bet on nuclear for mitigation of climate change, it is inevitable that nuclear accidents will happen more often. Also each accident causes a major setback in peoples minds regarding nuclear safety and the next Fukushima might kill off a lot of progress and the opportunity cost lost would be huge.
I don't know how to argue with this. I personally think nuclear is really safe. If the worst accidents have killed a few hundred and caused premature deaths to at most hundreds of thousands. Compared to the millions of premature deaths PER YEAR for fossil related energy and the possible billions coming from climate change, nuclear is as safe as it gets (I mean probably more PV installers will fall off roofs than get killed by nuclear accidents), but peoples fears might not be surmountable.
And his conclusion was pretty grim. Paraphrasing: If we bet on nuclear for mitigation of climate change, it is inevitable that nuclear accidents will happen more often. Also each accident causes a major setback in peoples minds regarding nuclear safety and the next Fukushima might kill off a lot of progress and the opportunity cost lost would be huge.
I don't know how to argue with this. I personally think nuclear is really safe. If the worst accidents have killed a few hundred and caused premature deaths to at most hundreds of thousands. Compared to the millions of premature deaths PER YEAR for fossil related energy and the possible billions coming from climate change, nuclear is as safe as it gets (I mean probably more PV installers will fall off roofs than get killed by nuclear accidents), but peoples fears might not be surmountable.
It sounds like the argument presented here is that if we actually use nuclear power, there will be more accidents, which will cost us the opportunity of actually using nuclear power.
Each accident saves us from building more nukes than would have been built otherwise. The benefit has probably been well worth their costs.
All it takes is for a few newspapers to regularly publish alongside any article about any power source the figures of "X people died per year by nuclear, Y by solar, Z by coal", etc.
Any newspaper mogul could make that happen.
Any time there is any accident, people interviewed need to start with "There is a risk this incident might stop nuclear from being the safest energy source. But to be honest, I think we'll still keep the crown".
Any newspaper mogul could make that happen.
Any time there is any accident, people interviewed need to start with "There is a risk this incident might stop nuclear from being the safest energy source. But to be honest, I think we'll still keep the crown".
> Also each accident causes a major setback in peoples minds regarding nuclear safety
Planes are crashing all the time and kill tons of people (way more than nuclear power plants anyways), yet flying is more popular than ever (before Covid, anyways)
Planes are crashing all the time and kill tons of people (way more than nuclear power plants anyways), yet flying is more popular than ever (before Covid, anyways)
Planes crash very, very rarely nowadays. Two crashes overseas (correctly) grounded all planes of the type for years. Russia shot one down a couple of years back. A crazy deliberately crashed another in the Indian Ocean.
It is many, many times safer to fly than to drive the same distance. This is almost miraculous. It is also almost miraculous that the measures to make it so safe do not make flying enormously more expensive than it is.
It is many, many times safer to fly than to drive the same distance. This is almost miraculous. It is also almost miraculous that the measures to make it so safe do not make flying enormously more expensive than it is.
There is quite clearly not even remotely 100.000 premature deaths from Chernobyl.
The only cancer that clearly went up in immediate connection to Chernobyl was thyroid cancer, and that was in most cases very treatable. It's also unclear how much of the increase in incidence, was due to increased screening. Thyroid cancer seems to have affected the general population, but in a dose-dependent manner, where the increased risk became really low when looking outside the cleaning crew.
On top of that there is some evidence to suggest that the risk of leukemia and other blood cancers increased in the cleaning crew. (But still really low numbers). And as far as I know no signs of increased blood cancer rate was seen in the general population.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28929329/
It actually appears that the largest loss of human life from Chernobyl happened because of panic. Women chose abortion because of the perceived increased risk of malformation in offspring. As far as I am aware, the actual increased risk of malformations has not been detectable, and I presume it to be negligible.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8516187/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywyqzv/why-hundreds-of-thous...
The only cancer that clearly went up in immediate connection to Chernobyl was thyroid cancer, and that was in most cases very treatable. It's also unclear how much of the increase in incidence, was due to increased screening. Thyroid cancer seems to have affected the general population, but in a dose-dependent manner, where the increased risk became really low when looking outside the cleaning crew.
On top of that there is some evidence to suggest that the risk of leukemia and other blood cancers increased in the cleaning crew. (But still really low numbers). And as far as I know no signs of increased blood cancer rate was seen in the general population.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28929329/
It actually appears that the largest loss of human life from Chernobyl happened because of panic. Women chose abortion because of the perceived increased risk of malformation in offspring. As far as I am aware, the actual increased risk of malformations has not been detectable, and I presume it to be negligible.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8516187/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/ywyqzv/why-hundreds-of-thous...
The near future looks like Solar + Natural gas. Driven entirely by economic factors. It is cheap to build PV, and Natural Gas plants cost less than sufficient batteries/storage for PV.
I used to be very bullish on Nuclear. The numbers just don't pencil out in the US under the current constraints. We would need a vast reduction in the overhead to build a Nuclear plant, or a vast increase in the costs of the alternatives.
I used to be very bullish on Nuclear. The numbers just don't pencil out in the US under the current constraints. We would need a vast reduction in the overhead to build a Nuclear plant, or a vast increase in the costs of the alternatives.
Natural gas will soon be too expensive to extract, as ammonia synthesis at $0 opex undercuts it.
Stunning how many well-informed people here are still so distrustful of nuclear energy despite all the advancements.
People are irrationally concerned about low-probability but high severity risks, which is what nuclear is.
The chance of someone in the US dying from a terrorist attack is about 1 out of 3 million. It's a rounding error compared with heart disease (1:6), suicide (1:93), storms (1:35k) or even sunstroke (1:6k). Yet, the US spends $52B / year on the department of homeland security.
The chance of someone in the US dying from a terrorist attack is about 1 out of 3 million. It's a rounding error compared with heart disease (1:6), suicide (1:93), storms (1:35k) or even sunstroke (1:6k). Yet, the US spends $52B / year on the department of homeland security.
People are rationally distrustful of habitual dishonesty, corruption, and gross negligence at industrial scale.
[deleted]
Small distributed reactors sound great, but don't they exacerbate the waste disposal problem? I think the logistics and politics would be easier to manage if the waste production was highly centralized.
I think the idea is that you'd have something like 10 100 MW reactors enclosed in a single facility rather than 1 1000 MW reactor in that facility. You'd probably put all the hot fuel rods in a single cooling pond in that scenario. Security for such a facility would be less expensive than having to manage 10 plants scattered acrooss a wide region, as well. Note that provision of cooling water is also a major issue in all these designs.
Whether or not this would be cheaper overall is anyone's guess. There are also questions about the reliability and efficiency of small modular reactors in general; past novel nuclear reactor designs like the pebble-bed reactor were similarly promoted but never went anywhere.
Whether or not this would be cheaper overall is anyone's guess. There are also questions about the reliability and efficiency of small modular reactors in general; past novel nuclear reactor designs like the pebble-bed reactor were similarly promoted but never went anywhere.
Multiplying the number of moving parts by 10x cannot reasonably be expected to lead to increased reliability or reduced cost.
As long as the deployment of nuclear power is large and growing in scale, there's zero waste disposal problem, because all of the long-lived wastes can be reprocessed into fuel using breeder reactors.
Not to mention nuclear proliferation and risks of terrorism or social unrest...
Solar and wind have a storage problem. Day-to-night storage is a solved problem, but summer-to-winter is very far from being solved. Batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, compressed air are simply off by factors of 100x or more. There are just 2 plausible solutions: chemical storage, or massive overcapacity. Chemical storage means hydrogen, or ammonia, or iron powder, or some other substance that can undergo reversible oxidation. But you have capital costs associated with both the oxidation and the reverse reaction, and you also have roundtrip losses.
For example, let's say you use hydrogen (by far the most promising candidate as of now). You need to build a plant to perform the water electrolysis and a power plant to convert the hydrogen into electricity. Both these plants will work at most half of the time, but in reality, much less. So, whatever capital costs you have for an electrolysis plant, you just double, triple, or multiply by 10. The same for the hydrogen power plant. A hydrogen power plant will cost at least as much as a current natural gas power plant. That is not a lot, but if you multiply by 5, then it becomes a lot.
But what if you could run these plants 100% of the time. Now we are talking. Let's say you build lots of solar capacity in Morocco, run an electrolysis plant year long, liquefy it, ship it to Germany, where it is burned in a power plant 365/24/7. Or make the hydrogen in Australia and ship it to Japan. Or make it in Nevada and ship it to New York and Toronto.
Do you still need nuclear? I'm not 100% sure. But if lots of people who were against nuclear before changed their mind, then maybe they ran the numbers, and it turns out we need nuclear.
But it's certain we need nuclear if we ever want to explore the outer solar system. And if we climb again the knowledge ladder of commercial nuclear fission, then maybe one day we'll be able to make efficient nuclear rockets.
For example, let's say you use hydrogen (by far the most promising candidate as of now). You need to build a plant to perform the water electrolysis and a power plant to convert the hydrogen into electricity. Both these plants will work at most half of the time, but in reality, much less. So, whatever capital costs you have for an electrolysis plant, you just double, triple, or multiply by 10. The same for the hydrogen power plant. A hydrogen power plant will cost at least as much as a current natural gas power plant. That is not a lot, but if you multiply by 5, then it becomes a lot.
But what if you could run these plants 100% of the time. Now we are talking. Let's say you build lots of solar capacity in Morocco, run an electrolysis plant year long, liquefy it, ship it to Germany, where it is burned in a power plant 365/24/7. Or make the hydrogen in Australia and ship it to Japan. Or make it in Nevada and ship it to New York and Toronto.
Do you still need nuclear? I'm not 100% sure. But if lots of people who were against nuclear before changed their mind, then maybe they ran the numbers, and it turns out we need nuclear.
But it's certain we need nuclear if we ever want to explore the outer solar system. And if we climb again the knowledge ladder of commercial nuclear fission, then maybe one day we'll be able to make efficient nuclear rockets.
> massive overcapacity
How bad of a solution is this? How bad does solar/hydro output get during the off season in most places (presumably wind is more consistent than those two when averaged out over shorter time frames than a whole year)?
How bad of a solution is this? How bad does solar/hydro output get during the off season in most places (presumably wind is more consistent than those two when averaged out over shorter time frames than a whole year)?
Take a look at this chart with monthly solar electricity generation in Germany [1].
In June there's 6 times more solar generation than in December.
That's it, if you want to build enough solar capacity to cover you in December, then it's going to be 6 times more than you need in June.
Solar might be cheaper than natural gas, but not by a factor of 6.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...
In June there's 6 times more solar generation than in December.
That's it, if you want to build enough solar capacity to cover you in December, then it's going to be 6 times more than you need in June.
Solar might be cheaper than natural gas, but not by a factor of 6.
[1] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/monthly-gener...
[deleted]
I know HN is just desperate for that i-told-you-so moment when fission rises from irrelevancy to save us all from climate change, but it's just not going to happen. Look at this figure [1]. The amount of proposed solar and wind and battery projects in the United States at the end of 2021 was 1000s of time larger than the amount of proposed nuclear power projects. And one big difference is the renewables are actually built, while the fission projects never make progress. Fission's purported resurgence is a press release blitz being coordinated by defense contractor grifters who have no higher ambitions than raking a few tens of billions of dollars in consulting fees out of government budgets.
1: https://emp.lbl.gov/queues
1: https://emp.lbl.gov/queues
> The amount of proposed solar and wind and battery projects in the United States at the end of 2021 was 1000s of time larger than the amount of proposed nuclear power projects
Because the public has been anti nuclear energy for the past 4 decades.
> And one big difference is the renewables are actually built, while the fission projects never make progress.
Nuclear energy regulations are an absolute nightmare and make building anything virtually impossible.
You're not necessarily wrong with your point, but man the world would've been so much cleaner if we didn't abandon nuclear energy 40 years ago. Now that we've lost all expertise and have neglected research, yes it's very hard for nuclear energy to make a huge resurgence.
Because the public has been anti nuclear energy for the past 4 decades.
> And one big difference is the renewables are actually built, while the fission projects never make progress.
Nuclear energy regulations are an absolute nightmare and make building anything virtually impossible.
You're not necessarily wrong with your point, but man the world would've been so much cleaner if we didn't abandon nuclear energy 40 years ago. Now that we've lost all expertise and have neglected research, yes it's very hard for nuclear energy to make a huge resurgence.
Regulations are a nightmare for good reasons. Nuclear power is safe because regulations are a nightmare. Yes, we could build Chernobyl-like power plants with soviet-like regulations, that are cheap. That leads sooner or later to Chernobyl-like accidents.
If nuclear power depends on lowering the safety regulations to be economically viable, it is not economically viable, at least for now.
Take for example the infamous Flamanville third reactor: it could be opened by 2014, but "nightmare" regulations detected flawed components. A year later, regulations detected faults in cooling valves. Three years later, the secondary cooling systen didn't meet regulations. A year later, a failure in steam pipes delayed more the opening, literally more than 100 defective welds. All of the delays combined more than tripled the costs, but to me they sound valid requirements.
If nuclear power depends on lowering the safety regulations to be economically viable, it is not economically viable, at least for now.
Take for example the infamous Flamanville third reactor: it could be opened by 2014, but "nightmare" regulations detected flawed components. A year later, regulations detected faults in cooling valves. Three years later, the secondary cooling systen didn't meet regulations. A year later, a failure in steam pipes delayed more the opening, literally more than 100 defective welds. All of the delays combined more than tripled the costs, but to me they sound valid requirements.
The problem isn't the safety regulation, but the opening authorisation regulations. Because we basically forbid the opening of new reactors regardless of their safety we have said to all people with nuclear expertise "Go find another job, you industry is a dead end".
Instead of saying to welders "Learn nuclear grade welding, develop a valued expertise and you are going to have a safe, well paying job for the next 30 years". We told them "this is the last reactor we're gonna do, do the bare minimum and find something else, your job is gone anyway".
Instead of saying to your graduates "Study nuclear and you are going to work in building/managing reactors and provide carbonless energy to your country" we told them "If you study nuclear, all you are going to do is dismantle old reactors we don't want to see anymore".
And surprise: 25 years later we have a very hard time properly building and maintaining reactors. And that is the consequence of the opening authorisation regulations.
Instead of saying to welders "Learn nuclear grade welding, develop a valued expertise and you are going to have a safe, well paying job for the next 30 years". We told them "this is the last reactor we're gonna do, do the bare minimum and find something else, your job is gone anyway".
Instead of saying to your graduates "Study nuclear and you are going to work in building/managing reactors and provide carbonless energy to your country" we told them "If you study nuclear, all you are going to do is dismantle old reactors we don't want to see anymore".
And surprise: 25 years later we have a very hard time properly building and maintaining reactors. And that is the consequence of the opening authorisation regulations.
I don't know who you are referring with "we forbid". Certainly not we Europe, because there are 3 reactors currently being built, 7 planned and 16 proposed. Again, Flamanville is delayed mainly because of safety issues, and not regardless.
Industries rise and fall. Coal is largely being phased out (in Europe), so coal miners are expected to lose their jobs and certainly their sons are not going to be miners. Of course they sang the same tune "we need guaranteed and well paid jobs for the next 30 years, and then for our youth", but sadly no industry is free from falling.
If nuclear power cannot teach their people to weld properly, they cannot exist. If their plan is to wait for the state to send them fully formed, the plan is flawed. It's like tomorrow Google or Facebook cries because MIT isn't teaching how to harvest data properly.
Industries rise and fall. Coal is largely being phased out (in Europe), so coal miners are expected to lose their jobs and certainly their sons are not going to be miners. Of course they sang the same tune "we need guaranteed and well paid jobs for the next 30 years, and then for our youth", but sadly no industry is free from falling.
If nuclear power cannot teach their people to weld properly, they cannot exist. If their plan is to wait for the state to send them fully formed, the plan is flawed. It's like tomorrow Google or Facebook cries because MIT isn't teaching how to harvest data properly.
You're not necessarily wrong. At the end of the day we lost all nuclear expertise when the public turned against it 40 years ago.
Per kwh fossil fuel disasters have killed more people and have caused more damage to the environment. Compare the public reactions to the Three Mile Island Accident vs the BP oil spill.
Per kwh fossil fuel disasters have killed more people and have caused more damage to the environment. Compare the public reactions to the Three Mile Island Accident vs the BP oil spill.
40 years ago, yet not soon enough.
Subsidizing solar and wind 40 years ago, in the amount nukes got, would have brought us to the present efflorescence of miraculously cheap renewable energy 30 years ago, and we would not today be facing imminent climate disaster and ocean ecosystem collapse.
Subsidizing solar and wind 40 years ago, in the amount nukes got, would have brought us to the present efflorescence of miraculously cheap renewable energy 30 years ago, and we would not today be facing imminent climate disaster and ocean ecosystem collapse.
It was always too expensive. It wasnt hippy peaceniks that killed it. It was money.
The odd catastrophe didnt help though.
Why there is a resurgence of interest now when dirt cheap solar and wind have effectively rendered it a costly relic of the past is somewhat puzzling.
I guess PR campaigns like the OP's link are one reason.
The odd catastrophe didnt help though.
Why there is a resurgence of interest now when dirt cheap solar and wind have effectively rendered it a costly relic of the past is somewhat puzzling.
I guess PR campaigns like the OP's link are one reason.
It's expensive when you rely on cheap Russian/ME fossil fuels
> Why there is a resurgence of interest now when dirt cheap solar and wind have effectively rendered it a costly relic of the past is somewhat puzzling.
If cheap solar/wind was enough right now Europe wouldn't be going through an energy crisis.
> Why there is a resurgence of interest now when dirt cheap solar and wind have effectively rendered it a costly relic of the past is somewhat puzzling.
If cheap solar/wind was enough right now Europe wouldn't be going through an energy crisis.
Solar is cheap since 2012 or so. 10 years is not enough to make a full shift. But we europeans are going there: 15 GW installed in 2019, 20 GW in 2020 and 23 GW in 2021.
There isn't enough solar/wind or nuclear to power Europe right now. The question is which power mix will be best in a decade's time.
> If cheap solar/wind was enough right now Europe wouldn't be going through an energy crisis.
It's an oil/gas crisis, not an electricity crisis - that one went away when the days started getting longer.
It's an oil/gas crisis, not an electricity crisis - that one went away when the days started getting longer.
Germany had a Solar buildout cap at 50GW because of our coal lobby.
Renewables could be built out much faster with only a little more political will.
The United States is not the only place in the world. There are other countries with their own idiosyncrasies where different strategies may make more sense, and they all vent to the same atmosphere. So maybe if you're going to make a dismissing post such as this, about _global_ emissions, you should include arguments that cover places that are not the United States.
Are there any Y Combinator companies who are invested in the advance of nuclear power?
There's Helion, a supposed fusion power company, but everything about it screams "fraud".
I think Helion is the most credible of all the fusion companies.
Your and Jeff's statements are wholly compatible.
True. :) I mean that the other approaches appear to have obvious showstoppers (mostly engineering ones for DT approaches), while Helion has at least a plausible path to practicality.
(plausible, adj.: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.)
(plausible, adj.: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.)
Did you see
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31759753
? One of the projects has a plan to get p-11B closer to working. It didn't seem immediately stupid. It would be great to have a system that doesn't depend on unobtainium.
Maybe in 50 years we will be able to take down the wind turbines, or explore the Kuiper Belt at length.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31759753
? One of the projects has a plan to get p-11B closer to working. It didn't seem immediately stupid. It would be great to have a system that doesn't depend on unobtainium.
Maybe in 50 years we will be able to take down the wind turbines, or explore the Kuiper Belt at length.
they are mostly sticking to web3 I think
Did you mean fusion? Fission is certainly not irrelevant today!
Fission is decreasingly relevant. The faster, the better for us all.
spot on! no wonder you get downvoted! nobody likes to hear the truth over here
Wind and solar are fighting very hard to replace existing supply at a comparable cost. It's a luxury substitute. We need more supply for cheaper.
Is Nuclear cheaper?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc...
Depends. With just the cost per kWh is photovoltaic cheaper, but you would need additional storage for the nighttime, so it would become more expensive than nuclear. Also this didn’t account for winter time (in Germany photovoltaic make 5-10% compared to summer) and storing a half year worth of energy is going to be funny.(this will cost way way more than nuclear) A nuclear power plant could run 24/7 the whole year.
Its only mid-november til mid-february that really sees a strong dip in production.
And the other months it's a not-so-strong dip in production (Jan 16%, Feb 31%, Mar 57%, Apr 94%, Jun 100%, Jul 100%, Aug 87%, Sep 60%, Okt 41%, Nov 22%, Dec 13%).
This means (for germany) we have to install more than 170% PV and store 3 months worth of energy for half a year (or install 800% and don't store anything). It's just a very rough estimation, but it's clear that one can't compare the cost of 1kWh PV to 1kWh nuclear (at least if one doesn't live in the desert).
No one is suggesting PV alone. My understanding is that Germany already gets more power from wind. Wind still works at night and in the winter, right?
Well that probably won't happen. The I told you so moment will be more like in 20 years when we didn't build nuclear, still don't have economically viable tech for a renewal only grid, and are still burning fossil fuels.
You make huge order of magnitude errors in your thinking
Nuclear provides the so called base load (the minimum level of electricity demand required). To replace base load with renewables + energy storage requires so much CAPEX and battery manufacturing that you don't have money to fill gaps between caseload needs and renewable energy production.
Nuclear provides the so called base load (the minimum level of electricity demand required). To replace base load with renewables + energy storage requires so much CAPEX and battery manufacturing that you don't have money to fill gaps between caseload needs and renewable energy production.
The state of California has built more battery capacity in the last six months than the entire nation has built of fission power plants in the last 25 years. It is extremely easy to build batteries for fixed service, and bulk semiconductor manufacturing is the #1 thing that humans are good at. These problems are absolutely solved, the whole industry thinks so, that's why the whole industry is behind pv+wind+storage, as demonstrated at that link I posted.
As I said, order of magnitude error.
> has built
But enough?
Global battery manufacturers have invested so much that they can take total battery capacity to more than 5,500 GWh by by 2030. US would need something like 3000 Gwh of energy storage to replace the base load. (within days, then few weeks). It would would be insane misuse of resources.
> has built
But enough?
Global battery manufacturers have invested so much that they can take total battery capacity to more than 5,500 GWh by by 2030. US would need something like 3000 Gwh of energy storage to replace the base load. (within days, then few weeks). It would would be insane misuse of resources.
A negligible fraction of utility-scale storage will be batteries, so battery capacity hardly matters.
In 2021 US power consumption was 3.93 PWh. 5500 GWh is a bit over 12 hours of consumption. Not gonna cut it. And that's assuming 100% of the batteries are used for grid storage, and there is no demand growth in the next 8 years.
With Vogtle 3 & 4, the only nuclear plants coming online in the US, the construction costs are now projected to be $30 billion for 2.2 GW. We'd need ~1000 of these size plants to power the US. That's not going to cut it either.
You mathed wrong. You would need a little over 200, but no one is suggesting powering the whole grid with nuclear.
and no one suggested we run the entire grid on PV/batteries, except you.
Vogtle will be cancelled before completion. That many $billions for 2GW is nothing short of pathetic.
It cannot be cancelled soon enough.
It cannot be cancelled soon enough.
I doubt that. It's too close to completion, sadly for the ratepayers in Georgia.
> However, much of this proposed capacity will not ultimately be built. Among a subset of queues for which data are available, only 23% of the projects seeking connection from 2000 to 2016 have subsequently been built. Completion percentages appear to be declining, and are even lower for wind and solar than other resources.
Projects not being built indicate the massive success of falling costs. Projects that fail to reduce cost enough to compete get cancelled, and the capital goes to others instead.
> The amount of proposed solar and wind and battery projects in the United States at the end of 2021 was 1000s of time larger than the amount of proposed nuclear power projects.
Your article links to capacity not effective production when customer needs it. The issue with electricity production resides in being able to reliably produce electricity when customer needs it, not when planet aligns for [insert preferred electricity production method].
It's great to say "I can produce 100Gw of green electricity", but if I ask you "Give me 30GW now" and you tell me "Best I can do now is 5GW, there are clouds in the sky", I'll kindly ask you to shut up about your "100GW capacity".
As the recent price hikes in Europe have shown, the prices paid by customers is dictated by the cost of the most expensive megawatts. Solar and wind have not suddenly become pricier, but gas has. And as a consequence, prices paid by customers have increased proportionally.
Batteries might seem like a good answer, but basic physics shows us that it is not remotely doable on a large scale, if we want to guarantee reliable supply. The energy density simply isn't there.
Your article links to capacity not effective production when customer needs it. The issue with electricity production resides in being able to reliably produce electricity when customer needs it, not when planet aligns for [insert preferred electricity production method].
It's great to say "I can produce 100Gw of green electricity", but if I ask you "Give me 30GW now" and you tell me "Best I can do now is 5GW, there are clouds in the sky", I'll kindly ask you to shut up about your "100GW capacity".
As the recent price hikes in Europe have shown, the prices paid by customers is dictated by the cost of the most expensive megawatts. Solar and wind have not suddenly become pricier, but gas has. And as a consequence, prices paid by customers have increased proportionally.
Batteries might seem like a good answer, but basic physics shows us that it is not remotely doable on a large scale, if we want to guarantee reliable supply. The energy density simply isn't there.
Please explain said "basic physics". I'll wait.
California is building battery storage at a rate of ~2500MW/year. There are ZERO physics problems standing in the way of this. And there is considerable innovation in fixed batteries like iron-air flow batteries, ones that exist and aren't just VC scams like most of the nuclear stuff.
https://www.energy-storage.news/california-utility-pge-propo...
California is building battery storage at a rate of ~2500MW/year. There are ZERO physics problems standing in the way of this. And there is considerable innovation in fixed batteries like iron-air flow batteries, ones that exist and aren't just VC scams like most of the nuclear stuff.
https://www.energy-storage.news/california-utility-pge-propo...
Basic physics 101.
[1] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/energy-storage-2019 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253739/lithium-reserves...
The US produced 4 10^9 MWh in 2017 [1]
That's roughly 11 10^6 MWh / day or 11 10^12 Wh /day
So to power 50% of the US for half a day, we need : 11 10^12 Wh /day * 0.5 day * 0.5 = 2.75 10^12 Wh = 275 10^10 Wh
The energy storage of a Lithium Ion battery is roughly 270 Wh / kg [2], let's round this up to 275, I am feeling nice here.
This means we need : 275 10^10 Wh / 275 Wh / kg = 1 * 10^10 kg of Lithium Ion batteries. That's 10 million tons of batteries
The total reserve of lithium for the whole world are roughly 20 million tons [3]
[1] https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/energy-storage-2019 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1253739/lithium-reserves...
You do know that lithium is just a few percent of the mass of a lithium-ion battery, right?
Also, I didn't realize that Li-ion batteries were the only conceivable energy storage technology.
Also, I didn't realize that Li-ion batteries were the only conceivable energy storage technology.
Ah, so the basic physics problems are twofold:
1) You don't know how little lithium is contained in a li-ion battery cell; and
2) You don't know that li-ion is less than half the global battery market.
1) You don't know how little lithium is contained in a li-ion battery cell; and
2) You don't know that li-ion is less than half the global battery market.
You are right, I double checked.
As you can see, Lithium-Ion batteries are not remotely sustainable if they aim to help replace the baseline production that is currently provided by fossil/nuclear with intermittent renewable. They can only be considered at the top of the curve to help renewable manage the peak power, where their ability shine and where the total needs are far, far lower.
Other battery type do exist, I am willing to admit that, but grand parent projects all involve Lithium Ion batteries....because the other types are even less economically practical (more loss, less energy density, ...).
Rechargeable batteries (Lithium Ion or otherwise) are perfectly fin to store intermittent energy. They just aren't remotely practical to run an entire country off their output, which is why we leverage "natural batteries" aka: fuel (plutonium, oil, coal or otherwise).
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-much-lithium-li-ion-vehic...
275 10^10 Wh are needed as per my comment above and there is 160g of Lithium in a battery per kWh of capacity [1]
275 10^10 Wh = 275 10^7 kWh => 275 10^7 kW * 160 g / kWh = 45375 10^7 g = 453 750 tons
As you can see, Lithium-Ion batteries are not remotely sustainable if they aim to help replace the baseline production that is currently provided by fossil/nuclear with intermittent renewable. They can only be considered at the top of the curve to help renewable manage the peak power, where their ability shine and where the total needs are far, far lower.
Other battery type do exist, I am willing to admit that, but grand parent projects all involve Lithium Ion batteries....because the other types are even less economically practical (more loss, less energy density, ...).
Rechargeable batteries (Lithium Ion or otherwise) are perfectly fin to store intermittent energy. They just aren't remotely practical to run an entire country off their output, which is why we leverage "natural batteries" aka: fuel (plutonium, oil, coal or otherwise).
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-much-lithium-li-ion-vehic...
Batteries will be a negligible fraction of utility storage, and lithium will be a negligible fraction of that.
So, your concern trolling about battery materials is misplaced.
So, your concern trolling about battery materials is misplaced.
How will energy be stored then ? Where will the humongously large utility storage center located ? When does their construction start (and when are they scheduled for completion) and how are those going to be financed ?
Construction will pick up once there is enough renewable capacity to "charge" storage from. Storage that must be charged by burning NG would be stupid.
There is no need for a storage "center". Energy will be stored wherever convenient. Utilities will build out zero-opex storage so they can drop NG opex.
Many different storage technologies will be used. The cheapest ones will eventually be identified and used more. But anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen are certain despite being far from cheapest, because of other merits.
Right now the overwhelming majority of utility storage is pumped hydro, using existing hydro power reservoirs. I expect various gravity methods, including pumped hydro, to continue to dominate. New pumped hydro will not consume watersheds.
(But Energy Vault, NRGV, is strictly a scam.)
There is no need for a storage "center". Energy will be stored wherever convenient. Utilities will build out zero-opex storage so they can drop NG opex.
Many different storage technologies will be used. The cheapest ones will eventually be identified and used more. But anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen are certain despite being far from cheapest, because of other merits.
Right now the overwhelming majority of utility storage is pumped hydro, using existing hydro power reservoirs. I expect various gravity methods, including pumped hydro, to continue to dominate. New pumped hydro will not consume watersheds.
(But Energy Vault, NRGV, is strictly a scam.)
I would love to see nuclear be far more of the base-load production in the US, but rather than large gigawatt-scale reactors I think it would benefit everyone more if we moved to using SMRs (small modular reactors). Not only could manufacturing economies of scale be realized but SMRs can passively cool themselves in the event they need to scram or shut down. The scenario that concerns me the most is a terrorist attack on our grid and externally on a nuclear power station: if a plant can be scrammed AND the backup diesels sabotaged then pretty much all nuclear plants in the US would be looking at a Fukushima-like event once the batteries to the primary cooling loop ran out.
Nuclear is definitely a good idea for the future, but only if SMRs are the basis of moving forward.
Nuclear is definitely a good idea for the future, but only if SMRs are the basis of moving forward.
I think your perception of the risk from terrorist attack on a Nuclear power plant and the actual risk involved are out of whack. Especially given that human error is a much more likely source a radioactive leak.
The fundamental problem is the concentration of radioactive materials at a single facility. (Hydroelectric power has a similar problem with the water behind dams.)
Whether it's human error, terrorist attack, or natural disaster, nuclear facilities are vulnerable in a way that solar and wind facilities are not.
Whether it's human error, terrorist attack, or natural disaster, nuclear facilities are vulnerable in a way that solar and wind facilities are not.
A Rolls Royce (SMR) for every community!
[1] https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
[1] https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
Don't know how germans thought that closing down nuclear plants in favor of natural gas was a good idea, both politically and environmentally
Nuclear was replaced by renewables in Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#/media...
It would have made more sense though to first replace coal plants before shutting down nuclear plants.
It would have made more sense though to first replace coal plants before shutting down nuclear plants.
Germans chose to build out lots of wind instead of spending the money to refurbish ramshackle old nukes. They displaced a lot more CO2 by that choice.
They could have chosen to continue operating the old contraptions unsafely, but chose not to shoulder Fukushima-style risks.
Armchair second-guessing is misleading. Each euro spent on one is a euro not spent on the other.
They could have chosen to continue operating the old contraptions unsafely, but chose not to shoulder Fukushima-style risks.
Armchair second-guessing is misleading. Each euro spent on one is a euro not spent on the other.
Thinking about it makes me mad. For all their renewable production capacity they still average over 300g of CO2 / kwh with all the gas and coal they burn. All of it, credit to the german green movement trying to save the planet from... Not sure. Even assuming the occasional Chernobyl/Fukushima-level disaster, as terrible as those catastrophes are, nuclear plant accidents are localised and will never threaten mankind survival. Climate change IS threatening our future, however.
And don't get me started on the political cost which the news make so obvious now.
And don't get me started on the political cost which the news make so obvious now.
A big percentage of mushrooms and game is still not fit for consumption today in Germany because of Chernobyl. So it's not just local.
And even if, Germany is more densely populated than the Ukraine. The Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine is the same size as the state of Saarland.
And even if, Germany is more densely populated than the Ukraine. The Chernobyl exclusion zone in Ukraine is the same size as the state of Saarland.
The externality of emitting 1kg of CO2 has been evaluated between 10000 usd to 100000 usd. Assuming the lower range, the 300 millions tons of CO2 produced by the german electricity production accounts for 3x10^15 USD per years. That's 789 times the german GDP per year taken away from future generations. Now compare it to the GDP of Saarland.
Found the source at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4.
So I made a mistake and it's for 1 ton not 1 KG but my point rest, even divided by 1000: Germany destroy close to their GDP per year with their electrical production emission, which is in my book worse than potentially, loosing a region if you are unlucky.
So I made a mistake and it's for 1 ton not 1 KG but my point rest, even divided by 1000: Germany destroy close to their GDP per year with their electrical production emission, which is in my book worse than potentially, loosing a region if you are unlucky.
Please name a source of that.
The environmental department of the german government estimates about 640 euro per ton for the next 100 years.
https://www.presseportal.de/pm/62786/4789535
https://www.presseportal.de/pm/62786/4789535
As I answered to my own comment:
> Found the source at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4.
> So I made a mistake and it's for 1 ton not 1 KG but my point rest, even divided by 1000: Germany destroy close to their GDP per year with their electrical production emission, which is in my book worse than potentially, loosing a region if you are unlucky.
> Found the source at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4.
> So I made a mistake and it's for 1 ton not 1 KG but my point rest, even divided by 1000: Germany destroy close to their GDP per year with their electrical production emission, which is in my book worse than potentially, loosing a region if you are unlucky.
What does not fit for consumption mean?
Are there more ionizing radiation in a German mushroom or boar than in an average banana?
Are there more ionizing radiation in a German mushroom or boar than in an average banana?
Yes, a banana has an effective radiation close to 0 because our bodies evolved to hold its level of potassium in homeostasis. Your body already has radioactive potassium in it. When you eat more potassium, the excess is excreted and the amount of radionuclides in your body stays the same. Caesium-137 on the other hand is drastically more radioactive and stays longer in the body.
Seems that caesium-137 is also excreted pretty quickly:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137
Still even though it's hard to find good numbers, and the average seems to be ~ banana / kg. I believe there's at least reports of mushrooms and boars with ~10-100 times the radiation of an average banana.
I don't think it's actually possible to show any health effects of that amount of radiation, even if ingested (and excreted) but it's more than the average banana.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137
Still even though it's hard to find good numbers, and the average seems to be ~ banana / kg. I believe there's at least reports of mushrooms and boars with ~10-100 times the radiation of an average banana.
I don't think it's actually possible to show any health effects of that amount of radiation, even if ingested (and excreted) but it's more than the average banana.
/remindme 10years
/remindme in 80 years
If I have to choose between an additional 3 Fukushima and the loss of thousands of costal cities due to sea level rise, I know what I'm choosing.
This study predict than sea level could rise by 2m by 2100 displacing up to 187 million people. Fukushima displaced about 160 thousands.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6561295/
Pick your poison, wisely.
If I have to choose between an additional 3 Fukushima and the loss of thousands of costal cities due to sea level rise, I know what I'm choosing.
This study predict than sea level could rise by 2m by 2100 displacing up to 187 million people. Fukushima displaced about 160 thousands.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6561295/
Pick your poison, wisely.
It’s probably easier to deal with sea level rise since it’s slow motion. If there’s a Fukushima every year.. wow.
I assumed 3 events in the next 80 years.
There's been 25 years between Chernobyl and Fukushima, and assuming we build new reactor, there is no reason to imagine it would happen more frequently. Why do you think there could be a catastrophe per year ?
There's been 25 years between Chernobyl and Fukushima, and assuming we build new reactor, there is no reason to imagine it would happen more frequently. Why do you think there could be a catastrophe per year ?
The world uses 18 TW of primary energy, which is about 6,000 1GW(e) reactors. This is more than an order of magnitude increase over current nuclear power reactors.
Also, many of those reactors are going to have to be breeders. Accidents in fast breeders are potentially even worse than Chernobyl.
Also, many of those reactors are going to have to be breeders. Accidents in fast breeders are potentially even worse than Chernobyl.
Their electorate is very anti-nuclear (it made sense politically).
The Germans take any opportunity to "do the right thing". I won't go into my beliefs on where that comes from, other than to say it's an emotional place, and not a logical one. So they often end up doing the wrong thing.
I actually feel sorry for them.
I actually feel sorry for them.
> I actually feel sorry for them.
I felt similarly. Then I learned about Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc
I felt similarly. Then I learned about Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc
Whether you think nuclear is a good idea or a bad idea, too costly or a price we will have to pay, one thing I can say is true: we have spent so very much time and effort demonizing nuclear power that if it were a good idea, we're going to have a lot of people standing in the way, because the message was received, loud and clear.
Nukes are expensive and take many years to build. No reason to shut them down, but also not a lot of good reasons to build them.
Spending to keep them operating diverts money from building out renewables. So, no.
It's appalling how these conversation on HN are made of people endlessly repeating only a handful of pros and cons.
No progress in the conversation and no discussion of more subtle aspects, like centralization of control/power, systemic risk, nuclear proliferation etc.
No progress in the conversation and no discussion of more subtle aspects, like centralization of control/power, systemic risk, nuclear proliferation etc.
The most reliable output of the nuke industry has always been dishonesty. It is a big chore countering it everywhere it blooms.
It's an intrinsic problem of any activity with a combination of huge financial interests, concentration of power, secrecy, national pride (and the ability to create invisible pollution).
Best news for the day, I'm a firm believer that nuclear is the _only_ way for true green energy on earth at scale. it's a manageable risk(checking out what France is doing) and there is simply no other _true_ alternatives.
I'm reminded of the software world, where 'interim' or 'just ship it now and adjust later' actions lead to...technical debt and often worse. I feel nuclear creates the mother of all technical debt.
This seems to be a barely rewritten press release on behalf of "Maria G. Korsnick, president and chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group that promotes nuclear power".
Nuclear is great as long as it’s not anywhere close to where I live
It's not that we don't have nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel, and nuclear technology.
One problem is that France's nuclear industry has committments to use something like 2/3rds of the world's reserves of Uranium Ore.
Another problem is, we've had 3 once-in-1000 years accidents in 40 years. By my calculations, the entire world will be a radioactive waste dump in 250,000 years, given the rate of land contamination by nuclear accidents.
Why do nuclear cheerleaders ignore this fact? They must.
One problem is that France's nuclear industry has committments to use something like 2/3rds of the world's reserves of Uranium Ore.
Another problem is, we've had 3 once-in-1000 years accidents in 40 years. By my calculations, the entire world will be a radioactive waste dump in 250,000 years, given the rate of land contamination by nuclear accidents.
Why do nuclear cheerleaders ignore this fact? They must.
Historical lifecycle costs for nuclear plants are perhaps not useful for comparison. Newer reactor plans are drastically different.
Not in cost. A very substantial part of opex is maintaining the steam turbines, a cost not matched by any in renewables. Thus, even completely ignoring monstrous capex, fuel and waste handling, indemnity subsidy, and decommissioning costs, nukes cannot compete.
Nuclear fission is dead and won't come back to life even if Bill Gates spends his entire fortune to market it. I'd rather bet my money on nuclear fusion than nuclear fission, e.g.
https://marvelfusion.com/technology/
https://marvelfusion.com/technology/
The biggest problem nuclear has is that it's too cheap and the fuel lasts too long.
That means that the oil, gas, wind and solar industry has more money and interest in spreading FUD.
On top of that the fear that has been succesfully deployed, has pushed nuclear energy into a bureaucratic nightmare, driving up costs, and also incentivizing a large part of the nuclear industry (the part living off the regulation and bureaucracy) to continue the FUD.
The total number of causalities and environmental impact from non-weaponized nuclear power, including Chernobyl, Fukushima and three mile island are so small, that I guess a larger number of people have died or been injured from rare-earth metal mines for solar panels or floods due to dams for water turbines.
That means that the oil, gas, wind and solar industry has more money and interest in spreading FUD.
On top of that the fear that has been succesfully deployed, has pushed nuclear energy into a bureaucratic nightmare, driving up costs, and also incentivizing a large part of the nuclear industry (the part living off the regulation and bureaucracy) to continue the FUD.
The total number of causalities and environmental impact from non-weaponized nuclear power, including Chernobyl, Fukushima and three mile island are so small, that I guess a larger number of people have died or been injured from rare-earth metal mines for solar panels or floods due to dams for water turbines.
I recently saw a good evaluation of nuclear power by Hossenfelder.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0kahih8RT1k
I'll take this seriously when proponents of nuclear energy are happy to invest in the absence of something like the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (TL;DR - the act socialises any costs above $15B for insurable events). Until then, any discussion of costs is apples to oranges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
Good. It's the most logical choice to complement other green initiatives.
I could never take climate change seriously when nuclear wasn't on the table. If climate change were really a concern, you'd consider a power source that's safer than coal, but has negligible CO2 emissions (mining). I'm glad to see people are taking it seriously.
No. When it is a choice between spending 5x plus buying coal for another decade, or spending 1x and displacing carbon immediately, the correct choice is dead obvious, and getting moreso with each passing day as the 5x shades toward 6x and beyond, relentlessly.
That used to be a valid argument.
Nuclear is necessary for the near term. And it’s already a mature technology
"Mature" means its cost is not falling, while the competition has already plummeted far below, without slowing. So, your opinion about nukes' necessity will have zero effect on outcome. The rest of the world will act on cost, to even your benefit.
Everyone arguing over replacing currently energy usage like that will be even close to enough, it won't. Personally im a nuclear fan and I think many of the costs are artificially high by preventing nuclear industry growth and bad legislation that outlaws things like breeder reactors, that said we are going to need wind and solar even with massive nuclear investment just by the total power we need to produce to make industry green.
Electricity generation isn't the only way we use fossil fuels and cause pollution. Fertilizer production needs hydrogen, where does that hydrogen come from? Natural gas. Why? Because not using natural gas increases the energy costs of fertilizer production near 10x over. Since it is currently 1% of total world electricity consumption already, that is a near 10% global increase in electricity demand for one (admitedly large) product. The replacement of plastics with other materials like paper, glass, and metal? All require higher energy input to produce than plastic. Not to mention that plastic will eventually breakdown and release carbon also. As the most economical mines start to dry up and we seek lesser ores to mine, mining and processing electrical requirements will continue to rise. Nearly every chemical reagent all around you causes pollution during products, but it can be 90% solved, mostly by the addition of more electrical electricity for heating, cooling, high and low pressure chambers, ect. to not create so many waste products that we trash into both the atmosphere and the ground and water. We don't use those cleaner methods now mostly because using the electricity to do so costs a LOT more. Nearly every industry on earth can be cleaner, but it costs significantly more electricity which needs to be fairly cheap. Something like concrete production could be done more far more cleanly, but again, massive amounts of additional electricity needed. And that is before we get into things like active carbon sequestering.
Or goals shouldn't be a direct replacement of fossil fuel electricity sources, our goals should be exceeding currently world electrical output multiple times over without fossil fuels, which means we should be producing nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power across the board in an attempt to meet our extreme future demands.
Maybe solar and wind and batteries will be up to the task in the future with some new technology, but also maybe not. Nuclear is a known feasible solution to providing as much power as we could ever want or need with technology we have right now. Solar and battery tech is often assuming we will continue on the same path of increased efficiency and reduced costs seemingly indefinitely, but you know what, they thought the same thing with nuclear energy until they started hitting some walls in generation efficiency and costs. And if it ends up not being significantly cheaper or easier, you gotta start bringing up questions of land usage and grid complexity on top of everything else.
Electricity generation isn't the only way we use fossil fuels and cause pollution. Fertilizer production needs hydrogen, where does that hydrogen come from? Natural gas. Why? Because not using natural gas increases the energy costs of fertilizer production near 10x over. Since it is currently 1% of total world electricity consumption already, that is a near 10% global increase in electricity demand for one (admitedly large) product. The replacement of plastics with other materials like paper, glass, and metal? All require higher energy input to produce than plastic. Not to mention that plastic will eventually breakdown and release carbon also. As the most economical mines start to dry up and we seek lesser ores to mine, mining and processing electrical requirements will continue to rise. Nearly every chemical reagent all around you causes pollution during products, but it can be 90% solved, mostly by the addition of more electrical electricity for heating, cooling, high and low pressure chambers, ect. to not create so many waste products that we trash into both the atmosphere and the ground and water. We don't use those cleaner methods now mostly because using the electricity to do so costs a LOT more. Nearly every industry on earth can be cleaner, but it costs significantly more electricity which needs to be fairly cheap. Something like concrete production could be done more far more cleanly, but again, massive amounts of additional electricity needed. And that is before we get into things like active carbon sequestering.
Or goals shouldn't be a direct replacement of fossil fuel electricity sources, our goals should be exceeding currently world electrical output multiple times over without fossil fuels, which means we should be producing nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power across the board in an attempt to meet our extreme future demands.
Maybe solar and wind and batteries will be up to the task in the future with some new technology, but also maybe not. Nuclear is a known feasible solution to providing as much power as we could ever want or need with technology we have right now. Solar and battery tech is often assuming we will continue on the same path of increased efficiency and reduced costs seemingly indefinitely, but you know what, they thought the same thing with nuclear energy until they started hitting some walls in generation efficiency and costs. And if it ends up not being significantly cheaper or easier, you gotta start bringing up questions of land usage and grid complexity on top of everything else.
Apparently it's difficult to understand that extremely cheap, highly abundant energy is the only way forward. It's not only a solution in itself but an enabler to even more solutions.
Meanwhile the price keeps rising...
Meanwhile the price keeps rising...
Fortunately, existing tech is wholly up to the task, even as new tech comes online at a rapid pace.
Nucular, the word is nucular!
It is either nuclear or hydroelectric power. The only two near-zero-carbon options.
"American"'s nuclear energy is back on the Table for a Green Future
years of anti-nuclear propaganda all over EU past decade, thanks Germany, only to end up depending on the US even more, while boycotting their friend France
years of anti-nuclear propaganda all over EU past decade, thanks Germany, only to end up depending on the US even more, while boycotting their friend France
Jistern(1)
neonsunset(1)
Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage. Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.
Much of the discussion of energy in the American media is pretty poor these days. For example, the solar tariff issue on China sourced PV - there are simply no US companies making panels of comparable quality (monocrystalline Si lasts longer and is more efficient). Concepts like requiring Chinese manufacturers to open factories in the USA if they want to sell in US markets would make sense but probably would violate some trade provision or other.
Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -> fuel rods supply chain. Costs vary significantly based on the purity of the ore (18% is the top, 0.1% is the economically viable limit) and like oil, uranium ore is not globally distributed (unlike sunlight and wind).
As far as Russia/Ukraine, the real agenda the US government seems to be pushing there is using that conflict to rapidly increase LNG exports to Europe from the US West/South coast, even though energy prices are spiking due to inflation (and plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA, allowed under that 2015 bill lifting that restriction). A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party. Yes, that's technologically possible, but would require massive economic investment.