We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal(thebellows.org)
thebellows.org
We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
https://www.thebellows.org/we-need-a-nuclear-new-deal-not-a-green-new-deal/
397 コメント
Strongly behind this for the merits of the technology which are just unquestionably better results for the costs and risks. I’d also really favor making nuclear energy an era-defining technology, like IT was for the 80s-20s. I think it’s wise to have big technological ideas drive progress, and as much as I care about “green,” it’s an uninspiring concept compared to nuclear.
I don't see what you base your claims of unquestionably better results for the costs and risks on?
Current nuclear energy production is quite expensive, it's on par with the costs for offshore wind iirc.
The risks, well... Privately insuring a nuclear power plant is pretty much impossible from a cost perspective. That's why governments, the tax payers in other words, have to assume the full risk in case something goes wrong.
So it nuclear costs as much as offshore wind, but it's not intermittent? That's very strong advantage: non-intermittent generation avoids the need to overproduce and store energy.
Why are we talking cost and not the pollution footprint.
Not really sure why you were downvoted before since it's a valid question.
We're talking cost since that's what the gp was talking about, I also believe that risk and cost is the right framework to think about these issues. Pollution is basically a cost, it's just that right now someone else besides the polluter will end up paying that cost sometime in the future. I think it would be a good thing if we could convert pollution to a cost that we get taxed on now, which is what a global carbon tax wants to achieve. That way you have to pay for what you pollute. It would definitely be a step in the right direction and perhaps the cost of nuclear would not be so great if all these externalities are taken into account. To be clear though. Just as I would like to see a carbon tax, I would also like to see nuclear paying actual risk premiums so that we can have a level playing field when choosing an energy source based on its LCOE or any similar criteria.
We're talking cost since that's what the gp was talking about, I also believe that risk and cost is the right framework to think about these issues. Pollution is basically a cost, it's just that right now someone else besides the polluter will end up paying that cost sometime in the future. I think it would be a good thing if we could convert pollution to a cost that we get taxed on now, which is what a global carbon tax wants to achieve. That way you have to pay for what you pollute. It would definitely be a step in the right direction and perhaps the cost of nuclear would not be so great if all these externalities are taken into account. To be clear though. Just as I would like to see a carbon tax, I would also like to see nuclear paying actual risk premiums so that we can have a level playing field when choosing an energy source based on its LCOE or any similar criteria.
Because people want easy answers and don't want to look at inconvenient facts. That mindset will destroy humanity.
The Green New Deal is at worst nuclear-neutral in favor of stressing wind and solar.
Biden's climate plan, which has a bunch of the same stakeholders and says the GND is a great idea, is on top of that more explicitly and vocally in favor of reactor development and a focus on efficiency improvements and waste processing and reclamation.
Hell, even greenpeace has been pro-reactor for a while now.
I don't see a short-to-medium solution that is the combination of better, cheaper, or safer per watt than nuclear power. (I have no problems with solar and wind, either)
Biden's climate plan, which has a bunch of the same stakeholders and says the GND is a great idea, is on top of that more explicitly and vocally in favor of reactor development and a focus on efficiency improvements and waste processing and reclamation.
Hell, even greenpeace has been pro-reactor for a while now.
I don't see a short-to-medium solution that is the combination of better, cheaper, or safer per watt than nuclear power. (I have no problems with solar and wind, either)
> Hell, even greenpeace has been pro-reactor for a while now.
Hrm. Do you have a reference for where you read about Greenpeace's stance on reactor development?
Their nuclear energy page[1] currently says: "Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future."
[1] - https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear...
Hrm. Do you have a reference for where you read about Greenpeace's stance on reactor development?
Their nuclear energy page[1] currently says: "Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future."
[1] - https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/nuclear...
i think i misremembered. Weird!
It happens to all of us :)
In retrospect my comment might have read unintentionally sternly; I was just curious in case it was possible to track down where their policies were misrepresented originally.
In retrospect my comment might have read unintentionally sternly; I was just curious in case it was possible to track down where their policies were misrepresented originally.
I remember Some Organization Who You'd Think Would Hate Nukes In Fact Thinking Nukes Are Fine, i just, uh, picked the wrong name.
From memory, GreenPeace are one of the main reasons we still produce so much carbon: they opposed nuclear power, so we stuck with coal and oil.
If you want this then write your representatives at the local and national levels. They do listen. The reason it’s not happened is the opposite side doing exactly this for years.
Tax carbon at $200 per ton and magically the financing for nuclear will appear.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report - Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
The economics don't make sense and probably never will. Taxing carbon isn't going to make renewables more expensive.
The economics don't make sense and probably never will. Taxing carbon isn't going to make renewables more expensive.
Either way, tax carbon.
The president of Exelon stated that CO2 taxes would have to reach $300-400/ton for new nuclear to compete with NGCC in the US. Renewables would likely be used instead. For nuclear to replace intermittent, gap-filling NG generators would require far higher taxes.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4088
CO2 taxes could keep existing reactors operating, though.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4088
CO2 taxes could keep existing reactors operating, though.
> "Solar panels produce ~300x more waste than nuclear reactors when providing the same amount of energy."
Didn't know it was so much better. That's awesome. I'm happy to read recent developments in the approval for small nuclear reactors. Hope to see this stuff become more popular.
Didn't know it was so much better. That's awesome. I'm happy to read recent developments in the approval for small nuclear reactors. Hope to see this stuff become more popular.
Totally different type of waste.
Both are toxic waste, but one often ends up in landfill or flytipped, and the other is safely contained underground because its developers are legally obliged to plan for its disposal and long-term storage as part of the design process.
The cost of disposal is often ignored when pricing solar (PV).
https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-mill...
The cost of disposal is often ignored when pricing solar (PV).
https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-mill...
Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again.
On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically because developed nations are not interested in bearing the ecological burden.
Solar panels frequently contain cadmium and tellurium, which both have to be mined (see above) and then leech out into the environment [3].
Then there's the human toll. Nuclear energy ends up with about 1/4 as many deaths per TWh generated as wind, 1/10 as many as rooftop solar, and 1/2 as many as industrial solar. [4]
[edit] The nice thing about nuclear waste is that radiation is easy to detect. All you need is a Geiger counter and some lead underpants. Cadmium, tellurium, the run-off from refining rare earths? That's what I'm really scared of.
[1] https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-en...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/
[4] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically because developed nations are not interested in bearing the ecological burden.
Solar panels frequently contain cadmium and tellurium, which both have to be mined (see above) and then leech out into the environment [3].
Then there's the human toll. Nuclear energy ends up with about 1/4 as many deaths per TWh generated as wind, 1/10 as many as rooftop solar, and 1/2 as many as industrial solar. [4]
[edit] The nice thing about nuclear waste is that radiation is easy to detect. All you need is a Geiger counter and some lead underpants. Cadmium, tellurium, the run-off from refining rare earths? That's what I'm really scared of.
[1] https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-en...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/
[4] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Thanks for providing references - there's some subtlety in the analysis you link to (on ourworldindata.org) about the human impact of nuclear energy production.
While it does state that nuclear and renewables are both comparatively much safer for humans than other forms of energy generation, it does contain two different harm rates for nuclear.
You're quoting a little selectively by stating that nuclear is safer; that corresponds with the 2016 study. The other study, published in 2007, states that renewables are safer.
Relevant snippet from the explainer section in the footer drop-down in the article:
"The largest differentiator here is the period which the Sovacool et al. (2016) estimates cover. They report normalized death rates over the limited period from 1990 to 2013. This means the 1986 Chernobyl accident was not included. Sovacool et al. (2016) only include deaths from the Fukushima accident, with 573 attributed deaths. It is useful to note here that not all deaths were a direct result of the accident: for Fukushima, there were no direct deaths from the disaster; one confirmed death from radiation exposure; and the rest noted as premature deaths from evacuation and displacement of populations in the surrounding area."
While it does state that nuclear and renewables are both comparatively much safer for humans than other forms of energy generation, it does contain two different harm rates for nuclear.
You're quoting a little selectively by stating that nuclear is safer; that corresponds with the 2016 study. The other study, published in 2007, states that renewables are safer.
Relevant snippet from the explainer section in the footer drop-down in the article:
"The largest differentiator here is the period which the Sovacool et al. (2016) estimates cover. They report normalized death rates over the limited period from 1990 to 2013. This means the 1986 Chernobyl accident was not included. Sovacool et al. (2016) only include deaths from the Fukushima accident, with 573 attributed deaths. It is useful to note here that not all deaths were a direct result of the accident: for Fukushima, there were no direct deaths from the disaster; one confirmed death from radiation exposure; and the rest noted as premature deaths from evacuation and displacement of populations in the surrounding area."
Ah, you know, I actually didn't catch that until after I posted. I used to use an older source that didn't make that distinction ([1]) but I had trouble finding it and dropped in the newer one after a cursory read-through. I appreciate you adding the clarifying analysis! I think the newer one provides a more balanced take.
I will say it seems disingenuous to include the death toll of the tsunami towards nuclear energy -- except of course the one individual who died of radiation exposure; I can't help but suspect the same ~500-ish people would have died had the plant been coal or oil.
[1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
I will say it seems disingenuous to include the death toll of the tsunami towards nuclear energy -- except of course the one individual who died of radiation exposure; I can't help but suspect the same ~500-ish people would have died had the plant been coal or oil.
[1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
>I will say it seems disingenuous to include the death toll of the tsunami towards nuclear energy
~16000 people died from the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.
The 573 figure is from the 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, based on "A disaster-related death certificate issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by "fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster"
An IMO reasonable measure. Sadly the same data will never be available for Chernobyl due to the political reality surrounding the event.
~16000 people died from the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.
The 573 figure is from the 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, based on "A disaster-related death certificate issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by "fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster"
An IMO reasonable measure. Sadly the same data will never be available for Chernobyl due to the political reality surrounding the event.
I suggest you read the UNSCEAR report. It's collated about 20 years of data into a 600 page report about Chernobyl. I'd suggest it's probably one of the most thorough and detailed such works put together, ever. It covers all manner of chronic disease, excess mortality, and even mental health outcomes of people who believed they were somehow contaminated. That pins the number at 4,000. [1]
At your suggestion I'll read the survey you mentioned.
[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-09-2005-chernobyl-th...
At your suggestion I'll read the survey you mentioned.
[1] https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/05-09-2005-chernobyl-th...
No probs, thanks for the clarification!
I tend to be in the camp of "nuclear power generation risks are extremely low when well-operated and maintained by responsible and effective governance".
Meanwhile I'm also in the camp of "governance and maintenance tend to degrade once systems are widespread enough that people begin to be less accountable and become more complacent", which means I'm skeptical about whether scaling nuclear energy generation is a good idea.
I tend to be in the camp of "nuclear power generation risks are extremely low when well-operated and maintained by responsible and effective governance".
Meanwhile I'm also in the camp of "governance and maintenance tend to degrade once systems are widespread enough that people begin to be less accountable and become more complacent", which means I'm skeptical about whether scaling nuclear energy generation is a good idea.
I wonder why they needed to borrow 1500 millions of euro just to make urgently a concrete tomb to enclose this kind of waste when we could just dump a few oil drums somewhere instead. Or just, ehem... dump it illegally in the sea for free.
Uh what? One's a disaster site, which needs expensive remediation. One's steady state generation of waste in a well-run reactor.
Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site.
Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes.
Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration of the waste, but then you have the eternal political problem of where to put that waste.
Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes.
Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration of the waste, but then you have the eternal political problem of where to put that waste.
Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because "where would we put the waste?"
The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010.
Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is relatively minuscule because of the sheer energy density of uranium as compared to the neodymium magnets used in wind generation. Nuclear power plants last 40+ years, while wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 or when damaged.
The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010.
Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is relatively minuscule because of the sheer energy density of uranium as compared to the neodymium magnets used in wind generation. Nuclear power plants last 40+ years, while wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 or when damaged.
There are research on extracting uranium from seawater instead of mining it [0].
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg
NIMBYism is everywhere, even for solar and wind. Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain.
Uranium mining often uses leeching techniques, similar concerns to fracking and groundwater contamination, along with general mining hazards.
Additionally rare-earth minerals are needed for a variety of things, even including components within a nuclear plant. I highly doubt a Nuclear plant could be built "rare earth metals free". Fuel rods also may contain a mix of rare earth metals. Rare-earth metal mining and refinement practices need to improve, but they will never go away.
Uranium mining often uses leeching techniques, similar concerns to fracking and groundwater contamination, along with general mining hazards.
Additionally rare-earth minerals are needed for a variety of things, even including components within a nuclear plant. I highly doubt a Nuclear plant could be built "rare earth metals free". Fuel rods also may contain a mix of rare earth metals. Rare-earth metal mining and refinement practices need to improve, but they will never go away.
> Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain.
Every type of energy plant has wastes. Even wind turbine blades wear out and are dumped in landfills.[0]
The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years...
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...
Every type of energy plant has wastes. Even wind turbine blades wear out and are dumped in landfills.[0]
The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years...
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...
But fiberglass is just silicon and hydrocarbons. The same stuff soil and sand is made of. It's not really a huge problem to bury them. There's also huge developments in fiberglass recycling/repurposing these days. Solving this issue will be extremely helpful as wind power is not the only use of fiberglass as I'm sure you know. In fact, wind power could be instrumental in setting up a supply-chain for recycling of fiberglass, since you get such huge quantities of uniform and clean fiberglass from one source.
> The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years...
This is just a ridiculously skewed perspective, and wrong - nuclear waste does not decay into nothing, though I suppose you didn't meant it very literally. And saying anything about what will happen to plastic composites over thousands of years is futile. We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient. Did you know that for a long time, trees did not decay? That's why we have coal. They were essentially like plastics. Bacteria and fungi didn't have the enzymes to break them down.
I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics. Evolution has more genetic material to draw from now, organism now spread across the globe faster, and humans can transfer genes between species and improve genes in the lab.
> The difference is that the nuclear waste eventually decays into nothing, while the fiberglass/plastic blades will stay around for thousands of years...
This is just a ridiculously skewed perspective, and wrong - nuclear waste does not decay into nothing, though I suppose you didn't meant it very literally. And saying anything about what will happen to plastic composites over thousands of years is futile. We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient. Did you know that for a long time, trees did not decay? That's why we have coal. They were essentially like plastics. Bacteria and fungi didn't have the enzymes to break them down.
I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics. Evolution has more genetic material to draw from now, organism now spread across the globe faster, and humans can transfer genes between species and improve genes in the lab.
>I'm willing to bet that it'll take way less time for life to develop the ability to break down plastics.
A double-edge sword if it does occur. While it could reduce or eliminate microplastics from the environment, it would also unleash a massive amount of currently-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.
Only way around that I can see is if we re-sequester all that plastic deep underground before it happens.
Sorry, a bit of a tangent I know, but it's been on my mind lately.
A double-edge sword if it does occur. While it could reduce or eliminate microplastics from the environment, it would also unleash a massive amount of currently-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.
Only way around that I can see is if we re-sequester all that plastic deep underground before it happens.
Sorry, a bit of a tangent I know, but it's been on my mind lately.
For balance, consider that nuclear waste is high-energy and can be recycled with modern approaches, also. Fast neutron breeder reactors produce orders of magnitude less waste to begin with, consuming almost all their input fuel, and breeder reactors can take as input nuclear waste also. [1,2,3]
> We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient.
Interestingly enough (and I'm not pointing to this as a solution by any means - just that it's pretty cool), we've found radiotrophic fungi at the elephant foot in Chernobyl. [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor
[3] https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf
[4] https://www.cnet.com/news/fungi-found-in-chernobyl-feeds-on-...
> We are already finding bacteria that break down plastic, and we've already accelerated that process by genetically modifying them to make the enzymes more efficient.
Interestingly enough (and I'm not pointing to this as a solution by any means - just that it's pretty cool), we've found radiotrophic fungi at the elephant foot in Chernobyl. [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor
[3] https://nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf
[4] https://www.cnet.com/news/fungi-found-in-chernobyl-feeds-on-...
> Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because "where would we put the waste?"
These need not be the same people! I generally doubt they are.
These need not be the same people! I generally doubt they are.
Yucca mountain a actually does exist. The tunnels have been bored out. It's just that congress blocked using the site. There wasn't much pushback, because this waste can be used as fuel for nuclear plants currently being built. Even if it were open it'd be a waste to put existing nuclear waste there at the moment.
Not all generators in wind turbines require permanent magnets (which are made from rare earths). In fact most generators in wind turbines in the US do not have rare earths. But it should be said that generators with rare earths are more efficient.
> https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
For some reason, the largest hydropower accident [1], 100 000 – 200 000 deaths, is always left out when calculating safety statistics for hydro. It would make hydro 100–200 more dangerous, by number of deaths.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
For some reason, the largest hydropower accident [1], 100 000 – 200 000 deaths, is always left out when calculating safety statistics for hydro. It would make hydro 100–200 more dangerous, by number of deaths.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
Would you think that the waste type from solar panels is comparable to the waste type from nuclear?
Why Renewables Aren't the Reason for California Blackouts: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/why-renew...
LCOE of various energy sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
https://neon.energy/Hirth-Ueckerdt-Edenhofer-2015-Integratio... suggests that wind energy has up to 50% higher "real" cost than typical LCOE measurements because of variability, however, this still puts the costs for nuclear (118-192) a lot higher than wind (28-54) and solar (32-42).
LCOE of various energy sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
https://neon.energy/Hirth-Ueckerdt-Edenhofer-2015-Integratio... suggests that wind energy has up to 50% higher "real" cost than typical LCOE measurements because of variability, however, this still puts the costs for nuclear (118-192) a lot higher than wind (28-54) and solar (32-42).
The National Geographic article attempts to make the point that the problems in CA aren’t fundamentally an issue with renewables.
CA’s specific mishandling of their push for a renewable-heavy power supply is the cause, but renewables aren’t inherently the cause.
This is technically true in a way, while denying the reality of the situation on the ground in CA.
CA’s specific mishandling of their push for a renewable-heavy power supply is the cause, but renewables aren’t inherently the cause.
This is technically true in a way, while denying the reality of the situation on the ground in CA.
A lack of forecasting and reliance upon energy imports that are not supported by long term contracts aren't problems that are intrinsically all that hard to fix either. It just requires a bit more competence in running the grid.
California has had a history of poor management of its electric grid (remember enron?). A wholesale switch to nuclear is a vastly expensive and not terribly effective fix for poor grid management.
California has had a history of poor management of its electric grid (remember enron?). A wholesale switch to nuclear is a vastly expensive and not terribly effective fix for poor grid management.
I remember that California pointed the finger at FERC and Enron. I remember that Enron played the regulations like a fiddle, shutting down plants do drive up spot prices.
I guess I don't know who is responsible for what exactly, and what California could have done better.
I guess I don't know who is responsible for what exactly, and what California could have done better.
Considering that Enron is gone and California still has blackouts, I guess the problem lays with the state?!
Wasn't half of the problem in CA due to unexpected natural gas plant power-downs? That was hardly renewable's fault.
I don't think the fundamentals of the technology are ever the most important aspect of the debate. What constrains us are human, political and market factors. That is why America has been slow to adopt renewables and why the nuclear industry has declined. That is why the US grid is in such a poor state.
Is the higher cost for nuclear related to the high regulation put in place? Are the low costs for solar and wind using subsidies and considering lifetime/replacement/disposal?
Don’t know. Actually asking.
Don’t know. Actually asking.
Partly. It's also just very expensive to build a nuclear plant.
It's also worth noting that cleanup costs in the case of a nuclear accident are capped by law at $200 million. Any costs above that are shouldered by the taxpayer. Cleanup costs for Fukushima are about ~$500 billion.
It's also worth noting that cleanup costs in the case of a nuclear accident are capped by law at $200 million. Any costs above that are shouldered by the taxpayer. Cleanup costs for Fukushima are about ~$500 billion.
Do you have a source for those $500 billions cleanup costs? I'm interested in what is included in order to reach this figure.
I put here the interesting paragraph of this article. The JCER report is also interesting to get the details of what this number includes over a 40 years plan [0].
"Completely cleaning up and taking apart the plant could take a generation or more, and comes with a hefty price tag. In 2016 the government increased its cost estimate to about $75.7 billion, part of the overall Fukushima disaster price tag of $202.5 billion. The Japan Center for Economic Research, a private think tank, said the cleanup costs could mount to some $470 billion to $660 billion, however."
0: https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/accident-cleanup-costs-rising...
"Completely cleaning up and taking apart the plant could take a generation or more, and comes with a hefty price tag. In 2016 the government increased its cost estimate to about $75.7 billion, part of the overall Fukushima disaster price tag of $202.5 billion. The Japan Center for Economic Research, a private think tank, said the cleanup costs could mount to some $470 billion to $660 billion, however."
0: https://www.jcer.or.jp/english/accident-cleanup-costs-rising...
And it takes a very long time. I’m not convinced at this point we have time to nuclear.
Some nuclear proponents say that regulation is the cause, but in my experience they aren't the proponents that have examined actual projects' economic failures in the past decade.
And even those who say that regulations are the reason for high prices don't seem to have any specific suggestions of how to change regulations, just a general "regulations are a problem" vibe, with the implicit suggestion of "get rid of all regulations" since no other change is offered.
But I would love to encounter somebody who says that regulations are the problem and also has ways to change them to allow more economic construction. Just hasn't ever happened despite tons of discussions with lots is people over the past five years I've been following nuclear closely.
And even those who say that regulations are the reason for high prices don't seem to have any specific suggestions of how to change regulations, just a general "regulations are a problem" vibe, with the implicit suggestion of "get rid of all regulations" since no other change is offered.
But I would love to encounter somebody who says that regulations are the problem and also has ways to change them to allow more economic construction. Just hasn't ever happened despite tons of discussions with lots is people over the past five years I've been following nuclear closely.
And to address the other half of your question, the lower costs for solar and wind take into account the lifetime of the generation, and it's usually measured by the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) which is roughly the lifetime cost divided by the lifetime energy output. This does not take into account the value of the time that energy is delivered, so LCOE is not directly comparable for renewables and dispatchable generation like natural gas (though a huge percentage of the new solar and wind deploys for the next 5 years are adding storage to convert them into dispatchable resources.)
As for the disposal costs, that's a fairy trivial problem. Solar panel recycling has not really started because there's not many dead panels to recycle; lifetimes are tending to be longer than expected. However as there is a larger source of retired solar panels, those attempting to recycle them will get a better feel for the costs of construction of new panels from raw materials versus recycled magerials.
As for the disposal costs, that's a fairy trivial problem. Solar panel recycling has not really started because there's not many dead panels to recycle; lifetimes are tending to be longer than expected. However as there is a larger source of retired solar panels, those attempting to recycle them will get a better feel for the costs of construction of new panels from raw materials versus recycled magerials.
The issue with renewables isn't recycling, it's storage. Solar generates electricity in a sine wave. Half the day it's generating no electricity. Wind doesn't follow a sine wave, but has the potential to generate lower levels of power for long stretches of time. Wind is consistent on a yearly basis, but variable on a weekly basis.
That's a pretty big shift of the initial question, but it's an important shift!
If you look in the "most free" markets for energy in the US, where there is the most possibility for independent companies to come in and provide generation and other energy resources, we are looking at ERCOT in Texas and PJM in the north.
In these free markets, we are seeing huuuge amounts of storage resources in the interconnection pipeline over the next few years [1].
So where indecent investors are allowed to participate in energy, we are seeing massive influx of capital to build storage, from people that are profit-seeking. Meaning storage, at least this first chunk of it, is already likely to be economically efficient.
That said, when we talk about renewables, wind and solar are largely uncorrelated, and where we have good wind resources we tend to get good wind at night.
And when you look at load on grids, such as Texas' independent ERCOT grid, you see a sinusoidal pattern too [2]. And for ERCOT, with a sinusoidal amplitude of about 20GW, by sheer coincidence there are about 17GW of storage projects in the pipeline. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't include the solar projects that have storage directly on them, which is happening with a huge chunk of solar projects. And though Texas has been good at building wind resources, they have left their solar mostly untapped up until now. So as they start to deploy solar, they are going to get a ton of storage deployed with that too.
The challenge is not longer the technology or the costs, the future challenges will be entirely about regulation, and whether entrenched interests will use regulatory capture to prevent new entrants that can supply cheaper low carbon energy to consumers and industry.
[1] https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/
[2] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualCu...
If you look in the "most free" markets for energy in the US, where there is the most possibility for independent companies to come in and provide generation and other energy resources, we are looking at ERCOT in Texas and PJM in the north.
In these free markets, we are seeing huuuge amounts of storage resources in the interconnection pipeline over the next few years [1].
So where indecent investors are allowed to participate in energy, we are seeing massive influx of capital to build storage, from people that are profit-seeking. Meaning storage, at least this first chunk of it, is already likely to be economically efficient.
That said, when we talk about renewables, wind and solar are largely uncorrelated, and where we have good wind resources we tend to get good wind at night.
And when you look at load on grids, such as Texas' independent ERCOT grid, you see a sinusoidal pattern too [2]. And for ERCOT, with a sinusoidal amplitude of about 20GW, by sheer coincidence there are about 17GW of storage projects in the pipeline. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't include the solar projects that have storage directly on them, which is happening with a huge chunk of solar projects. And though Texas has been good at building wind resources, they have left their solar mostly untapped up until now. So as they start to deploy solar, they are going to get a ton of storage deployed with that too.
The challenge is not longer the technology or the costs, the future challenges will be entirely about regulation, and whether entrenched interests will use regulatory capture to prevent new entrants that can supply cheaper low carbon energy to consumers and industry.
[1] https://rmi.org/clean-energy-is-canceling-gas-plants/
[2] http://www.ercot.com/content/cdr/html/loadForecastVsActualCu...
What do you mean by 17GW of storage in the pipeline? I'm not seeing this in your sources. Watts isn't a measurement of storage, storage is measured in watt-hours.
To put the mismatch between available storage and required storage in perspective, the US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily on average. We have ~25GWh of storage currently. Most of that is in hydroelectric storage, which is geographically limited. Less than a gigawatt is in battery storage. This works out to a few minutes of storage - and a matter of seconds of battery storage.
To put the mismatch between available storage and required storage in perspective, the US consumes 11.5TWh of electricity daily on average. We have ~25GWh of storage currently. Most of that is in hydroelectric storage, which is geographically limited. Less than a gigawatt is in battery storage. This works out to a few minutes of storage - and a matter of seconds of battery storage.
ERCOT puts their panning pipeline out in the open; I'm relying on an ERCOT expert that said this as a summary of the August 2020 XLS raw data [1]. About 950 MW is as far along to have an interconnection agreement.
Grids think of energy sources primarily in terms of power, not in terms of energy, so that's the number that gets reported to ERCOT. Grid ops dispatch W, not Wh. We may never know the exact GWh for these planned projects, but since it's likely nearly all lithium ion tech, we can expect 1-4 GWh per GW for each project, and probably an average between 2-3GWh/GW overall.
Going from less than a GWh storage currently in the entire US, to probably 20x that planned for Texas alone in the near future shows just how scalable battery tech is and how quickly it is advancing. This switch is unprecedented, and is going to catch a ton of energy folks by complete surprise. People aren't used to things changing so quickly when it comes to electrical grids. The next decade is going to be a wild ride and I can't wait to see the grid drop carbon-based generation faster than nearly anyone is imagining. Next, we need to decarbonize industry.
[1] http://mis.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?mimic_...
PS: I originally replied to a "manfredo" and your username is "Manfredo_", which seems like a remarkable coincidence. Given the prevalence of paid astroturfing on these subjects, it would be good to clarify if this is just a coincidence, or if you have two accounts, or what else might be going on! Given our past discussions I'm sure your an honest commentator but it would probably help people that don't recognize your username.
Grids think of energy sources primarily in terms of power, not in terms of energy, so that's the number that gets reported to ERCOT. Grid ops dispatch W, not Wh. We may never know the exact GWh for these planned projects, but since it's likely nearly all lithium ion tech, we can expect 1-4 GWh per GW for each project, and probably an average between 2-3GWh/GW overall.
Going from less than a GWh storage currently in the entire US, to probably 20x that planned for Texas alone in the near future shows just how scalable battery tech is and how quickly it is advancing. This switch is unprecedented, and is going to catch a ton of energy folks by complete surprise. People aren't used to things changing so quickly when it comes to electrical grids. The next decade is going to be a wild ride and I can't wait to see the grid drop carbon-based generation faster than nearly anyone is imagining. Next, we need to decarbonize industry.
[1] http://mis.ercot.com/misdownload/servlets/mirDownload?mimic_...
PS: I originally replied to a "manfredo" and your username is "Manfredo_", which seems like a remarkable coincidence. Given the prevalence of paid astroturfing on these subjects, it would be good to clarify if this is just a coincidence, or if you have two accounts, or what else might be going on! Given our past discussions I'm sure your an honest commentator but it would probably help people that don't recognize your username.
4 hours of 17 Gigwatts would represent 20% of the ~300 GWh global lithium ion battery production [1]. That's a massive storage plant, and such a plant would represent an order of magnitude increase in battery storage. But consider the fact that the US consumes 11.5 TWh of electricity daily. Plans for an economy powered by wind and solar call for anything from 12 hours to 3 weeks of storage depending on how much overproduction we're building.
Manfredo_1 was the account I created on mobile, responding to a comment I made on desktop (password manager, so no way to log in on mobile). Everyone so far seems to have inferred continuity from the name similarity, but if it's a cause for confusion, I've imported my password to mobile.
1. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
Manfredo_1 was the account I created on mobile, responding to a comment I made on desktop (password manager, so no way to log in on mobile). Everyone so far seems to have inferred continuity from the name similarity, but if it's a cause for confusion, I've imported my password to mobile.
1. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...
It's not a single plant, and it's not all going to be installed in a year; these are the interconnection plans for all sorts of much smaller projects.
We are only at the infancy of lithium ion production, I'm actually surprised that we are at 300GWh. With this very limited capacity, and typical grid storage batteries being warranties for around 15 years, our current production supports a global deployment of 4.5TWh of storage. We are at 9 hours of global storage, and we haven't even really started scaling battery production.
I know you didn't put a label on these numbers, as being big or small, but we are on track to solve this problem with battery storage, it seems!
We are only at the infancy of lithium ion production, I'm actually surprised that we are at 300GWh. With this very limited capacity, and typical grid storage batteries being warranties for around 15 years, our current production supports a global deployment of 4.5TWh of storage. We are at 9 hours of global storage, and we haven't even really started scaling battery production.
I know you didn't put a label on these numbers, as being big or small, but we are on track to solve this problem with battery storage, it seems!
If your takeaway is that we're on track to solve energy storage with lithium ion batteries, then you have severely misinterpreted the situation.
Remember 300 GWh is global battery production. 4.5 TWh is 9 hours of storage for just the United States. Furthermore, actually using this quantity of batteries would entail ceasing the use of lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles and electronics - not a realistic option. Furthermore batteries only last a few hundred to a thousand cycles, depending on depth of discharge. These batteries need to be replaced every 3-5 years if they're being used for diurnal use (cycled 365 times a year), not 15. If you produce 300 GWh of batter every year and hook it up to the grid you'll only reach 0.9 or 1.5TWh of battery storage - the first batteries you add will have worn out before 15 years. This can be extended if you reduce depth of discharge. But that entails building an over-capacity of storage. E.g. if you're only withdrawing or storing half the energy you can increase the lifespan, but then you need to build 2 TWh for every 1 TWh of actual storage that can be used.
Global daily energy consumption is 60TWh. If we want to provide 12 hours of storage then this amounts to 30 TWh. If this is cycled daily, a battery with a life of 2,000 cycles (which is very, very good) then we'd need to be contributing 5.5 TWh of batteries to grid storage every year. Most lithium ion battery production is expected to be dedicated to electric vehicles, with grid storage making up only ~10% of produced lithium ion batteries [1].
And 12 hours of storage is likely only enough to get us to ~80% renewables. 100% renewables is estimated to require 3 weeks of storage [2].
We're not anywhere close to solving grid storage with lithium ion batteries, even if we assume its exponential growth will be sustained.
1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production
2. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...
Remember 300 GWh is global battery production. 4.5 TWh is 9 hours of storage for just the United States. Furthermore, actually using this quantity of batteries would entail ceasing the use of lithium ion batteries for electric vehicles and electronics - not a realistic option. Furthermore batteries only last a few hundred to a thousand cycles, depending on depth of discharge. These batteries need to be replaced every 3-5 years if they're being used for diurnal use (cycled 365 times a year), not 15. If you produce 300 GWh of batter every year and hook it up to the grid you'll only reach 0.9 or 1.5TWh of battery storage - the first batteries you add will have worn out before 15 years. This can be extended if you reduce depth of discharge. But that entails building an over-capacity of storage. E.g. if you're only withdrawing or storing half the energy you can increase the lifespan, but then you need to build 2 TWh for every 1 TWh of actual storage that can be used.
Global daily energy consumption is 60TWh. If we want to provide 12 hours of storage then this amounts to 30 TWh. If this is cycled daily, a battery with a life of 2,000 cycles (which is very, very good) then we'd need to be contributing 5.5 TWh of batteries to grid storage every year. Most lithium ion battery production is expected to be dedicated to electric vehicles, with grid storage making up only ~10% of produced lithium ion batteries [1].
And 12 hours of storage is likely only enough to get us to ~80% renewables. 100% renewables is estimated to require 3 weeks of storage [2].
We're not anywhere close to solving grid storage with lithium ion batteries, even if we assume its exponential growth will be sustained.
1. https://energycentral.com/c/ec/world-battery-production
2. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...
Existing storage lithium ion batteries have a minimum of 10 year warranties [1,2], and the Tesla Hornsdale battery has a fifteen year warranty. [3] it’s not as though the batteries suddenly stop working then, they just have less capacity. So 3-5 years of equipment life is not a realistic estimate.
Putting 12 hours of battery storage right next to 3 weeks just makes the 12 hours look suspect too. 3 weeks is just crazy numbers from people that haven’t studied the problem much. Most zero carbon grid modeling selects far far less than 12 hours of battery storage.
But even if we stick with that 12 hours of world energy of batteries, 60 TWh is only 5x more than the 12 TWh of US energy. I apologize for misinterpreting your stats and being off by 5 in the comparison of numbers, but a 5x or 10x or even 100x growth is well within the range of sustained exponential growth.
As grid storage plus solar becomes cheaper than natural gas, we will hit an inflection point that will drive massive expansion of battery storage production capacity, even beyond what is currently being built for EVs.
Will there be a massive interchange of technologies and production capacities. Yes, it will be huge, so from one perspective we are a long ways away from our target, but from the perspective of our current trajectory and from the perspective of what is currently being planned just for EVs, an entire industry is being built. It will take a little while for energy guys to wake up to this new reality because they are a slow changing industry, but they will be brought along for the ride whether they know it now or not. There’s a good reason that NextEra surpassed the market cap of Exxon recently, as the market is finally waking up to the new reality too.
[1] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/inside-construction-of-the-...
[2] https://www.tesla.com/powerwall
[3] https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/faqs/
Putting 12 hours of battery storage right next to 3 weeks just makes the 12 hours look suspect too. 3 weeks is just crazy numbers from people that haven’t studied the problem much. Most zero carbon grid modeling selects far far less than 12 hours of battery storage.
But even if we stick with that 12 hours of world energy of batteries, 60 TWh is only 5x more than the 12 TWh of US energy. I apologize for misinterpreting your stats and being off by 5 in the comparison of numbers, but a 5x or 10x or even 100x growth is well within the range of sustained exponential growth.
As grid storage plus solar becomes cheaper than natural gas, we will hit an inflection point that will drive massive expansion of battery storage production capacity, even beyond what is currently being built for EVs.
Will there be a massive interchange of technologies and production capacities. Yes, it will be huge, so from one perspective we are a long ways away from our target, but from the perspective of our current trajectory and from the perspective of what is currently being planned just for EVs, an entire industry is being built. It will take a little while for energy guys to wake up to this new reality because they are a slow changing industry, but they will be brought along for the ride whether they know it now or not. There’s a good reason that NextEra surpassed the market cap of Exxon recently, as the market is finally waking up to the new reality too.
[1] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/inside-construction-of-the-...
[2] https://www.tesla.com/powerwall
[3] https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/faqs/
[deleted]
Storage can be measured in watts as well as watt-hours. Doesn't help to have a 1TWh of storage if the output is limited to 1W. You need both. Not sure what the parent post was actually referring to though.
But watts IS actually important for balancing renewables. The storage is not so much about storing energy across days, as it is about frequency regulation. An interesting thing is - you'd think hydropower would be perfect for balancing renewables, but it's actually not on its own. You really don't want to ramp power up and down every second. It wears out the hydro power plant faster. Faster changes in pressure results in more wear and tear. So counter-intuitively, you're seeing some considering putting battery-storage in hydro power plants.
> Less than a gigawatt is in battery storage
It's funny how often numbers like this are presented with the intention of making renewables/storage look bad, when they're often incredibly impressive when you consider the context. The fact that battery storage has come this far, and most of it in only the last few years, is very impressive to me. The growth is exponential, so the fact that it's almost the same order of magnitude is promising.
> This works out to a few minutes of storage - and a matter of seconds of battery storage.
I don't think the whole country needs more than a day of total short-term storage. Especially if you combine it with more HVDC power lines. So doesn't seem that bad to me. Still a looong way from reaching the goal, but no solution is going to be complete in less then two decades.
For long term storage there needs to be other solutions. For those rare days/weeks where there's somehow significantly less solar and wind for a longer period over a larger area.. it might be a good idea to just keep some gas power plants around. If you only use them a few times a year, I think we can make enough CO2-neutral fuels for them.
For winter months in colder climates, you can also look to countries like Sweden. Make trash burning power plants that use its heat to heat nearby homes. Very efficient, and you can "store" power by storing trash. Southern areas can "transfer" power to the north by sending its trash there. Modern plants are incredibly clean burning. In Oslo they also have a demonstration that combines it with CO2 capture and storage.
But watts IS actually important for balancing renewables. The storage is not so much about storing energy across days, as it is about frequency regulation. An interesting thing is - you'd think hydropower would be perfect for balancing renewables, but it's actually not on its own. You really don't want to ramp power up and down every second. It wears out the hydro power plant faster. Faster changes in pressure results in more wear and tear. So counter-intuitively, you're seeing some considering putting battery-storage in hydro power plants.
> Less than a gigawatt is in battery storage
It's funny how often numbers like this are presented with the intention of making renewables/storage look bad, when they're often incredibly impressive when you consider the context. The fact that battery storage has come this far, and most of it in only the last few years, is very impressive to me. The growth is exponential, so the fact that it's almost the same order of magnitude is promising.
> This works out to a few minutes of storage - and a matter of seconds of battery storage.
I don't think the whole country needs more than a day of total short-term storage. Especially if you combine it with more HVDC power lines. So doesn't seem that bad to me. Still a looong way from reaching the goal, but no solution is going to be complete in less then two decades.
For long term storage there needs to be other solutions. For those rare days/weeks where there's somehow significantly less solar and wind for a longer period over a larger area.. it might be a good idea to just keep some gas power plants around. If you only use them a few times a year, I think we can make enough CO2-neutral fuels for them.
For winter months in colder climates, you can also look to countries like Sweden. Make trash burning power plants that use its heat to heat nearby homes. Very efficient, and you can "store" power by storing trash. Southern areas can "transfer" power to the north by sending its trash there. Modern plants are incredibly clean burning. In Oslo they also have a demonstration that combines it with CO2 capture and storage.
You can't compare nuclear and wind/solar, how are you going to power the lights at night when there is a no wind ?
[deleted]
With energy from wind farms 1000 km away, hydro and biofuels closer by, and nearby storage. At the beginning, you'll probably also have a small amount of "dirty" generation as backup, but which sits idle most of the time.
> biofuels
"Allocating 10% of arable land to biofuels would allow a net production of something like 4% of the present consumption of oil products."
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/could-...
>hydro
"Increasing the hydro production from 10% (present value) of the electricity generated to 80% seems clearly impossible, and even a multiplication by 2 might be out of reach. "
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/hydroe...
> nearby storage
"If all the electricity production in France was wind generated, storage in batteries would probably be impossible to ensure: to store one week of electricity consumption (which is over1 TWh per day for the whole country), the country should have 7 tons of lead-acid batteries (these batteries can store 30 Wh per kg) per French person (lead-acid batteries are not precisely perfectly “clean” regarding the environmental impact of their manufacturing and their end of life…)."
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/how-ma...
>farms 1000km away
"[to support france 100% of production with wind] we should “plant” a surface of that is roughly 5% of the country"
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/how-ma...
if you have dirty generation then you solve the problem half of the time
I will stop here because anyway people are not interested about the truth
"Allocating 10% of arable land to biofuels would allow a net production of something like 4% of the present consumption of oil products."
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/could-...
>hydro
"Increasing the hydro production from 10% (present value) of the electricity generated to 80% seems clearly impossible, and even a multiplication by 2 might be out of reach. "
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/hydroe...
> nearby storage
"If all the electricity production in France was wind generated, storage in batteries would probably be impossible to ensure: to store one week of electricity consumption (which is over1 TWh per day for the whole country), the country should have 7 tons of lead-acid batteries (these batteries can store 30 Wh per kg) per French person (lead-acid batteries are not precisely perfectly “clean” regarding the environmental impact of their manufacturing and their end of life…)."
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/how-ma...
>farms 1000km away
"[to support france 100% of production with wind] we should “plant” a surface of that is roughly 5% of the country"
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/how-ma...
if you have dirty generation then you solve the problem half of the time
I will stop here because anyway people are not interested about the truth
If you seek the truth, diversify your sources and don't take article from 2013 or even 2000 when talking about energy and grid.
For wind power he is taking the example of a wind turbine of 175 kW of nominal power... Most onshore turbine are 10 more powerful, and Siemens Gamesa has a 14 MW offshore turbine in the works
For storage, he is taking totally stupid hypothesis (nobody want to use 100% onshore old wind turbine with no change to the current demand and 1 week of total backup), and one old technology, and is never mentioning demand response or thermal storage...
A 100% renewable grid, would require big (profitable) energy efficiency investment, big investment in thermal storage and demand response, some onshore wind, some offshore wind, some solar facing different direction, some biomass, a bit of geothermal power when available, and hydro power like now... Some smart grid and a bit of electrical storage (many different technology available).
For wind power he is taking the example of a wind turbine of 175 kW of nominal power... Most onshore turbine are 10 more powerful, and Siemens Gamesa has a 14 MW offshore turbine in the works
For storage, he is taking totally stupid hypothesis (nobody want to use 100% onshore old wind turbine with no change to the current demand and 1 week of total backup), and one old technology, and is never mentioning demand response or thermal storage...
A 100% renewable grid, would require big (profitable) energy efficiency investment, big investment in thermal storage and demand response, some onshore wind, some offshore wind, some solar facing different direction, some biomass, a bit of geothermal power when available, and hydro power like now... Some smart grid and a bit of electrical storage (many different technology available).
Hydro would essentially be used as a battery, not to produce most of the power. You can generate hydro power when there's a lull in the wind or on a cloudy day.
I'm really talking about biomass, and I mention it because it's more dispatchable, meaning that it can be used to smooth some of the fluctuations in wind and solar.
There are better technologies than lead-acid batteries. Thermal salt storage and flow batteries are two interesting options. Thermal salt storage has already been used in conjunction with solar thermal energy, but it could be used with any generation source. There are some ongoing large flow battery demonstration projects, such as an 800 MWh / 200 MW battery being built in Dalian, China.
5% of the surface of the country isn't so bad. But wind is stronger and steadier offshore, so it's better to line the coastline with wind farms.
I'm really talking about biomass, and I mention it because it's more dispatchable, meaning that it can be used to smooth some of the fluctuations in wind and solar.
There are better technologies than lead-acid batteries. Thermal salt storage and flow batteries are two interesting options. Thermal salt storage has already been used in conjunction with solar thermal energy, but it could be used with any generation source. There are some ongoing large flow battery demonstration projects, such as an 800 MWh / 200 MW battery being built in Dalian, China.
5% of the surface of the country isn't so bad. But wind is stronger and steadier offshore, so it's better to line the coastline with wind farms.
In addition to other points made, I wanted to add, at the altitude large turbines reach, there is almost always wind, around the clock.
This is not the case, wind is not enough, the production depends on the strength of the wind
"In particular the occurrences of wind blowing below à 8 m/s (4 Beaufort, blue line) are far from being negligible, and that winds of 7 Beaufort or over, which are necessary to get the full power of the above wind turbine, blows much less than 50% of the time."
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/how-ma...
"In particular the occurrences of wind blowing below à 8 m/s (4 Beaufort, blue line) are far from being negligible, and that winds of 7 Beaufort or over, which are necessary to get the full power of the above wind turbine, blows much less than 50% of the time."
https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/renewables/how-ma...
Why must you get the "full power" of the turbine? You asked about keeping the lights on at night- when demand is lowest.
Your reference is a totally outdated article, with outdated facts (even if of course you need a minimum speed of wind to get full power... but we don't rally care about full power)
If we're going to do nuclear there are better arguments needed. This is not an honest evaluation
> nuclear waste isn’t a glowing toxic ooze
That's irrelevant, whether true or false waste has to be handled. So far it's not been done well, and language like that is appeal to emotion, not facts.
The comment of 300 times waste from solar panels than nuclear doesn't reflect the different waste types.
I'm not actually against nuclear intrinsically but pieces like this are not honest nor therefore, useless.
> nuclear waste isn’t a glowing toxic ooze
That's irrelevant, whether true or false waste has to be handled. So far it's not been done well, and language like that is appeal to emotion, not facts.
The comment of 300 times waste from solar panels than nuclear doesn't reflect the different waste types.
I'm not actually against nuclear intrinsically but pieces like this are not honest nor therefore, useless.
I agree, but why set up a false dichotomy? Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal", which shouldn't just be about energy, but pragmatic environmentalism in all fields.
My impression is that the GND is focused on jobs, social programs, and justice issues, which is great, just not environmentalism per se.
It might be more effective to expand E. O. Wilson's efforts on biodiversity to include energy policy than to try to have the GND encompass absolutely everything that's happening at the moment.
It might be more effective to expand E. O. Wilson's efforts on biodiversity to include energy policy than to try to have the GND encompass absolutely everything that's happening at the moment.
When I looked at a semi-detailed analysis of one version of the GND, $14T was for the green part and $2T was for the new deal part. I think of it as a small bribe to get more politicians on board.
I'd be curious to see that. I was only reading the text.
It might have been https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221462962... which shows the line items.
I've seen that one, and it does the illustrate economics supporting a premise that leveraging "synergies between the goals of reducing CO2 emissions substantially and quickly and tackling income and wealth inequality" could be at least feasible. I'm not sure that it supports the cost ratio you quoted however.
I always say this whenever nuclear conversations come up:
> It isn't nuclear vs renewables, it is nuclear + renewables vs renewables. You use the best technology for the local environment and situations. Why take something off the table?
Seems like the author is buying into the common false dichotomy because it is more sensational.
> It isn't nuclear vs renewables, it is nuclear + renewables vs renewables. You use the best technology for the local environment and situations. Why take something off the table?
Seems like the author is buying into the common false dichotomy because it is more sensational.
It largely is a dichotomy, because nuclear power largely makes wind and solar redundant. Peak energy demand occurs right around or after sundown. If we're going to fulfill this demand with nuclear, then we could just run the nuclear plants all day long and build no solar or wind.
Solar and wind are a good complement to natural gas. We can dial back the gas when the intermittent sources of energy are producing. This both saves carbon and money, since fuel is a substantial portion of a gas plant', operating cost.
By comparison, a nuclear plant costs just as much to run at maximum capacity all day long as it does at partial capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to full peak demand, which coincides with the trough of renewables' generation, then just run the plants at full capacity all day and skip building renewables.
Solar and wind are a good complement to natural gas. We can dial back the gas when the intermittent sources of energy are producing. This both saves carbon and money, since fuel is a substantial portion of a gas plant', operating cost.
By comparison, a nuclear plant costs just as much to run at maximum capacity all day long as it does at partial capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to full peak demand, which coincides with the trough of renewables' generation, then just run the plants at full capacity all day and skip building renewables.
Except this isn't true. We've always had and will continue to have a diversified portfolio of energy sources because the cost of production changes depending on your environment. There's this bad idea flowing around that prices are consistent. Some places nuclear is better. Some places wind is. Some places solar is. It is also good to not be solely dependent upon a single instance because of security issues (one of many reasons France is targeting a 50% nuclear power generation).
You can't use averages and apply it to extremes. The world isn't homogeneous.
You can't use averages and apply it to extremes. The world isn't homogeneous.
Only, not. The author never sets up any dichotomy at all, nor does he suggest the elimination of renewables. He merely suggests that nuclear have a higher priority, for reasons he then goes on to explain:
"That is why any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize nuclear above all other energy sources is destined to exacerbate climate problems rather than solve them. "
"That is why any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize nuclear above all other energy sources is destined to exacerbate climate problems rather than solve them. "
If only the author didn't use such an inflammatory title. Why don't we need a Green New Deal (+ Nuclear)?
A "Nuclear New Deal" is a myopic approach to a systems wide catastrophe which includes pollution, waste, emissions, food production, energy production, supply chains, etc. and more.
A "Nuclear New Deal" is a myopic approach to a systems wide catastrophe which includes pollution, waste, emissions, food production, energy production, supply chains, etc. and more.
[deleted]
It's not a false dichotomy. Beyond a certain level of renewable penetration, nuclear's business case degrades, as the price of power is depressed too often for the NPPs to earn their keep. Nuclear and renewables are both inflexible sources, in their own ways, and they both use up the grid's capacity to deal with inflexible sources.
False dichotomies generate controversy and get more clicks!
They're pretty good for getting votes at the ballot box too.
It's been my observation that the tenets of many political ideologies are predicated on false dichotomies. Or even out and out falsehoods.
It's been my observation that the tenets of many political ideologies are predicated on false dichotomies. Or even out and out falsehoods.
I wonder how many clicks an article could get with a title like: "Alex Jones Denounces Satanic 'Green New Deal', Scientists Propose Nuclear Energy Alternative".
Greenpeace is actively opposed to nuclear. And then you have articles like https://www.citizen.org/article/nuclear-power-is-not-clean-o...
Why even use the term "green" when you can say "low emissions"? That is harder to disagree about.
Why even use the term "green" when you can say "low emissions"? That is harder to disagree about.
> Nuclear energy should be part of a "Green New Deal"
If Biden’s energy plan is the green new deal, then it already is...
As a political football of a marketing term, people are never going to agree on what composes it.
But it seems that nuclear has become practically mainstream as part of green energy plans. Not that there isn’t plenty of residual resistance from “green” groups with historical objections to nuclear.
Hopefully every group that actually cares about climate change will take a fresh, objective look, to see if they can’t get aboard after all.
If Biden’s energy plan is the green new deal, then it already is...
As a political football of a marketing term, people are never going to agree on what composes it.
But it seems that nuclear has become practically mainstream as part of green energy plans. Not that there isn’t plenty of residual resistance from “green” groups with historical objections to nuclear.
Hopefully every group that actually cares about climate change will take a fresh, objective look, to see if they can’t get aboard after all.
It seems very unlikely to me that there will ever be sufficient desire for fission based power in most countries, no matter how safe scientists say it is. I still think nuclear power will be important.
It seems plausible that governments will continue to fund research into fusion power but I am doubtful that much more money could be raised than was raised for ITER, especially as the results from ITER will not be particularly exciting. Therefore I don’t think fusion would be cost effective with ITER level technology (the way to make fusion generate power more efficiently without changing the underlying technology is to make it bigger which makes it much more expensive (I think cost scales roughly as the fourth power of the diameter)). Therefore improvements in technology would be required. A fundamental technology in this case is the quality of the superconductors (one aspect in particular is that some superconductors become less effective in high magnetic fields but the whole reason they are used is to generate very strong magnetic fields).
Perhaps if more funding had gone into fusion over time, it would have gone into the more fundamental research into things like new superconductors specific for fusion (ie focusing on things like achieving high field strength more than cost). Fortunately other funding has gone into superconductor research and cheaper superconductors mean fusion research may also become cheaper (and better superconductors mean smaller reactors which are much cheaper).
It still feels like more funding would be better: projects could complete faster and iterate more, but it doesn’t feel absolutely hopeless to me. If all our hopes rested on ITER, I think it would be time for despair.
Despite the slow progress on fusion it still feels more likely to me than the green new deal.
It seems plausible that governments will continue to fund research into fusion power but I am doubtful that much more money could be raised than was raised for ITER, especially as the results from ITER will not be particularly exciting. Therefore I don’t think fusion would be cost effective with ITER level technology (the way to make fusion generate power more efficiently without changing the underlying technology is to make it bigger which makes it much more expensive (I think cost scales roughly as the fourth power of the diameter)). Therefore improvements in technology would be required. A fundamental technology in this case is the quality of the superconductors (one aspect in particular is that some superconductors become less effective in high magnetic fields but the whole reason they are used is to generate very strong magnetic fields).
Perhaps if more funding had gone into fusion over time, it would have gone into the more fundamental research into things like new superconductors specific for fusion (ie focusing on things like achieving high field strength more than cost). Fortunately other funding has gone into superconductor research and cheaper superconductors mean fusion research may also become cheaper (and better superconductors mean smaller reactors which are much cheaper).
It still feels like more funding would be better: projects could complete faster and iterate more, but it doesn’t feel absolutely hopeless to me. If all our hopes rested on ITER, I think it would be time for despair.
Despite the slow progress on fusion it still feels more likely to me than the green new deal.
>the way to make fusion generate power more efficiently without changing the underlying technology is to make it bigger
Actually there was a front page item on here a couple of weeks ago showing that there's a new superconductor that can generate a stronger magnetic field, which will allow new, much smaller fusion reactors. So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology.
Having said that, with fusion, it looks like every time they have a breakthrough, they find a new limiting factor when then takes billions to overcome, rinse and repeat.
It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught. In theory with these Lithium neutron blankets you can even create your own fuel (Assuming Deuterim-Tritium reaction) but the hurdles are still insanely high to get something that's actually practical.
Also, I believe fission and fusion can be synergistic in that you can have a fission reactor that not only produces energy, but it produces some of the fuel for the fusion.
Actually there was a front page item on here a couple of weeks ago showing that there's a new superconductor that can generate a stronger magnetic field, which will allow new, much smaller fusion reactors. So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology.
Having said that, with fusion, it looks like every time they have a breakthrough, they find a new limiting factor when then takes billions to overcome, rinse and repeat.
It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught. In theory with these Lithium neutron blankets you can even create your own fuel (Assuming Deuterim-Tritium reaction) but the hurdles are still insanely high to get something that's actually practical.
Also, I believe fission and fusion can be synergistic in that you can have a fission reactor that not only produces energy, but it produces some of the fuel for the fusion.
>So according to the guy from MIT who gave the talk, ITER is already obsolete technology.
>It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught.
He also said that fusion has a funding issue, not a science or engineering issue. Also- being able to make them smaller mostly solves the funding issue.
>It's amazing in theory but we have yet to achieve a fusion reaction that is energy positive and the path to that is still fraught.
He also said that fusion has a funding issue, not a science or engineering issue. Also- being able to make them smaller mostly solves the funding issue.
Yes, it removes ONE funding obstacle because as the OP I replied to says cost increased with the 4th power of the size, but that just means you move to the next limiting factor: the neutron blanket, designing to be able to swap out the shielding, etc.
We are still VERY far away from practical fusion. The fact that we know what the current limiting factors are doesn't mean that once we overcome those hurdles that we'll have a practical solution.
We are still VERY far away from practical fusion. The fact that we know what the current limiting factors are doesn't mean that once we overcome those hurdles that we'll have a practical solution.
I wonder if that General Fusion design has any benefit here? It’s basically a swirling sphere of molten lead that is injected with a bubble of hydrogen plasma and then a bunch of pistons pump the volume down to collapse the bubble to create fusion conditions.
It seems that that the lead might provide neutron shielding and is also the carrier fluid for the excess heat. Who knows if it actually works but the simplicity of the design seems pretty elegant.
It seems that that the lead might provide neutron shielding and is also the carrier fluid for the excess heat. Who knows if it actually works but the simplicity of the design seems pretty elegant.
I don't think GF has a realistic chance of making a workable reactor. They've already given up on the acoustic compression scheme, and the slow compression scheme they are now following has a metal post down the middle of the chamber, unshielded from average neutron fluxes that will, at the center, be orders of magnitude higher than in more conventional reactors.
That’s a bummer, I always liked the idea, sort of like collapsing cavitation bubbles. Lots of energy focused on a very small spot. I could never sort out how the plasma injection would work without some kind of physical tube placing it in the center... guess it didn’t lol.
Fusion is great and important and if society can afford it they should continue to fund it. However, if the goal is slowing damage to the environment in the next 80 years then fusion shouldn’t be seriously considered. Fusion is the answer to what humanity does to make large amounts of electrical power not from fossil fuels when renewables stop scaling for baseline loads. Humanity will benefit from it, but the window for it to be the technology to keep the planet habitable has passed.
In the end all of us will move to nuclear. Maybe this a necessary dance we have to do to make everyone open to nuclear. I just the hope the whole cycle is accelerated by todays connected world.
There was an article posted on HN a while back, “Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs”. Not sure if the information is now dated, but I always think about it when I see articles like these.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm...
Whenever I see articles like this I wonder why few people realize the strawman being put up. Having a single energy source for all your needs is pretty dumb. We've always had a diversified portfolio and the reasons for such aren't going away anytime soon.
This article makes some good points but forgets this:
our knowledge increases constantly.
So today's reactors might not be able to scale well, but the more we build the better we are at it.
So today's reactors might not be able to scale well, but the more we build the better we are at it.
Absolutely. Our knowledge nuclear energy production would have increased more if “environmentalists” hadn’t thrown a hissy fit over gen 2 reactor problems in the 70s.
Its 2020, and I am still breathing in exhaust of a pollution from energy production, as a direct result of their foolishness.
Its 2020, and I am still breathing in exhaust of a pollution from energy production, as a direct result of their foolishness.
That's a good counter for some of the points, although there's limits to how much you can count on it.
It's less comforting for others, like the limited amount of uranium available and diminishing returns on how to get it.
It's less comforting for others, like the limited amount of uranium available and diminishing returns on how to get it.
Uranium seawater extraction vastly increases the accessible amount of uranium: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
It's about an order of magnitude more expensive than mining uranium. But the cost of fuel extraction is negligible in the context of the rest of nuclear's cost.
It's about an order of magnitude more expensive than mining uranium. But the cost of fuel extraction is negligible in the context of the rest of nuclear's cost.
The author of the article linked in the top-level comment mentioned seawater extraction:
"as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years."
"as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years."
Read further in the article:
> However, seawater concentrations of uranium are controlled by steady-state, or pseudo-equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks on the Earth, both in the ocean and on land. And those rocks contain 100 trillion tons of uranium. So whenever uranium is extracted from seawater, more is leached from rocks to replace it, to the same concentration. It is impossible for humans to extract enough uranium over the next billion years to lower the overall seawater concentrations of uranium, even if nuclear provided 100% of our energy and our species lasted a billion years.
> However, seawater concentrations of uranium are controlled by steady-state, or pseudo-equilibrium, chemical reactions between waters and rocks on the Earth, both in the ocean and on land. And those rocks contain 100 trillion tons of uranium. So whenever uranium is extracted from seawater, more is leached from rocks to replace it, to the same concentration. It is impossible for humans to extract enough uranium over the next billion years to lower the overall seawater concentrations of uranium, even if nuclear provided 100% of our energy and our species lasted a billion years.
That's in the Forbes article rather than the Phys.org article.
And there's a billion dollar/watt question in there. "Equilibrium" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. In order for the claim to matter practically, the reactions he's talking about have to replenish uranium to extraction-viable concentration at the same rate it's extracted. It sounds like our Forbes writer is suggesting the process accelerates at least linearly with the extraction rate, and that'd be cool, but forgive me if I don't take it for granted without further focus on why that's a reasonable expectation.
And there's a billion dollar/watt question in there. "Equilibrium" is doing a lot of work in that paragraph. In order for the claim to matter practically, the reactions he's talking about have to replenish uranium to extraction-viable concentration at the same rate it's extracted. It sounds like our Forbes writer is suggesting the process accelerates at least linearly with the extraction rate, and that'd be cool, but forgive me if I don't take it for granted without further focus on why that's a reasonable expectation.
That doesn't sound right. The oceans contain several billion tons of uranium. A 1 GW(e) reactor uses the equivalent of about 100 tons of natural uranium per year. So, he's claiming the world would have ~1 million reactors.
Some knowledge we gain is negative. We've learned nuclear wasn't as promising as had been claimed.
More generally, in engineering most technologies must fail. That's because there are multiple technologies that can solve any given problem, and only one can come out on top. The number of niches < the number of different solutions.
If you think just wait, we'll learn more and nuclear wins, why doesn't that same argument apply to the technologies nuclear is competing against?
More generally, in engineering most technologies must fail. That's because there are multiple technologies that can solve any given problem, and only one can come out on top. The number of niches < the number of different solutions.
If you think just wait, we'll learn more and nuclear wins, why doesn't that same argument apply to the technologies nuclear is competing against?
You've got it backwards. We've built nuclear plants. We've encountered unknown difficulties and overcome them. Our cost estimates for nuclear power are historical estimates. We did built nuclear at scale before, and it did cost less.
By comparison, the cost estimates for building things like massive amounts of energy storage are cost projections. These costs represent what we think these projects will cost. But these projections, by definition, don't account for unforseen engineering challenges. Historical costs do.
Comparing the two is apples to oranges. Historical costs include the cost of engineering challenges, cost projections for new technologies do not.
By comparison, the cost estimates for building things like massive amounts of energy storage are cost projections. These costs represent what we think these projects will cost. But these projections, by definition, don't account for unforseen engineering challenges. Historical costs do.
Comparing the two is apples to oranges. Historical costs include the cost of engineering challenges, cost projections for new technologies do not.
Yes, we've built nuclear power plants. And we've discovered they are complex and expensive, and we've discovered they take forever to design, and that very often the construction process fails and the investment is lost.
Energy storage technologies have the property that they can rapidly iterate new designs, on a smaller scale than nuclear. They are inside nuclear's decision loop. The mammals are outbreeding the dinosaurs (yes, I know that metaphor is unfair to the actual animals).
There's a reason business people don't swallow the kind of BS you sling on nuclear, and it isn't because they're Greenpeace members.
Energy storage technologies have the property that they can rapidly iterate new designs, on a smaller scale than nuclear. They are inside nuclear's decision loop. The mammals are outbreeding the dinosaurs (yes, I know that metaphor is unfair to the actual animals).
There's a reason business people don't swallow the kind of BS you sling on nuclear, and it isn't because they're Greenpeace members.
But the point is, we have built nuclear at scale. And built it at scale. France has over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear, Belgium over 50%. The US is at ~10%. We've encountered the emergent issues, and fixed them. Cost estimates on nuclear are historical estimates. They're not projections.
We haven't built energy storage at anywhere close to the required levels of scale. We have 4 minutes worth of energy storage. Most of that is from hydro electric storage. 1% and 3% are from battery and thermal storage, respectively [1].
What will be the cost of scaling this up to the hours or days required to make intermittent sources viable? We can only offer cost projections: what we think massive grid-scale projects will cost. But cost projections do not include the costs of unknown engineering challenges. Remember, early nuclear proponents claimed it would be an order of magnitude cheaper than fossil fuels and had the studies to prove it. But real-world experience demonstrated otherwise. What makes us think that increasing our amount of energy storage by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude won't encounter similar unforeseen costs?
We have built nuclear at scale, and yes we have discovered engineering challenges that increase cost. But we haven't built energy storage at scale, and we haven't encountered it's unforeseen engineering challenges.
This post offers an excellent analogy on this topic [2]. With nuclear, we've walked this path, and know firsthand the difficulties it takes. With new technologies we're looking at the map. Those are two fundamentally different measurements of cost.
1. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-facts....
2. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-software-development-task-esti...
We haven't built energy storage at anywhere close to the required levels of scale. We have 4 minutes worth of energy storage. Most of that is from hydro electric storage. 1% and 3% are from battery and thermal storage, respectively [1].
What will be the cost of scaling this up to the hours or days required to make intermittent sources viable? We can only offer cost projections: what we think massive grid-scale projects will cost. But cost projections do not include the costs of unknown engineering challenges. Remember, early nuclear proponents claimed it would be an order of magnitude cheaper than fossil fuels and had the studies to prove it. But real-world experience demonstrated otherwise. What makes us think that increasing our amount of energy storage by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude won't encounter similar unforeseen costs?
We have built nuclear at scale, and yes we have discovered engineering challenges that increase cost. But we haven't built energy storage at scale, and we haven't encountered it's unforeseen engineering challenges.
This post offers an excellent analogy on this topic [2]. With nuclear, we've walked this path, and know firsthand the difficulties it takes. With new technologies we're looking at the map. Those are two fundamentally different measurements of cost.
1. http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-grid-energy-storage-facts....
2. https://www.quora.com/Why-are-software-development-task-esti...
And the response to that is that (1) that golden age of nuclear was far less successful than you depict, and (2) attempts to replicate it have gone disastrously wrong.
Cost overruns and failures have been the norm for nuclear. In France, we don't actually know the cost of that initial roll out. In the US, nuclear construction routinely overran budgets, often by large factors. When PURPA subjected US power markets to more market discipline nuclear construction evaporated. This should tell you that it was never a low cost source.
Today, even the construction that occurred then is not possible. The nuclear supply chain is atrophied, especially without nuclear weapons programs to provide support. Attempts to repeat the past glories have gone even more disastrously wrong than they did then.
The best people know not to go into nuclear now, so the expectation of its failure is self-reinforcing. Nuclear programs at universities are closing for lack of interest. Hell, even steam turbines (!) risk becoming a marginalized (and perhaps, eventually, forgotten) technology.
> What will be the cost of scaling this up to the hours or days required to make intermittent sources viable?
It will almost certainly be much cheaper than building nuclear reactors, and by a very large margin. But if it's not, no big deal. We could build reactors later if by some miracle it turns out they're needed. I think the best you can expect now is a dribble of seed money to keep the nuclear industry from disappearing entirely, just to keep some level of expertise around as an insurance policy. But if and when renewables prove themselves to a point even you cannot deny, even that could dry up.
Cost overruns and failures have been the norm for nuclear. In France, we don't actually know the cost of that initial roll out. In the US, nuclear construction routinely overran budgets, often by large factors. When PURPA subjected US power markets to more market discipline nuclear construction evaporated. This should tell you that it was never a low cost source.
Today, even the construction that occurred then is not possible. The nuclear supply chain is atrophied, especially without nuclear weapons programs to provide support. Attempts to repeat the past glories have gone even more disastrously wrong than they did then.
The best people know not to go into nuclear now, so the expectation of its failure is self-reinforcing. Nuclear programs at universities are closing for lack of interest. Hell, even steam turbines (!) risk becoming a marginalized (and perhaps, eventually, forgotten) technology.
> What will be the cost of scaling this up to the hours or days required to make intermittent sources viable?
It will almost certainly be much cheaper than building nuclear reactors, and by a very large margin. But if it's not, no big deal. We could build reactors later if by some miracle it turns out they're needed. I think the best you can expect now is a dribble of seed money to keep the nuclear industry from disappearing entirely, just to keep some level of expertise around as an insurance policy. But if and when renewables prove themselves to a point even you cannot deny, even that could dry up.
Cost overruns have been the norm, but nuclear power generation at scale during the 1970s was still at most half as expensive as the Votgle and Flamanville projects that you like to cherry-pick.
The atrophy of the nuclear supply chain is precisely why nuclear plants are cheaper when built at scale. When you have a steady demand for reactor pressure vessels, high pressure heat exchangers, and other specialized machinery for nuclear plants its cheaper on a per-unit basis.
Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor. The only intersection that nuclear weapons manufacturing has with nuclear power is uranium enrichment. But the cost of fuel is negligible in nuclear power.
> It will almost certainly be much cheaper than building nuclear reactors, and by a very large margin.
Right, just like how early nuclear advocates said it would almost certainly be cheaper than fossil fuels. We don't know this. This isn't a historical cost estimate, it's cost speculation. And cost speculation fundamentally cannot account for unknown challenges.
> But if it's not, no big deal. We could build reactors later if by some miracle it turns out they're needed.
Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"? Not to mention, exacerbating global warming because we delayed nuclearization of our energy sector pursuing energy storage? These are pretty big deals. Decarbonization of the energy sector is going to be one of the biggest endeavors that countries conduct. It's no time to bet on unproven technologies. We know nuclear is expensive. But we know that it works, and we have experience building it at scale. We're walking in the footsteps of what we've done before, not bushwhacking through unknown engineering challenges.
The atrophy of the nuclear supply chain is precisely why nuclear plants are cheaper when built at scale. When you have a steady demand for reactor pressure vessels, high pressure heat exchangers, and other specialized machinery for nuclear plants its cheaper on a per-unit basis.
Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor. The only intersection that nuclear weapons manufacturing has with nuclear power is uranium enrichment. But the cost of fuel is negligible in nuclear power.
> It will almost certainly be much cheaper than building nuclear reactors, and by a very large margin.
Right, just like how early nuclear advocates said it would almost certainly be cheaper than fossil fuels. We don't know this. This isn't a historical cost estimate, it's cost speculation. And cost speculation fundamentally cannot account for unknown challenges.
> But if it's not, no big deal. We could build reactors later if by some miracle it turns out they're needed.
Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"? Not to mention, exacerbating global warming because we delayed nuclearization of our energy sector pursuing energy storage? These are pretty big deals. Decarbonization of the energy sector is going to be one of the biggest endeavors that countries conduct. It's no time to bet on unproven technologies. We know nuclear is expensive. But we know that it works, and we have experience building it at scale. We're walking in the footsteps of what we've done before, not bushwhacking through unknown engineering challenges.
> Votgle and Flamanville projects that you like to cherry-pick.
Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s
I suppose I should also have included all the projects that were abandoned before ground was even broken?
> Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor.
It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise.
> Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"?
Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age.
(I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.)
Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s
I suppose I should also have included all the projects that were abandoned before ground was even broken?
> Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor.
It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise.
> Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"?
Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age.
(I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.)
> Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s
Yup, precisely. You've conveniently ignored successful projects elsewhere, like the Hanul nuclear power plant and the Taishan nuclear plant. Also, you're incorrect that Votgle is the only nuclear project in the US, Turkey Point is installing two more AP1000 reactors.
> It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise.
Enrichment is not a substantial portion of nuclear power's cost. Almost all of it is in construction and fabrication of the plant. I'm also not sure why you think building a nuclear warhead translates into running a nuclear plant. A nuclear weapons designer wants a very violent runaway nuclear reaction. This is what a nuclear plant designer wants to avoid.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons don't use the same fuel. That's not quite true with recent plants: a few of the newer nuclear plants can mix in some weapons-grade plutonium - but the mix is still mostly uranium. This more about dismantling plutonium, as it's the only way we know how to get ride of weapons-grade fissile material - well, besides detonating the nuclear weapon.
> Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age.
You continue to miss the point. With renewables and storage, we're talking in terms of hypothetical costs. What we think it will cost. Projected costs are cheap, because by definition they exclude the costs of unforeseen issues. Historical costs do include the costs of unforeseen issues that emerged in implementation.
Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale.
The cost of proposed storage technologies are hypothetical costs. Nobody has built a 1TWh storage facility, let alone a 10 TWh storage facility. We can make educated guesses at what this will cost, but they're still guesses. We'll only know the real cost after it's been built. And projected costs are almost always optimistic.
Comparing historical costs to projected costs is comparing apples to oranges.
> (I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.)
You seem to be particularly determined to avoid the one solution that is actually proven to work.
1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora....
Yup, precisely. You've conveniently ignored successful projects elsewhere, like the Hanul nuclear power plant and the Taishan nuclear plant. Also, you're incorrect that Votgle is the only nuclear project in the US, Turkey Point is installing two more AP1000 reactors.
> It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise.
Enrichment is not a substantial portion of nuclear power's cost. Almost all of it is in construction and fabrication of the plant. I'm also not sure why you think building a nuclear warhead translates into running a nuclear plant. A nuclear weapons designer wants a very violent runaway nuclear reaction. This is what a nuclear plant designer wants to avoid.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons don't use the same fuel. That's not quite true with recent plants: a few of the newer nuclear plants can mix in some weapons-grade plutonium - but the mix is still mostly uranium. This more about dismantling plutonium, as it's the only way we know how to get ride of weapons-grade fissile material - well, besides detonating the nuclear weapon.
> Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age.
You continue to miss the point. With renewables and storage, we're talking in terms of hypothetical costs. What we think it will cost. Projected costs are cheap, because by definition they exclude the costs of unforeseen issues. Historical costs do include the costs of unforeseen issues that emerged in implementation.
Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale.
The cost of proposed storage technologies are hypothetical costs. Nobody has built a 1TWh storage facility, let alone a 10 TWh storage facility. We can make educated guesses at what this will cost, but they're still guesses. We'll only know the real cost after it's been built. And projected costs are almost always optimistic.
Comparing historical costs to projected costs is comparing apples to oranges.
> (I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.)
You seem to be particularly determined to avoid the one solution that is actually proven to work.
1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora....
> Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale.
Do we really know the real costs? How many countries outside of Canada has designed and built reactor cores without a nuclear weapons programme? How do you untangle the huge amount of money poured into nuclear weapons programmes from nuclear energy? Do you account for education/training of nuclear engineers and scientists? I know what you'll say - that we must account for it with the alternatives too. But those educations are more general purpose, so it's not directly comparable. You don't need to educate lots of "wind power scientists" to continue to scale wind power, and their education wouldn't be wasted if it turned out that wind power reached a dead end.
The costs of future nuclear power is absolutely hypothetical costs. You simply can't just magically reproduce the exact same conditions as the mid/late 1900s. At the very least, I'm sure that most countries will demand reactors that are fundamentally more safe than the reactors built during the golden area of nuclear power. So the reactor technology will not be the same. You might call it irrational, and I'd be inclined to agree. Most reactors of that era was incredibly safe. But you can't wish away human irrationality. Maybe you can educate people, but not without massive resources poured into education and public relations. Add that to the indirect costs.
We don't have strong government countries in the west anymore, governments that can just push through huge multi-decade bets like that. And I don't see any chance of that changing. So the most likely path for a nuclear renaissance is through small modular reactors, since you might find applications with shorter return on investments, and then gradually scale it up. But that's a a fundamentally different model from the golden area of nuclear power, so historical lessons about costs do not apply.
Do we really know the real costs? How many countries outside of Canada has designed and built reactor cores without a nuclear weapons programme? How do you untangle the huge amount of money poured into nuclear weapons programmes from nuclear energy? Do you account for education/training of nuclear engineers and scientists? I know what you'll say - that we must account for it with the alternatives too. But those educations are more general purpose, so it's not directly comparable. You don't need to educate lots of "wind power scientists" to continue to scale wind power, and their education wouldn't be wasted if it turned out that wind power reached a dead end.
The costs of future nuclear power is absolutely hypothetical costs. You simply can't just magically reproduce the exact same conditions as the mid/late 1900s. At the very least, I'm sure that most countries will demand reactors that are fundamentally more safe than the reactors built during the golden area of nuclear power. So the reactor technology will not be the same. You might call it irrational, and I'd be inclined to agree. Most reactors of that era was incredibly safe. But you can't wish away human irrationality. Maybe you can educate people, but not without massive resources poured into education and public relations. Add that to the indirect costs.
We don't have strong government countries in the west anymore, governments that can just push through huge multi-decade bets like that. And I don't see any chance of that changing. So the most likely path for a nuclear renaissance is through small modular reactors, since you might find applications with shorter return on investments, and then gradually scale it up. But that's a a fundamentally different model from the golden area of nuclear power, so historical lessons about costs do not apply.
Germany, Japan, Sweden, Korea, Ukraine, Belgium, Spain, Finland, and Argentina form a non-exhaustive list of countries that have built reactors without weapons. The reactor designs are often licensed, but reactors are constructed on site.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that nuclear weapons are connected with nuclear power. These are very different technologies. You don't need control rods, pressure vessels, and heat exchangers to build nuclear weapons. You don't need precise blasting plugs and explosive lenses to build nuclear power plants. The only shared technology is nuclear enrichment, but enrichment infrastructure already exists and countries can buy enriched fuel from other countries.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that nuclear weapons are connected with nuclear power. These are very different technologies. You don't need control rods, pressure vessels, and heat exchangers to build nuclear weapons. You don't need precise blasting plugs and explosive lenses to build nuclear power plants. The only shared technology is nuclear enrichment, but enrichment infrastructure already exists and countries can buy enriched fuel from other countries.
> Yup, precisely. You've conveniently ignored successful projects elsewhere, like the Hanul nuclear power plant and the Taishan nuclear plant.
Hanul is in Korea. The nuclear "success" there turned out to be due to massive corruption and corner cutting.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...
Taishan in China. China is basically the single remaining bright spot in nuclear, anywhere in the world. But to treat it as such, you have to believe the financial information coming from a communist government. I am not as trusting as you are on that.
> Also, you're incorrect that Votgle is the only nuclear project in the US, Turkey Point is installing two more AP1000 reactors.
https://www.miamitodaynews.com/2018/03/13/economics-shelves-...
"Nuclear units Florida Power & Light was to build at Turkey Point have been delayed indefinitely as it’s too expensive to compete with natural gas, FPL says."
> You continue to miss the point. With renewables and storage, we're talking in terms of hypothetical costs.
Yes, all future costs are uncertain. So any plans involve risk, and all investments are gambles. The market has judged that the risk favors renewables and storage, not nuclear.
> Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale.
They are costs from another time. Unless you have a time machine, those costs are just of historical interest. What matters today is what it costs to build today. And even back then, the costs became unacceptable. There's a reason the first nuclear expansion stopped, and it's not regulation.
> You seem to be particularly determined to avoid the one solution that is actually proven to work.
You have linked to a solar + storage + transmission solution, not needing any nuclear. Are you sure that's what you were wanting to link to? I'm fine with that solution. Note that the "three weeks of storage" there would be better done with hydrogen than with batteries.
Hanul is in Korea. The nuclear "success" there turned out to be due to massive corruption and corner cutting.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed...
Taishan in China. China is basically the single remaining bright spot in nuclear, anywhere in the world. But to treat it as such, you have to believe the financial information coming from a communist government. I am not as trusting as you are on that.
> Also, you're incorrect that Votgle is the only nuclear project in the US, Turkey Point is installing two more AP1000 reactors.
https://www.miamitodaynews.com/2018/03/13/economics-shelves-...
"Nuclear units Florida Power & Light was to build at Turkey Point have been delayed indefinitely as it’s too expensive to compete with natural gas, FPL says."
> You continue to miss the point. With renewables and storage, we're talking in terms of hypothetical costs.
Yes, all future costs are uncertain. So any plans involve risk, and all investments are gambles. The market has judged that the risk favors renewables and storage, not nuclear.
> Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale.
They are costs from another time. Unless you have a time machine, those costs are just of historical interest. What matters today is what it costs to build today. And even back then, the costs became unacceptable. There's a reason the first nuclear expansion stopped, and it's not regulation.
> You seem to be particularly determined to avoid the one solution that is actually proven to work.
You have linked to a solar + storage + transmission solution, not needing any nuclear. Are you sure that's what you were wanting to link to? I'm fine with that solution. Note that the "three weeks of storage" there would be better done with hydrogen than with batteries.
And we also have examples of France's Messmer plan. And the US nuclear boom during the 1970s. But I'm sure you're prepared to hand-wave away these examples, too.
Countries have built nuclear power beyond 80% of total energy consumption in the case of France. Over 50% in the case of Belgium, 40% in the case of Sweden, and 22% in the case of Korea. Nobody matches matches France with renewable energy. The closest is Denmark with 42% wind power generation. Germany is the only large country with substantial renewable generation (other than hydroelectric or geothermal power), generating 25% of its electricity from wind with a further 9% from solar, but that still adds up to less than 40%. You insist that the market favors renewables, but the share of electricity generation demonstrates otherwise.
Those costs are indeed of historical interest. In particular, when we analyze the cost history we see a clear pattern that serial construction of nuclear plants is cheaper than one-off construction. Production chains for nuclear equipment can leverage economies of scale. We have historical precedence for this relationship between number of plants built and individual plant cost.
You're right: nuclear power wasn't killed by regulation. It was never cost competitive with fossil fuels, and interest in climate change wasn't very strong back then. And when the pace of building nuclear plants diminished, individual plant costs increased.
> You have linked to a solar + storage + transmission solution, not needing any nuclear. Are you sure that's what you were wanting to link to? I'm fine with that solution. Note that the "three weeks of storage" there would be better done with hydrogen than with batteries.
And how much hydrogen electrical storage do we currently have? Again, this solution involves technologies that we have no experience working with at scale. I'm sure these cost estimates are very competitive - just like how analysis predicted nuclear would be cheaper than fossil fuels before we had experience building nuclear plants at scale. These cost estimates exclude the cost of overcoming emergent engineering challenges.
Which is a more reliable prediction?
* Predicting cost of a project based on what it cost to build the projects of the same scale in the past.
* Predicting the cost of a project based purely on educated guesses, or based on small-scale experiments.
Countries have built nuclear power beyond 80% of total energy consumption in the case of France. Over 50% in the case of Belgium, 40% in the case of Sweden, and 22% in the case of Korea. Nobody matches matches France with renewable energy. The closest is Denmark with 42% wind power generation. Germany is the only large country with substantial renewable generation (other than hydroelectric or geothermal power), generating 25% of its electricity from wind with a further 9% from solar, but that still adds up to less than 40%. You insist that the market favors renewables, but the share of electricity generation demonstrates otherwise.
Those costs are indeed of historical interest. In particular, when we analyze the cost history we see a clear pattern that serial construction of nuclear plants is cheaper than one-off construction. Production chains for nuclear equipment can leverage economies of scale. We have historical precedence for this relationship between number of plants built and individual plant cost.
You're right: nuclear power wasn't killed by regulation. It was never cost competitive with fossil fuels, and interest in climate change wasn't very strong back then. And when the pace of building nuclear plants diminished, individual plant costs increased.
> You have linked to a solar + storage + transmission solution, not needing any nuclear. Are you sure that's what you were wanting to link to? I'm fine with that solution. Note that the "three weeks of storage" there would be better done with hydrogen than with batteries.
And how much hydrogen electrical storage do we currently have? Again, this solution involves technologies that we have no experience working with at scale. I'm sure these cost estimates are very competitive - just like how analysis predicted nuclear would be cheaper than fossil fuels before we had experience building nuclear plants at scale. These cost estimates exclude the cost of overcoming emergent engineering challenges.
Which is a more reliable prediction?
* Predicting cost of a project based on what it cost to build the projects of the same scale in the past.
* Predicting the cost of a project based purely on educated guesses, or based on small-scale experiments.
Nuclear providing all of our base electrical generation needs, as well as co-generation applications like cooling & heating, is an obvious engineering slam dunk.
I think there are also some incredible synergies that can emerge with electric cars and batteries. Just a little bit of distributed storage (e.g. Tesla car in your garage back-feeding your home periodically) could potentially obviate the need for peak generation capacity altogether. What little we do need could simply be spinning reserve w/ nuclear generation providers where it's required the most.
In the areas where nuclear is not feasible, we obviously would continue to burn the most appropriate fuels. That said, one big area that could definitely use some attention would be international shipping. Perhaps as reactor costs come down, boats that are bigger than a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier could be justified in having nuclear power too.
I think there are also some incredible synergies that can emerge with electric cars and batteries. Just a little bit of distributed storage (e.g. Tesla car in your garage back-feeding your home periodically) could potentially obviate the need for peak generation capacity altogether. What little we do need could simply be spinning reserve w/ nuclear generation providers where it's required the most.
In the areas where nuclear is not feasible, we obviously would continue to burn the most appropriate fuels. That said, one big area that could definitely use some attention would be international shipping. Perhaps as reactor costs come down, boats that are bigger than a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier could be justified in having nuclear power too.
I remember a Popular Mechanics cover that indicated that soon, Nuclear reactors would be powering houses and even cars. I don't believe there's a practical limitation that means that a ship has to be huge to be nuclear powered. The limiting factor on cargo ship size is the Panama Canal; there's even a name for it, "Panamax."
(Note, there are ships that are larger (Post-Panamax), as well as Suezmax but they are obviously limited in use and less common)
(Note, there are ships that are larger (Post-Panamax), as well as Suezmax but they are obviously limited in use and less common)
Nuclear reactors per se can be made pretty small, e.g. research reactors typically have a maximum (steady state) power output of a few hundred kW (roughly a car engine). OTOH the minimum economic size is probably somewhat larger.
I would imagine there's similar issues as with nuclear power plants on land, that is, to get the best return on the invested capital you want to run them with as high capacity factor as possible. So some short-range ship that spends a large fraction of its time in port is probably a poor match, whereas a trans-oceanic liner with quick turnarounds, like a container ship, could make for a good fit.
Nowadays there's "New Panamax", after a new set of locks opened in 2016 enabling (much) bigger ships.
I would imagine there's similar issues as with nuclear power plants on land, that is, to get the best return on the invested capital you want to run them with as high capacity factor as possible. So some short-range ship that spends a large fraction of its time in port is probably a poor match, whereas a trans-oceanic liner with quick turnarounds, like a container ship, could make for a good fit.
Nowadays there's "New Panamax", after a new set of locks opened in 2016 enabling (much) bigger ships.
One thing to consider - you could oversize the reactor and have grid hookups available in the harbor so that these ships can provide generation capacity while they are just sitting around. While they are out at sea, the nuclear reactor system could have a secondary mode that is more efficient/safe/etc for seafaring operations.
NuScale modular reactor provides 60 MW [1], Emma Mærsk (397 m) propulsion - 81 MW + 30 MW [2].
Problem is not technical, nuclear-powered icebreakers built long ago [3]. It is political — nuclear-powered cargo ship approaches Norway and it is news [4]:
> the increasing number of voyages with nuclear-powered vessels along the coast of Norway is something the agency is taking into consideration as Norway updates its nuclear emergency preparedness.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy
[4] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/10/russian-nuclear-po...
Problem is not technical, nuclear-powered icebreakers built long ago [3]. It is political — nuclear-powered cargo ship approaches Norway and it is news [4]:
> the increasing number of voyages with nuclear-powered vessels along the coast of Norway is something the agency is taking into consideration as Norway updates its nuclear emergency preparedness.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_M%C3%A6rsk
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy
[4] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/10/russian-nuclear-po...
Urg. "We're not going to solve this problem, so let's argue about all the solutions we don't gave the time or money or interest to actually implement".
The thing to remember about every major social/political issue is that the organizer class needs the issue more than they need the solution. Once you view the world through this lens the world begins to make more sense.
From the article: "No nuclear energy program has ever launched without heavy state intervention — the capital costs are just too high for private entities to take on."
I think this misses the real reason. High capital costs are no barrier to private financing as long as the eventual profits will accrue to the investors. But in this highly-regulated industry, investors can't put money into nuclear plants thinking that in 20 years there will be a high demand, and they'll be able to charge a high price for power. Once the time comes, the regulators will likely decide that they can charge only a "fair" price. And that's assuming that they actually get to build and operate the plant - there's a substantial chance that political winds will change, and the plant ends up being banned or regulated to the extent that it's effectively banned. Government financing is the only solution to this problem, which is created by the existence of government.
We see the same thing in Canada now with pipeline construction - only government can finance them due to the government being capable of destroying any private company that tries to build them.
I think this misses the real reason. High capital costs are no barrier to private financing as long as the eventual profits will accrue to the investors. But in this highly-regulated industry, investors can't put money into nuclear plants thinking that in 20 years there will be a high demand, and they'll be able to charge a high price for power. Once the time comes, the regulators will likely decide that they can charge only a "fair" price. And that's assuming that they actually get to build and operate the plant - there's a substantial chance that political winds will change, and the plant ends up being banned or regulated to the extent that it's effectively banned. Government financing is the only solution to this problem, which is created by the existence of government.
We see the same thing in Canada now with pipeline construction - only government can finance them due to the government being capable of destroying any private company that tries to build them.
In the UK Hinkley point C got a strike price of £92.50 per megawatt hour guaranteed for (i think) 35 years.
By contrast wind got about £39-£41 for two years. Future years will likely be even lower.
By contrast wind got about £39-£41 for two years. Future years will likely be even lower.
A "guarantee" from the state is worth a lot less than face value as it can simply legislate away that guarantee.
Stable governments don’t do this because it calls into question all the other agreements they have made.
Yet even the most stable western democracies do it often enough to make investors consider nuclear power plans too risky - not because of the technology but because of political risk.
For instance here in Finland companies that invested in nuclear made good profit, because of not having to pay costs related to carbon offsets. Politicians saw the profits, considered them "windfall" and taxed them away.
So why would you ever invest in carbon-free nuclear power on those terms?
Simultaneously there's a lot of jobs in coal, which ensure politicians keep subsidising it. From an investor perspective it's a sure deal.
For instance here in Finland companies that invested in nuclear made good profit, because of not having to pay costs related to carbon offsets. Politicians saw the profits, considered them "windfall" and taxed them away.
So why would you ever invest in carbon-free nuclear power on those terms?
Simultaneously there's a lot of jobs in coal, which ensure politicians keep subsidising it. From an investor perspective it's a sure deal.
> For instance here in Finland companies that invested in nuclear made good profit, because of not having to pay costs related to carbon offsets. Politicians saw the profits, considered them "windfall" and taxed them away.
Can you please expand on this a bit? Did they the change the law to tax something that was previously un-taxed? Did they tax it at an effective 100% rate so all the benefit would go to the state and none to the investors, or did the investors benefit too?
Can you please expand on this a bit? Did they the change the law to tax something that was previously un-taxed? Did they tax it at an effective 100% rate so all the benefit would go to the state and none to the investors, or did the investors benefit too?
Yes I wonder that me too, and also, what does "considered them windfall" mean? Not a native speaker, sorry
It means the politicians looked at the profits they could get from the taxes, as apples and fruit that had fallen from the trees (because of a wind), and they could pick it up with no effort?
It means the politicians looked at the profits they could get from the taxes, as apples and fruit that had fallen from the trees (because of a wind), and they could pick it up with no effort?
Yet the UK government has admitted in parliament it intends to break an international treaty signed just a few months ago
> Stable governments
Are there any stable governments, when the one with the most money can buy Twitter and FB ads, or a foreign country can setup a troll army of internet manipulators, and get to choose the president?
How long is the, say, 2 x return-of-money-invested, for a nuclear plant, compared to how often elections happen
Are there any stable governments, when the one with the most money can buy Twitter and FB ads, or a foreign country can setup a troll army of internet manipulators, and get to choose the president?
How long is the, say, 2 x return-of-money-invested, for a nuclear plant, compared to how often elections happen
They can try but companies sue the government and win all the time. If it weren't possible for governments to enter into enforceable contracts they'd have a difficult time getting anything done.
Ignores the price of inconsistent delivery and the inevitable huge costs of batteries and/or gas peaking plants to supplement the inconsistent power from wind.
Nobody ever factors in these costs to the price of solar or wind, and I find it extremely disingenuous. Nuclear can still be pumping power on a windless sunless day with 100% green energy.
Solar and wind? Either use batteries (expensive, not really renewable) or gas peaking plants (nearly worse than coal, not renewable, expensive).
Nobody ever factors in these costs to the price of solar or wind, and I find it extremely disingenuous. Nuclear can still be pumping power on a windless sunless day with 100% green energy.
Solar and wind? Either use batteries (expensive, not really renewable) or gas peaking plants (nearly worse than coal, not renewable, expensive).
Well actually a lot of people think about this kind of thing all the time. There is an entire market and industry dedicated to power grids. Sure, that price is not a complete picture. But does any price completely encapsulate externalities? But that low price is extremely positive.
>Nobody ever factors in these costs to the price of solar or wind, and I find it extremely disingenuous.
Speaking of extremely disingenuous, I already shared a study on exactly that in this thread 4 hours before you wrote your comment.
Here it is again:
https://neon.energy/Hirth-Ueckerdt-Edenhofer-2015-Integratio...
Sincerely,
Nobody
Speaking of extremely disingenuous, I already shared a study on exactly that in this thread 4 hours before you wrote your comment.
Here it is again:
https://neon.energy/Hirth-Ueckerdt-Edenhofer-2015-Integratio...
Sincerely,
Nobody
We only have one real data point as far as actual newly constructed plants in the US go, but that data point agitates against your position. At Vogtie, the government made a rule that effectively forbids consumers in the Vogtie service region from using anything but Vogtie. So no switching to using some wind farm that someone might slap up down the road from you. Material point is that regulations generally favor these sorts of plants where consumers are concerned because the government needs the plant. (Or, at minimum, has decided they want the plant.)
Not that any of it matters. Obviously, Vogtie still is a financial mess. I suppose it's probably beyond "mess". Once something's more than 200% or 20 billion over budget it's OK to go ahead and call it a financial disaster. I'm only pointing out that regulations work both ways, and when the government is trying to get a power plant built the regulations will generally work in favor of the generating entity.
The essential issue is that nuclear plants cost money even if there are no regulations at all. The required metallurgy, for instance, just costs a baseline amount of money, and there's no way to cut it down. I doubt anyone could get a nuclear plant built for less than $1 Billion even in the absence of regulations. And that's for the designs we know and understand. There will definitely be cost overruns for the newer designs that we haven't worked with in production. Investors have to be able to recoup that outlay within a reasonable time frame. So the government is actually doing the right thing by "guaranteeing" customers so to speak. In an environment free of the ability to regulate, I doubt any nuclear plants get built.
Not that any of it matters. Obviously, Vogtie still is a financial mess. I suppose it's probably beyond "mess". Once something's more than 200% or 20 billion over budget it's OK to go ahead and call it a financial disaster. I'm only pointing out that regulations work both ways, and when the government is trying to get a power plant built the regulations will generally work in favor of the generating entity.
The essential issue is that nuclear plants cost money even if there are no regulations at all. The required metallurgy, for instance, just costs a baseline amount of money, and there's no way to cut it down. I doubt anyone could get a nuclear plant built for less than $1 Billion even in the absence of regulations. And that's for the designs we know and understand. There will definitely be cost overruns for the newer designs that we haven't worked with in production. Investors have to be able to recoup that outlay within a reasonable time frame. So the government is actually doing the right thing by "guaranteeing" customers so to speak. In an environment free of the ability to regulate, I doubt any nuclear plants get built.
> I think this misses the real reason. High capital costs are no barrier to private financing as long as the eventual profits will accrue to the investors.
What about the risk premiums for disasters. Isn't it only economical if states accept the cost? If we wouldn't accept an owner of a nuclear power plant to go bankrupt before cleaning up ,after a Fukushima scale accident they'd be forced to either have an insurance that made it uneconomical, or deposit many times more than the reactor costs up front, for cleanup. Neither is viable. It's always subsidized.
What about the risk premiums for disasters. Isn't it only economical if states accept the cost? If we wouldn't accept an owner of a nuclear power plant to go bankrupt before cleaning up ,after a Fukushima scale accident they'd be forced to either have an insurance that made it uneconomical, or deposit many times more than the reactor costs up front, for cleanup. Neither is viable. It's always subsidized.
Well, that gets into whether or not nuclear plants are actually economic - or whether they only seem so if you don't account for the cost of a possible disaster.
I don't know the answer to this question. But in theory the cost can be captured in an insurance premium. The government could have a role in requiring adequate insurance.
But this is all separate from government actions that destroy legitimate profits, the risk of which may make private financing impossible. (One might think that the risk of government action is just like other possible risks, which investors can account for, but the point is that it's not a risk for the government itself, leading to government financing being preferred.)
I don't know the answer to this question. But in theory the cost can be captured in an insurance premium. The government could have a role in requiring adequate insurance.
But this is all separate from government actions that destroy legitimate profits, the risk of which may make private financing impossible. (One might think that the risk of government action is just like other possible risks, which investors can account for, but the point is that it's not a risk for the government itself, leading to government financing being preferred.)
In the US insurance is another issue.
The cost is massive if any company is willing to offer it.
So the people paying tax has to cover both the building, the insurance, so if anything should go wrong, it si 100% on the tax payers.
Then the tax payer has to pay for facilities to store all the waste for hundres of years. Something no Americans wants close to them. Last I heard the The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository will not happen.
Presently the US does not have secure facilities to store highly radioactive waste. That still has to be built and that will cost gigantic sums of money. If it has to be sized to accommodate an increase in the production of said waste, then it has to be even bigger.
Presently highly radioactive waste is stored on site where it is being produced. That far from an ideal situation.
At the end we have to pay for the decommissioning.
It is a huge sinkhole of tax money.
So the people paying tax has to cover both the building, the insurance, so if anything should go wrong, it si 100% on the tax payers.
Then the tax payer has to pay for facilities to store all the waste for hundres of years. Something no Americans wants close to them. Last I heard the The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository will not happen.
Presently the US does not have secure facilities to store highly radioactive waste. That still has to be built and that will cost gigantic sums of money. If it has to be sized to accommodate an increase in the production of said waste, then it has to be even bigger.
Presently highly radioactive waste is stored on site where it is being produced. That far from an ideal situation.
At the end we have to pay for the decommissioning.
It is a huge sinkhole of tax money.
First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.
Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear.
Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also promise to pay billions in upkeep, and then pay billions for decomissioning. If you aren't willing to do that upkeep or clean up after yourself then you can cause a radiological disaster.
What happens if we have a majority government that refuses to believe in the long term effects of radiation damage even as scientists explain to them over and over again what will happen? They just don't see why we should be spending that amount of money on reactor decomissioning or on upkeep and don't want to be seen as the one spending taxpayer money on something so costly. What if they decide to cut nuclear safety programs in a political stunt? I wish I could say that I know that won't happen, but on the hundred years in the future scale I'm just not sure.
Nuclear is amazing and could solve all of our short term energy needs, but it's ultimately people and our political structures that I don't trust, not the science.
Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad. I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear.
Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also promise to pay billions in upkeep, and then pay billions for decomissioning. If you aren't willing to do that upkeep or clean up after yourself then you can cause a radiological disaster.
What happens if we have a majority government that refuses to believe in the long term effects of radiation damage even as scientists explain to them over and over again what will happen? They just don't see why we should be spending that amount of money on reactor decomissioning or on upkeep and don't want to be seen as the one spending taxpayer money on something so costly. What if they decide to cut nuclear safety programs in a political stunt? I wish I could say that I know that won't happen, but on the hundred years in the future scale I'm just not sure.
Nuclear is amazing and could solve all of our short term energy needs, but it's ultimately people and our political structures that I don't trust, not the science.
Define short term; I think by the time a reactor you start today comes online, we are already pretty screwed
It’s really already too late. Even if we the developed world decarbonizes in the next 20 years, India, China, and Africa will not. That means what we really need to be looking at is technology to power carbon capture.
I guess you need energy for carbon capture too.
Rosatom will sell you a floating reactor you can tow into a harbour and hook up to your grid [1]. So short term can be pretty short if you want. And don't worry about the fuel, they simply tow it back to St. Petersburg when the fuel is expired and keep the dirty stuff there.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power...
hey, we have been asking for 2 decades.
Somewhere in the past year or so a lot of people have started saying “too late”
Maybe you can humor the people who want nuclear while we continue to add solar and wind.
The world needs a lot of electricity.
Somewhere in the past year or so a lot of people have started saying “too late”
Maybe you can humor the people who want nuclear while we continue to add solar and wind.
The world needs a lot of electricity.
I long for the day we get a breakthrough with some next level power source. Be it fusion or some other thing to come.
Humanity always depended on having a leap in either: transport, communication or energy. We are going through a massive change in communication, if we get a cheap and super scalable and sustainable source of energy we might find our next leap...
Humanity always depended on having a leap in either: transport, communication or energy. We are going through a massive change in communication, if we get a cheap and super scalable and sustainable source of energy we might find our next leap...
[deleted]
It's trite, but it's never too late to start. Certainly starting now is better than doing nothing in this case, and nuclear may be a good option. I'm not convinced that old nuclear tech is economically viable anymore compared to batteries + renewables. New nuclear tech may be. We need investment there.
I don’t think we have time to wait for new old school plants to be built, and we certainly don’t have time for new tech to be developed, tested, regulated before we even start building it. We should start now with the tech we already have (which is renewables).
Doing one doesn't preclude doing the other, that's a false dichotomy.
It could possibly be too late to start with new nuclear plants, although I'm not totally convinced.
If we had them now, nuclear plants would be vastly superior to coal plants for baseload, at least in terms of emissions.
The question is, if a nuclear plant takes 20-30 years from project start to being online, how will it compare with what's available then and over the design lifetime (50ish years). Of course, we can't know for sure, but if storage becomes good enough in the next 30 or so years, the lifetime economics of a nuclear plant get pretty bad.
That said, maybe the economic risk isn't as important as the emissions risk. If renewable + storage doesn't work, and we are still running coal plants in 30 years, that's probably worse than if renewable + storage works and ratepayers paid for an underutilized nuclear plant.
If we had them now, nuclear plants would be vastly superior to coal plants for baseload, at least in terms of emissions.
The question is, if a nuclear plant takes 20-30 years from project start to being online, how will it compare with what's available then and over the design lifetime (50ish years). Of course, we can't know for sure, but if storage becomes good enough in the next 30 or so years, the lifetime economics of a nuclear plant get pretty bad.
That said, maybe the economic risk isn't as important as the emissions risk. If renewable + storage doesn't work, and we are still running coal plants in 30 years, that's probably worse than if renewable + storage works and ratepayers paid for an underutilized nuclear plant.
Why 20-30 years? Russia started building of Belarus nuclear plant at 2011. It already works and will be completely finished at 2022. Is US nuclear industry significantly behind Russia?
Yes. US construction in general takes longer and costs almost an order of magnitude more for large infrastructure. Why? Higher standards certainly. Higher pay too. But you can't tell me Russia is less corrupt with a straight face. So what accounts for the difference? I think it's disturbing that the US is forgetting how to make things in general.
From wikipedia, the most recent nuclear plant to enter operation in the US is Watts Bar reactor 2. It entered operation in 2016, while being under construction for a total of 17 years; 8 years between 1973 and 1985, then 9 more between 2007 and 2016.
The Vogtle plant reactor 3 and 4 project started in 2006, construction started in 2013, and planned operation is 2021; but these things are often delayed. And that was at an existing site. 20 years may be pessimistic, but not unduly so, based on recent experience.
The Vogtle plant reactor 3 and 4 project started in 2006, construction started in 2013, and planned operation is 2021; but these things are often delayed. And that was at an existing site. 20 years may be pessimistic, but not unduly so, based on recent experience.
Any US project will face many years of interruptions by protestors, court cases, etc. Given the timespan, the project will also likely face administrations that don't support nuclear and attempt to stall the project.
Unfortunately, people don't believe in climate change enough to acknowledge that nuclear is worth the risk (a risk that would be much reduced by allowing more modern plants to be built).
Unfortunately, people don't believe in climate change enough to acknowledge that nuclear is worth the risk (a risk that would be much reduced by allowing more modern plants to be built).
I don't know. The science and engineering has quietly moved quite a bit over the last 40 years.
These [0] SMRs can, for example - there are several other approaches - can be assembled on a standard assembly line, shipped in a couple of C-Containers, and stood up on a concrete pad (well, not exactly, but close enough that I don't feel like complicating the point.
[0]: https://www.nuscalepower.com/
These [0] SMRs can, for example - there are several other approaches - can be assembled on a standard assembly line, shipped in a couple of C-Containers, and stood up on a concrete pad (well, not exactly, but close enough that I don't feel like complicating the point.
[0]: https://www.nuscalepower.com/
NuScale has given up assembling their reactors in their factory.
https://losalamosreporter.com/2020/08/22/get-out-of-the-fluo...
"In answer to a question I posed to Nuscale at the town hall we have learned that the plan to save costs by fabricating the modules at a remote factory and shipping them to the Idaho site has been abandoned. The artful response to my question said that Nuscale engaged with approximately 40 … pressure vessel fabricators worldwide and … determined that Nuscale will use existing factories … in lieu of building its own factory.
The major module subcomponents will be manufactured at multiple manufacturer locations and shipped to a single location for assembly prior to installing into the facility.” This signifies the failure of one of the major cost-saving features of the Nuscale project, which was to forestall this exact scenario."
The cost of that project has already escalated 70%, btw, with three towns dropping out and the output only 30% subscribed. I think there's a good chance it will never be built.
https://losalamosreporter.com/2020/08/22/get-out-of-the-fluo...
"In answer to a question I posed to Nuscale at the town hall we have learned that the plan to save costs by fabricating the modules at a remote factory and shipping them to the Idaho site has been abandoned. The artful response to my question said that Nuscale engaged with approximately 40 … pressure vessel fabricators worldwide and … determined that Nuscale will use existing factories … in lieu of building its own factory.
The major module subcomponents will be manufactured at multiple manufacturer locations and shipped to a single location for assembly prior to installing into the facility.” This signifies the failure of one of the major cost-saving features of the Nuscale project, which was to forestall this exact scenario."
The cost of that project has already escalated 70%, btw, with three towns dropping out and the output only 30% subscribed. I think there's a good chance it will never be built.
The best time to build nuclear would have been in the 1980s.
However, when we tried to build again back in 2008, it turned to failure. In areas with highly supportive populations that want the nuclear jobs in their community, with an NRC that changed processes to try to make it easier to get approval, we are still 12 years in, way behind schedule, and 2-3x over budget, without a solid feel for when we will star pushing electrons with the new reactors.
Last I heard, NuScale is hoping to hit a cost of $55/MWh. That's about the current cost of wind/solar and the storage to make it dispatchable. Meaning that by the time they finally ship, it will be a more expensive option for firm low-carbon energy than the current options we have.
So not only is NuScale aiming at a not-so-desirable target, by the time it can deliver its first 10GW, it's quite likely that the renewables will be curtailed for much of the year, meaning that we have extra generation capacity that goes unused, which is likely to spur a huge round of economic innovation for that energy.
I would hate to get stuck with the path dependence of nuclear. Renewables are so cheap that they open up a ton more doors for society.
However, when we tried to build again back in 2008, it turned to failure. In areas with highly supportive populations that want the nuclear jobs in their community, with an NRC that changed processes to try to make it easier to get approval, we are still 12 years in, way behind schedule, and 2-3x over budget, without a solid feel for when we will star pushing electrons with the new reactors.
Last I heard, NuScale is hoping to hit a cost of $55/MWh. That's about the current cost of wind/solar and the storage to make it dispatchable. Meaning that by the time they finally ship, it will be a more expensive option for firm low-carbon energy than the current options we have.
So not only is NuScale aiming at a not-so-desirable target, by the time it can deliver its first 10GW, it's quite likely that the renewables will be curtailed for much of the year, meaning that we have extra generation capacity that goes unused, which is likely to spur a huge round of economic innovation for that energy.
I would hate to get stuck with the path dependence of nuclear. Renewables are so cheap that they open up a ton more doors for society.
If this is a reference to the "we only have 12 years to save the planet" meme, that is just a thing that went viral.
There is no science behind it.
There is no science behind it.
It is a reference to how quickly we are depleting our carbon budget to avert certain levels of warming.
Because there is no clear line between saving and not saving. It's just degrees of badness the longer we wait. I heard there are some inflection points when it becomes warm enough for methane to escape from the tundra in Siberia.
It's clear that right now we should roll out wind and solar as fast as we can.
However, once those reach high penetration, costs increase rapidly as you attempt to reach 100% clean energy. At that point it helps a lot to have clean dispatchable power. Nuclear plants we start today can fill that role, in areas without available hydro.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
However, once those reach high penetration, costs increase rapidly as you attempt to reach 100% clean energy. At that point it helps a lot to have clean dispatchable power. Nuclear plants we start today can fill that role, in areas without available hydro.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511...
Nuclear power isn't very "dispatchable", it takes long times to be turned on vs off. But it might be useful for seasonal use in the winter when there is less sun.
A nuclear plant costs the same to run at full capacity all year round as it does to run it at partial capacity. Just run the plant at full capacity all year round, and save money by building less solar.
You have to pay off the initial construction costs. Throwing away half the energy you generate means that you're wasting the large up-front costs.
Right. If we build nuclear plants to fulfill peak energy demand (which coincides with a lack of energy production from solar) then there's not reason not to just run the nuclear plants 24/7 and skip building solar altogether. This is why nuclear power and intermittent sources end up being a dichotomy in practice.
Solar does provide a good way to mitigate carbon emissions in the meantime, even if it's role in a fully decarbonized economy is dubious. It's fast to build and makes a good complement for gas plants. Turn off the gas when the solar cells are collecting, and you can save a good deal of emissions.
Solar also has niche use cases that make sense even with nuclear power. Rooftop solar is a good way to offset air conditioning energy use. In this case, the solar energy collected by the panels are intrinsically connected to the power demand of the air conditioning unit. Plus the energy production and energy demand are co-located.
Solar does provide a good way to mitigate carbon emissions in the meantime, even if it's role in a fully decarbonized economy is dubious. It's fast to build and makes a good complement for gas plants. Turn off the gas when the solar cells are collecting, and you can save a good deal of emissions.
Solar also has niche use cases that make sense even with nuclear power. Rooftop solar is a good way to offset air conditioning energy use. In this case, the solar energy collected by the panels are intrinsically connected to the power demand of the air conditioning unit. Plus the energy production and energy demand are co-located.
You're missing the point, which is that if you don't use a nuclear plant to 100% capacity (or run at 100% capacity and throw away most of the energy), you end up paying more for every Joule you actually use.
How much would it cost to build nuclear power generation capacity to meet peak demand, vs. building a grid with renewables, long-term transmission and storage? The levelized cost of solar and wind power is way below that of nuclear power (and that difference will become much larger if you're only fully utilizing nuclear power during the daily peak demand), so the question is how much storage and transmission add for renewables.
How much would it cost to build nuclear power generation capacity to meet peak demand, vs. building a grid with renewables, long-term transmission and storage? The levelized cost of solar and wind power is way below that of nuclear power (and that difference will become much larger if you're only fully utilizing nuclear power during the daily peak demand), so the question is how much storage and transmission add for renewables.
[deleted]
One of the interesting possibilities for new nuclear plants is on-site thermal storage. Store heat from the reactor in a heat sink when solar is generating, use the heat to generate power when it isn't. That handles the daily load variation and lets you trade half the required nuclear capacity for cheap solar.
It also means you have more turbines on site than the reactor needs on its own, so you can add a furnace burning whatever you like (hydrogen, biofuels, synthetic methane), and that handles the days when renewable output is below average.
It also means you have more turbines on site than the reactor needs on its own, so you can add a furnace burning whatever you like (hydrogen, biofuels, synthetic methane), and that handles the days when renewable output is below average.
+1 I wish this were further up. Reliable power is always better than unreliable power. "Base load" is a misleading concept because people conflate supply-side and demand-side fluctuations, which are generally unrelated except in "niche use cases" like you mention. You always need some sort of storage or on-demand generation to deal with demand fluctuations. With wind/solar, you need extra storage to smooth out supply fluctuations.
No. Unless you run your nuclear power plant at high capacity factor, the cost of power from it inflates unacceptably. It's an economic issue, not a technical issue.
That's the whole point of nuclear, hydro or coal though, they need to be run at high capacity to be economically viable, have long spin up and down times and are costly to maintain. You use them as the basis of the grid and use wind and solar that are more prone to fluctuations to fill up the demand when necessary, less batteries needed as the base load can always be delivered by nuclear/hydro. Coal is basically dead in the next decade or so.
>use them as the basis of the grid and use wind and solar that are more prone to fluctuations to fill up the demand when necessary
Er, how does this work? You can't control when wind and solar produce power, so how can you use them to "fill up the demand when necessary"? If anything, using a fluctuating source on top of already fluctuating demand just increases the amount of power storage you need.
A power source that ramps up and down quickly is more convenient than one that ramps up and down slowly, but both are miles more convenient than one which ramps up and down uncontrollably.
Er, how does this work? You can't control when wind and solar produce power, so how can you use them to "fill up the demand when necessary"? If anything, using a fluctuating source on top of already fluctuating demand just increases the amount of power storage you need.
A power source that ramps up and down quickly is more convenient than one that ramps up and down slowly, but both are miles more convenient than one which ramps up and down uncontrollably.
At least with solar you know when it won't produce power. You could have enough nuclear for nighttime demand, and build enough solar for the extra daytime demand. You'd have some remaining discrepancies to make up but relatively small ones.
Well then you should ask yourself: is building this nuclear reactor cheaper than buying some batteries or converting excess energy to LNG to store it for later? If it is, then a nuclear power plant is economical, if it isn't, you should do the alternatives instead.
Well hang on, the nuclear reactor generates power while the storage only.. stores. You have to include the (lifetime!) cost of the storage plus the presumably renewable energy source you're feeding it with. (Of course you need storage with both systems to cope with demand-side fluctuations, but you'll need a lot more with wind/solar to deal with supply-side fluctuations.)
Hydrogen underground, not LNG, but yeah.
For some simulations to help answer when those two options are best:
https://model.energy/
For some simulations to help answer when those two options are best:
https://model.energy/
The model doesn't support methane generation.
Hydrogen is cool, but we should also be investing in efficient methane production. AFAICT it's not too hard to make and has immense advantages - existing transport, storage and use infrastructure and market as a heavily traded good. We can use it for most of our energy or carbon needs with today's technology and existing machines with no or easy modifications.
Hydrogen can be more efficient and probably simpler when appropriate but is more finicky, still needs research and will take a lot of time to ramp up.
Hydrogen is cool, but we should also be investing in efficient methane production. AFAICT it's not too hard to make and has immense advantages - existing transport, storage and use infrastructure and market as a heavily traded good. We can use it for most of our energy or carbon needs with today's technology and existing machines with no or easy modifications.
Hydrogen can be more efficient and probably simpler when appropriate but is more finicky, still needs research and will take a lot of time to ramp up.
Sorry, the two options were nuclear vs. renewables + storage (batteries and hydrogen). I don't think very large methane storage makes much sense; where does the carbon come from?
> where does the carbon come from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas
Biomass is fundamentally limited by the very low efficiency of photosynthesis, so that it requires very large areas. It should probably be limited to providing liquid transportation fuels and feedstock for chemicals.
CO₂.
Biogas is mostly better than fossil, but we should generate methane from H₂O + CO₂ + energy. It would be useful and quick way to achieve energy storage and decarbonization.
Biogas is mostly better than fossil, but we should generate methane from H₂O + CO₂ + energy. It would be useful and quick way to achieve energy storage and decarbonization.
Perhaps that wasn't the best term for the point they're making. From the abstract:
"This paper presents a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of two pathways: one reliant on wind, solar, and batteries, and another also including firm low-carbon options (nuclear, bioenergy, and natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration). Across all cases, the least-cost strategy to decarbonize electricity includes one or more firm low-carbon resources. Without these resources, electricity costs rise rapidly as CO2 limits approach zero. Batteries and demand flexibility do not substitute for firm resources."
"This paper presents a comprehensive techno-economic evaluation of two pathways: one reliant on wind, solar, and batteries, and another also including firm low-carbon options (nuclear, bioenergy, and natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration). Across all cases, the least-cost strategy to decarbonize electricity includes one or more firm low-carbon resources. Without these resources, electricity costs rise rapidly as CO2 limits approach zero. Batteries and demand flexibility do not substitute for firm resources."
https://www.usnc.com/
This is one of the most compelling nuclear plans I've seen. From the sound of it, these would be fine for intermittent power supply
Building a single one wouldn't be cheap, but the modular / standard design can benefit from economy of scale
This is one of the most compelling nuclear plans I've seen. From the sound of it, these would be fine for intermittent power supply
Building a single one wouldn't be cheap, but the modular / standard design can benefit from economy of scale
It's strictly better than wind and solar, which take an indeterminate and totally uncontrollable amount of time to turn on and off.
Nuclear would be utterly terrible for filling in the last part of a renewable-dominated grid. As in, ludicrously expensive, compared to other non-nuclear, non-fossil alternatives.
The article you point to talks about "firm, low carbon sources". This kind of source for this last bit would be something like hydrogen, not nuclear. A nuclear reactor operating at 10% capacity factor to "fill in" for renewables would be producing power at $1/kWh or more, which is uncompetitive vs. hydrogen by a massive margin.
The article you point to talks about "firm, low carbon sources". This kind of source for this last bit would be something like hydrogen, not nuclear. A nuclear reactor operating at 10% capacity factor to "fill in" for renewables would be producing power at $1/kWh or more, which is uncompetitive vs. hydrogen by a massive margin.
You can invert this and say that solar/wind would be utterly terrible at "filling in the last part" of a nuclear-dominated grid.
The inability to generate constant, reliable power is a weakness, not a strength.
The inability to generate constant, reliable power is a weakness, not a strength.
Right. It's one or the other generally (although some solar could help nuclear if demand peaks on sunny days).
However, unless nuclear gets a lot cheaper, it's looking like the nuclear dominated grid is going to be more expensive than the renewable dominated grid, even taking the cost of intermittency into account.
However, unless nuclear gets a lot cheaper, it's looking like the nuclear dominated grid is going to be more expensive than the renewable dominated grid, even taking the cost of intermittency into account.
They specifically cited nuclear. I don't think operating it at 10% capacity factor is what they mean.
They very carefully didn't mention hydrogen at all. They compared nuclear vs. renewables + batteries. It's almost as if they were setting up renewables to fail. Imagine that, in a study where half the authors are from the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering.
Yes, if you had nuclear, you'd operate it at high capacity factor. That isn't nuclear filling in for renewables, that's using nuclear instead of renewables. It's really mostly one or the other.
Yes, if you had nuclear, you'd operate it at high capacity factor. That isn't nuclear filling in for renewables, that's using nuclear instead of renewables. It's really mostly one or the other.
> costs increase rapidly as you attempt to reach 100% clean energy.
France has been running at 75%-80% nuclear for 30 years.
France has been running at 75%-80% nuclear for 30 years.
Heck, the State of Illinois gets over 50 percent of its electricity from nuclear and 1/8th of the entire country's nuclear generation. We can do it, even in the USA.
Yeah I'm a big fan of nuclear energy, but it just takes forever to get reactors online. We just don't have that kind of time. By all means, let's invest in nuclear, but we need to be building acres and acres of solar panels NOW. "We've got some reactors on the way" is not enough.
If the alternative is the end of the human species I think we might find some motivation to build them a bit faster and better. Just saying.
One thing I seldom see brought up is that different energy sources work best in different places. Solar works great in the Southwest. In the upper Midwest where it snows and is overcast a lot? Maybe not so much. Wind works better there, but wind may not be enough alone and requires even more storage as it usually peaks out of phase with peak demand.
There is also geothermal energy (Alaska, West Coast, Rockies; I assume we are talking solely the USA here) and hydroelectric power (Alaska, West Coast, South East, and more).
But we often don’t talk about the energy wasted in bad location of industries. E.g. growing water demanding crops in the Mid-West or South East instead of California where water is scarce, or energy intensive industries in Alaska (where energy is plentiful) instead of Texas where it is scarce.
Another thing not mentioned is wasted energy because of lacking infrastructure. This also applies to the rest of the world. A good example is not building high speed rail connection between high travel areas, so people use polluting air travel instead, another is lack of waste management facilities so garbage is left to rot instead of reused or recycled lowering demand for making the same thing again in a far away facility.
But we often don’t talk about the energy wasted in bad location of industries. E.g. growing water demanding crops in the Mid-West or South East instead of California where water is scarce, or energy intensive industries in Alaska (where energy is plentiful) instead of Texas where it is scarce.
Another thing not mentioned is wasted energy because of lacking infrastructure. This also applies to the rest of the world. A good example is not building high speed rail connection between high travel areas, so people use polluting air travel instead, another is lack of waste management facilities so garbage is left to rot instead of reused or recycled lowering demand for making the same thing again in a far away facility.
You can transmit power over long distances with surprisingly little energy loss with high-voltage DC. Any sane national plan for renewable energy would include a large amount of long-distance power transfer, if for no other reason than to minimize the variance in power production.
When I look at it I notice that current variation in cost per mwh is much larger than transmission line losses or storage losses.
You look on a map and you notice places where the days of sun shine aren't very conductive to solar are usually within 1500 miles of places where solar works great. Seattle to the Mojave desert is 1200 miles for instance.
You look on a map and you notice places where the days of sun shine aren't very conductive to solar are usually within 1500 miles of places where solar works great. Seattle to the Mojave desert is 1200 miles for instance.
And as the owner of a solar off grid home north of Seattle, I can tell you solar works fine there too. ;)
> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.
Am I crazy, or did the Green New Deal have as an explicit goal the decommissioning of all nuclear plants?
EDIT: Ah, apparently that was in the initial released plan, but they changed the language to technically leave the door open for nuclear, without supporting it (and with occasional statements expressing disfavor towards nuclear as a piece of the plan)
Am I crazy, or did the Green New Deal have as an explicit goal the decommissioning of all nuclear plants?
EDIT: Ah, apparently that was in the initial released plan, but they changed the language to technically leave the door open for nuclear, without supporting it (and with occasional statements expressing disfavor towards nuclear as a piece of the plan)
I don't think so, at least not according to Ocasio-Cortez [1]. It is a pretty new idea though and is probably in flux, so it may have been different in the past?
[1] https://morningconsult.com/2019/05/06/ocasio-cortez-green-ne...
[1] https://morningconsult.com/2019/05/06/ocasio-cortez-green-ne...
AOC can claim any position she wants, but the Green New Deal says (page 7, lines 6-9 as linked in another post) says "meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources". That's a clear anti-nuclear stance.
Following that logic, then Solar Panels are off the table. They don't last forever and their waste is not environmentally friendly. Mining the material to produce them also creates a large amount of greenhouse gasses.
> [solar panels] creates a large amount of greenhouse gasses.
Sounds misleading to me. A quick websearch and I found that currently they seem to be 10 x better than oil and coal etc:
> Making solar or photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. It even produces greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that contribute to global warming. Still, the researchers found that if people switched from conventional fossil fuel-burning power plants to solar cells, air pollution would be cut by roughly 90 percent. Although manufacturing solar cells requires heavy metals, the researchers noted that coal and oil also contain heavy metals, which get released during combustion
https://www.livescience.com/2324-solar-power-greenhouse-emis...
> Mining the material to produce them ...
I think everything is off the table then, also your laptop or tablet -- websearch for "minerals laptop environment" for example.
It seems you don't like solar panels?
Sounds misleading to me. A quick websearch and I found that currently they seem to be 10 x better than oil and coal etc:
> Making solar or photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. It even produces greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that contribute to global warming. Still, the researchers found that if people switched from conventional fossil fuel-burning power plants to solar cells, air pollution would be cut by roughly 90 percent. Although manufacturing solar cells requires heavy metals, the researchers noted that coal and oil also contain heavy metals, which get released during combustion
https://www.livescience.com/2324-solar-power-greenhouse-emis...
> Mining the material to produce them ...
I think everything is off the table then, also your laptop or tablet -- websearch for "minerals laptop environment" for example.
It seems you don't like solar panels?
It seems you don't like solar panels?
I never said that. I'm saying that based on AOC's 100% plan, pretty much everything is off the table, meaning that the plan needs to be revised. I plan to have 30kw of solar panels in my next home and a large collection of LifePo4 batteries that also have a dependency on strip mining. I also plan to do some of my own mining (drilling, blasting) for zinc and silver.
I never said that. I'm saying that based on AOC's 100% plan, pretty much everything is off the table, meaning that the plan needs to be revised. I plan to have 30kw of solar panels in my next home and a large collection of LifePo4 batteries that also have a dependency on strip mining. I also plan to do some of my own mining (drilling, blasting) for zinc and silver.
Sorry I misinterpreted. How interesting with mining zinc and silver -- is that possibly related to the solar panels you'll add? I never met anyone who mines zinc and silver
LiFePO4 -- that's lithium iron phosphate batteries, then, zinc and silver makes me confused. One can use zinc and silver instead?
30 kw sounds nice -- I think my oven uses about 3 kw, and I guess then that 30 kw is more than enough for your whole house :-) which I suppose is the idea, obviously.
What do your neighbors think about your plans to mine zink and silver?
Or maybe your nearest neighbors are far away? (Or maybe you'll drill & blast far away from where you and any neighbors live?)
LiFePO4 -- that's lithium iron phosphate batteries, then, zinc and silver makes me confused. One can use zinc and silver instead?
30 kw sounds nice -- I think my oven uses about 3 kw, and I guess then that 30 kw is more than enough for your whole house :-) which I suppose is the idea, obviously.
What do your neighbors think about your plans to mine zink and silver?
Or maybe your nearest neighbors are far away? (Or maybe you'll drill & blast far away from where you and any neighbors live?)
You don’t think that’s a desirable goal?
It is desirable however impractical given currently available technology. We need significant developments in energy storage to make it work. We could have zero carbon now using nuclear with no new technologies.
Why impractical??? Whith a diversified mix, energy efficiency, a big market for demand response, thermal storage, and a bit of electrical storage, there is no problem with current technologies. Coming tech could decrease the cost and make it easier to implement.
And nuclear is much much more expensive than most renewable now (https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019/)
And nuclear is much much more expensive than most renewable now (https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019/)
Yes we are getting there but some countries are at the point of diminishing returns with current renewables. For example, Germany has to pay it's neighbours to receive peak generation.
Coming tech will improve that but we could get to carbon zero far quicker and cheaper with a mix of nuclear and renewables. One problem with nuclear is that safety concerns. However nuclear has caused less death than coal generation. It does require a huge capital investment but it pays for itself over the long run. Waste is an issue but it produces a tiny volume of waste compared to any other form of generation.
We could get rid of all current coal and gas plants and have power when it's required with nuclear. Until we have a better storage option the true can't be said of any renewables (unless you are lucky enough to have abundant geothermal options). With wind and solar you have too much during peak supply and too little during peak demand.
Even the article you linked states whole sale solar and batteries are not yet economically viable.
If there is a viable thermal storage option, I'm wrong but I've not heard about it. I would love to be wrong if that is the case.
Coming tech will improve that but we could get to carbon zero far quicker and cheaper with a mix of nuclear and renewables. One problem with nuclear is that safety concerns. However nuclear has caused less death than coal generation. It does require a huge capital investment but it pays for itself over the long run. Waste is an issue but it produces a tiny volume of waste compared to any other form of generation.
We could get rid of all current coal and gas plants and have power when it's required with nuclear. Until we have a better storage option the true can't be said of any renewables (unless you are lucky enough to have abundant geothermal options). With wind and solar you have too much during peak supply and too little during peak demand.
Even the article you linked states whole sale solar and batteries are not yet economically viable.
If there is a viable thermal storage option, I'm wrong but I've not heard about it. I would love to be wrong if that is the case.
> thermal storage, and a bit of electrical storage
I'll acknowledge that renewable generation costs have been falling at an impressive rate. However you're understating the problem for storage. Besides cost, there are far more complex regulatory and political hurdles. Just read about the public response to "smart meters" when they were proposed a while back.
We'll likely have price-competitive storage technology by the middle of the next decade, maybe even sooner, but it will take another two or three decades to deploy it thanks to the patchwork of regulatory complexity we're left over with from the 20th century.
I'll acknowledge that renewable generation costs have been falling at an impressive rate. However you're understating the problem for storage. Besides cost, there are far more complex regulatory and political hurdles. Just read about the public response to "smart meters" when they were proposed a while back.
We'll likely have price-competitive storage technology by the middle of the next decade, maybe even sooner, but it will take another two or three decades to deploy it thanks to the patchwork of regulatory complexity we're left over with from the 20th century.
Sure it is not easy, but price-competitive (cheap renewable + some cost to manage intermittence) technologies are ready
Political hurdles... what is easier ? - Saying let's have reltively cheap 100% renewable energy that create a lot of job - Let's have super expensive nuclear energy, there are risk but those risk are small
Political hurdles... what is easier ? - Saying let's have reltively cheap 100% renewable energy that create a lot of job - Let's have super expensive nuclear energy, there are risk but those risk are small
m0zg(1)
A big problem I have with things like "the green new deal" is that they are buzzwords onto which many different policies can be mapped. I think to lots of people it implies no nuclear, and to some others it doesn't. Both are "right" because the buzzword has no implicit meaning.
I'm not sure how that can be true, given that it's a written proposal[0]. Not many have read it, and certainly both opponents and proponents have made up things that are or are not in it, but it's not just a buzzword.
https://docsend.com/view/8gxh826
https://docsend.com/view/8gxh826
A lot of the text describes the goals of, and route to, a plan. It is not, itself, actual policy.
Its existence as a buzzword predates that proposal, and thus inevitably the proposal is not the final word on how the term is defined.
Well the currently deployed, old nuclear plants certainly aren't as safe as the new, unbuilt ones the nuclear proponents always like to showcase. Even if you decide towards using nuclear in the future, you should build new reactors from scratch using those new safer designs.
There's that branch of minimalist environmentalism where their favorite nuclear reactor is whatever doesn't already exist. The instant it starts getting built, /somebody'll/ start protesting it.
Of course there will always be a better and safer design. But what about replacing the 50 year old designs currently deployed now with recent ones?
Can we afford to do that?
We have finite resources. If prevention of a disastrous change in climate is your goal does it make sense to replace the older plants?
Yes it would be safer to do so but would the cost be worth it?
We have finite resources. If prevention of a disastrous change in climate is your goal does it make sense to replace the older plants?
Yes it would be safer to do so but would the cost be worth it?
They angry mob will refuse to let you build the replacement, and demand the old one be torn down since you admitted it's so unsafe.
> The instant it starts getting built, /somebody'll/ start protesting it.
Is normal when the hype does not correspond with the reality and the promises of behaving well and to be responsible are replaced by "hide under a rug and find a scapegoat" five seconds after having the green light.
Citizens have the right to ask about how their taxes had been spent, specially when the construction costs increased exponentially, the whole structure is ruinous after 50 years and there are lots of new surprises in tiny characters in an appendix of the social contract that they signed, but never received.
Nuclear plants can only make a limited amount of money in this lifetime but the cost seems almost unlimited.
Is normal when the hype does not correspond with the reality and the promises of behaving well and to be responsible are replaced by "hide under a rug and find a scapegoat" five seconds after having the green light.
Citizens have the right to ask about how their taxes had been spent, specially when the construction costs increased exponentially, the whole structure is ruinous after 50 years and there are lots of new surprises in tiny characters in an appendix of the social contract that they signed, but never received.
Nuclear plants can only make a limited amount of money in this lifetime but the cost seems almost unlimited.
It's a proposal; it can be negotiated and changed until it becomes law. The main purpose is:
a) Help give future generations a reasonably livable and enjoyable planet. b) Help Americans by creating jobs.
a) Help give future generations a reasonably livable and enjoyable planet. b) Help Americans by creating jobs.
[deleted]
> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.
While that is true in principle, there is apparently some evidence that investing in nuclear energy causes countries to de-carbonise more slowly (perhaps because of the upfront costs of nuclear power stations, and the time it takes to build them).
"Researchers found that unlike renewables, countries around the world with larger scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions—and in poorer countries nuclear programs actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions."
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-10-crowd-nuclear-renewables...
While that is true in principle, there is apparently some evidence that investing in nuclear energy causes countries to de-carbonise more slowly (perhaps because of the upfront costs of nuclear power stations, and the time it takes to build them).
"Researchers found that unlike renewables, countries around the world with larger scale national nuclear attachments do not tend to show significantly lower carbon emissions—and in poorer countries nuclear programs actually tend to associate with relatively higher emissions."
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-10-crowd-nuclear-renewables...
This is a biased source but seems to make a good case that that study has serious flaws:
https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/we-need-both-nuclear-a...
https://nuclearinnovationalliance.org/we-need-both-nuclear-a...
That's a weird world view. University of Sussex researchers are "biased" but you link to the Nuclear Innovation Alliance?
I think the implication is that the Nuclear Innovation Alliance is biased but still making a good point.
Yes, exactly.
It would be good to do a bit more work to justify that, then.
The NIA blog post doesn't even address the core point of the paper. It looks at a correlation of existing energy by US states, where our nuclear was largely built in the 1970s and 1980s.
In contrast, the academic paper looks at what has happened to countries , globally, that have tried to build nuclear since the 1990s.
And this is a crucial distinction, because the problem with nuclear is that economies have changed since the 1970s and we have new technologies with different costs.
So what if we look at what has happened to US states that, since 1990, have tried to build nuclear versus those that have tried to build renewables?
Nuclear has failed since the 1990s in the US, even with construction project with very strong community support and federal regulatory support from the NRC.
So when you ask the question that the paper asks: "does building new nuclear or renewables decrease carbon more with modern economies?" We see that the US recapitulates the same correlation that researchers found globally.
This huge bias of nuclear proponents, the inability to address the cost issue and very basic construction issues, is far more problematic for nuclear than a corrective analysis of what has happened to grids that have pursued different strategies.
The NIA blog post doesn't even address the core point of the paper. It looks at a correlation of existing energy by US states, where our nuclear was largely built in the 1970s and 1980s.
In contrast, the academic paper looks at what has happened to countries , globally, that have tried to build nuclear since the 1990s.
And this is a crucial distinction, because the problem with nuclear is that economies have changed since the 1970s and we have new technologies with different costs.
So what if we look at what has happened to US states that, since 1990, have tried to build nuclear versus those that have tried to build renewables?
Nuclear has failed since the 1990s in the US, even with construction project with very strong community support and federal regulatory support from the NRC.
So when you ask the question that the paper asks: "does building new nuclear or renewables decrease carbon more with modern economies?" We see that the US recapitulates the same correlation that researchers found globally.
This huge bias of nuclear proponents, the inability to address the cost issue and very basic construction issues, is far more problematic for nuclear than a corrective analysis of what has happened to grids that have pursued different strategies.
I’m not making a statement to the validity of DennisP’s comment. Just clarifying the perceived meaning.
Sorry, didn't mean to direct that at you. But since I had been downvoted so much I wanted to at least poke at the general narrative here. I still find it odd is that an unfounded accusation of bias is supported with a link to a clearly biased source, and that's somehow acceptable here.
That author has been writing this for years and has had to do multiple retractions. A few top climate scientists are working on a rebuttal right now so we can expect this to be retracted soon as well.
This smells like the old cliche. Correlation does not imply causation.
Isn't there an obvious hidden random variable there? The only countries that are really actively building nuclear power are growing developing countries like India, so of course their emissions are increasing.
EDIT: So yes:
> "The study found that in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2 emissions."
EDIT: So yes:
> "The study found that in countries with a high GDP per capita, nuclear electricity production does associate with a small drop in CO2 emissions."
There's also the confounding element that the CO2 emissions could have dropped faster if the money was spent on renewables instead, plus the infrastructure for large centralised power generation is not really compatible with distributed generation.
> there is apparently some evidence that investing in nuclear energy causes countries to de-carbonise more slowly
Please don’t ascribe causality without evidence. Even the authors admit upfront that this is a correlational study, with strong confounding variables like GDP.
Please don’t ascribe causality without evidence. Even the authors admit upfront that this is a correlational study, with strong confounding variables like GDP.
> my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear.
Spot on. People often ignore the political problems of nuclear power:
- Centralization of control encourages corruption and the hiding of incidents
- Power stations make excellent targets in case of war. The bigger they are, the bigger the impact
- Nuclear power stations also cause social panic if hit, even if the damage is minimal
- The last two points apply to war but also to terrorism
If we want political stability (aka no wars) we need reasonably decentralized access to food, water, energy and information.
Spot on. People often ignore the political problems of nuclear power:
- Centralization of control encourages corruption and the hiding of incidents
- Power stations make excellent targets in case of war. The bigger they are, the bigger the impact
- Nuclear power stations also cause social panic if hit, even if the damage is minimal
- The last two points apply to war but also to terrorism
If we want political stability (aka no wars) we need reasonably decentralized access to food, water, energy and information.
Then build them smaller. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a34198830/tw...
We already have something 10000000X worse: Nuclear Weapons, that cat is out of the bag. So either we dismantle all nuclear arsenals in the world or we stop giving the "potential socio-political inestability"as a reason to not building more nuclear plants.
You are stopping the butcher to use big knives for fear he may go insane in the future and kill some customers with them, when millions of weapons are highly available.
You are stopping the butcher to use big knives for fear he may go insane in the future and kill some customers with them, when millions of weapons are highly available.
> that cat is out of the bag
Not at all, this is a logical fallacy.
A small fraction of countries have nuclear weapons and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.
On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.
Not at all, this is a logical fallacy.
A small fraction of countries have nuclear weapons and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.
On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.
> Not at all, this is a logical fallacy.
I dont think you understand what a logical fallacy is. The number of nuclear weapons in the world is in the 5 figures order, that is fact. Nuclear weapons are a fact.
> and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.
Most experts assessed the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missiles crisis at 1/3. Maybe that is a number you feel comfortable with, I dont. In +70 years of nuclear plants the 3 "big" accidents (3 Miles Island,Chernobyl, Fukushima) are nothing compared with that.
> On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.
And never managed to sabotage a nuclear installation and cause an accident so your point is moot.
I dont think you understand what a logical fallacy is. The number of nuclear weapons in the world is in the 5 figures order, that is fact. Nuclear weapons are a fact.
> and yet they still engage in conventional warfare because they really don't want to trigger a nuclear holocaust.
Most experts assessed the chance of a nuclear war during the Cuban missiles crisis at 1/3. Maybe that is a number you feel comfortable with, I dont. In +70 years of nuclear plants the 3 "big" accidents (3 Miles Island,Chernobyl, Fukushima) are nothing compared with that.
> On top of that, terrorist organizations, guerrilla fighters, criminal organization and so on never managed to launch an ICBM.
And never managed to sabotage a nuclear installation and cause an accident so your point is moot.
> you can have both
Not if the Green New Deal sucks up all the resources for "renewables" that will never provide anything close to the base load power we need.
Not if the Green New Deal sucks up all the resources for "renewables" that will never provide anything close to the base load power we need.
Intermittency of renewables is less of a problem if one rids oneself of the medieval seeming idea of energy self-sufficiency. Energy does not have to be produced where it is needed. We can transfer it already. The grid would need upgrades but we can definitely transfer large amounts of energy over long distances.
Example from China: 12GW over 3300km at 1100kV DC, for others look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... .
Europe is also building HVDC (high-voltage direct current) links connecting windparks and consumers with e.g. norwegian pumped hydro power plants for storing excess energy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current )
Example from China: 12GW over 3300km at 1100kV DC, for others look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... .
Europe is also building HVDC (high-voltage direct current) links connecting windparks and consumers with e.g. norwegian pumped hydro power plants for storing excess energy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current )
The more we do this, the more susceptible the grid will be to massive outages.
I’m not an expert, and I’m sure there’s some way in principle where it could be architected so this isn’t so, but it just seems empirically that the more interconnected the more we see unexpected and enormous outages.
I’m not an expert, and I’m sure there’s some way in principle where it could be architected so this isn’t so, but it just seems empirically that the more interconnected the more we see unexpected and enormous outages.
All of Europe is already connected, here where I live in Sweden I don't even remember the last power outage. Happens like maybe once a year that you wake up or get home and the microwave clock has reset.
Map of the European grid: https://www.entsoe.eu/data/map/
Synchronous grid of Continental Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta...
Map of the European grid: https://www.entsoe.eu/data/map/
Synchronous grid of Continental Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta...
The thing you describe, a brief loss in power ‘about once a year’ almost never happens in my area of NYC and could actually damage sensitive equipment.
The most recent large blackout we had was IIRC specifically due to mismanaging the interconnected grid, which is part of where my concern comes from.
The most recent large blackout we had was IIRC specifically due to mismanaging the interconnected grid, which is part of where my concern comes from.
I feel like a broken record saying this, but every time the topic of renewables comes up, I feel like the pro-renewable camp completely forgets us.
I'm in Saskatchewan. For a good chunk of the year, everything is frozen. We currently heat our homes with natural gas but require electricity to run the furnaces. Power outages are a very big deal, and in the winter are generally correlated with terrible weather (big snowstorms and deep cold tend to have a negative effect on our infrastructure).
The province itself is quite flat as well. Ignoring the part where reservoirs freeze over for at least 5 months of the year, pumped hydro (which seems to be our best current energy storage approach) isn't going to work very well with no significant hills to pump the water over. We absolutely require continuously reliable electricity to, at a minimum, keep the water pipes in our homes from freezing. A 24h outage in the middle of winter is going to, at a minimum, cause significant widespread property damage; past around the 72h mark, there's probably going to be significant death as well.
On top of all of the other reasons why I like nuclear, that is the reason why locally-generated nuclear is at the top of my list of "ways we should produce electricity around here".
I'm in Saskatchewan. For a good chunk of the year, everything is frozen. We currently heat our homes with natural gas but require electricity to run the furnaces. Power outages are a very big deal, and in the winter are generally correlated with terrible weather (big snowstorms and deep cold tend to have a negative effect on our infrastructure).
The province itself is quite flat as well. Ignoring the part where reservoirs freeze over for at least 5 months of the year, pumped hydro (which seems to be our best current energy storage approach) isn't going to work very well with no significant hills to pump the water over. We absolutely require continuously reliable electricity to, at a minimum, keep the water pipes in our homes from freezing. A 24h outage in the middle of winter is going to, at a minimum, cause significant widespread property damage; past around the 72h mark, there's probably going to be significant death as well.
On top of all of the other reasons why I like nuclear, that is the reason why locally-generated nuclear is at the top of my list of "ways we should produce electricity around here".
It's at least a few orders of magnitude away from ever plausibly getting there. For all intents and purposes, such a concern is imaginary.
And even then, one doesn't preclude the other. Retrofitting power distribution to have less energy loss, buildings with better insulation, more efficient logistics networks for food delivery, these are green new deal issues. None of that is anti-nuclear - they simply aren't related.
By "sucks up all the resources" you'd have to have all humans efforting to do things like this that nothing can be allocated to anything else. That is simply not how reality works.
And even then, one doesn't preclude the other. Retrofitting power distribution to have less energy loss, buildings with better insulation, more efficient logistics networks for food delivery, these are green new deal issues. None of that is anti-nuclear - they simply aren't related.
By "sucks up all the resources" you'd have to have all humans efforting to do things like this that nothing can be allocated to anything else. That is simply not how reality works.
> By "sucks up all the resources" you'd have to have all humans efforting to do things like this that nothing can be allocated to anything else.
Nonsense. Please apply some intelligence and common sense. We're not talking about shutting down all other activities and only doing Green New Deal stuff. We're talking about the limited amount of resources that can be redirected by various choices of government policy. Given the magnitude of the resources that would be required for the grandiose plans for renewables touted in the Green New Deal, there wouldn't be anything left over for nuclear.
Nonsense. Please apply some intelligence and common sense. We're not talking about shutting down all other activities and only doing Green New Deal stuff. We're talking about the limited amount of resources that can be redirected by various choices of government policy. Given the magnitude of the resources that would be required for the grandiose plans for renewables touted in the Green New Deal, there wouldn't be anything left over for nuclear.
How so? Nuclear requires certain types of expertise and I'd hope, certain certifications for construction.
Also, historically, they've each been multi-year ventures.
These are likely different humans and different companies than people doing urban gardening projects and rooftop solar.
I honestly don't see the conflict here. I don't know too much about nuclear construction and maintenance but I'd imagine it takes years of specialized training and experience to be competent. If that's true, I can't imagine someone sliding from say, retrofitting insulation to older apartment buildings to nuclear in any reasonable time. I think we have to conclude they're as different as any other sophisticated skills; you're still starting at zero if you want to switch.
The GNDs problem has been the same since Jill Stein was talking about it in 2012 - it's too grandiose for a society and time that has rejected grand visions.
We would need to fix our systemic cultural inability to be able to subscribe to a collective imaginary before a GND is broadly entertained.
However, you crack and divide GND as separate goals, such as increasing the usefulness and efficiency of mass urban transit, most people are on board. And each of these concrete goals doesn't preclude Exelon and GE from building nuclear power plants.
Once you reframe the GND as simply a basketcase of low hanging fruit of city and neighborhood level projects, then we get into nuclear's real issue in this conversation - It is the biggest project of the bunch.
Ignoring possible futures and going with historical pasts, nuclear plants are what are called "megaprojects" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaproject) and that's their main Achilles heel for our times. Americans at least, have stopped believing in them. They think "big = broken disaster". Some american may even feel obligated to respond to this, "But it's true" and then my point will be made.
The GND proponents could finally understand marketing and branding and successfully reposition their project to our collective appetites as a collection of small bite-sized community projects but nuclear cannot do this.
Also, historically, they've each been multi-year ventures.
These are likely different humans and different companies than people doing urban gardening projects and rooftop solar.
I honestly don't see the conflict here. I don't know too much about nuclear construction and maintenance but I'd imagine it takes years of specialized training and experience to be competent. If that's true, I can't imagine someone sliding from say, retrofitting insulation to older apartment buildings to nuclear in any reasonable time. I think we have to conclude they're as different as any other sophisticated skills; you're still starting at zero if you want to switch.
The GNDs problem has been the same since Jill Stein was talking about it in 2012 - it's too grandiose for a society and time that has rejected grand visions.
We would need to fix our systemic cultural inability to be able to subscribe to a collective imaginary before a GND is broadly entertained.
However, you crack and divide GND as separate goals, such as increasing the usefulness and efficiency of mass urban transit, most people are on board. And each of these concrete goals doesn't preclude Exelon and GE from building nuclear power plants.
Once you reframe the GND as simply a basketcase of low hanging fruit of city and neighborhood level projects, then we get into nuclear's real issue in this conversation - It is the biggest project of the bunch.
Ignoring possible futures and going with historical pasts, nuclear plants are what are called "megaprojects" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaproject) and that's their main Achilles heel for our times. Americans at least, have stopped believing in them. They think "big = broken disaster". Some american may even feel obligated to respond to this, "But it's true" and then my point will be made.
The GND proponents could finally understand marketing and branding and successfully reposition their project to our collective appetites as a collection of small bite-sized community projects but nuclear cannot do this.
> These are likely different humans and different companies than people doing urban gardening projects and rooftop solar.
Humans can decide to enter different fields; more can choose to enter one field and fewer can choose to enter another. New companies can be started and old ones can go out of business. Resources are fungible; there isn't a fixed pool of resources that are suitable for nuclear but not for renewables, or the reverse.
What determines where those resources get allocated are economic incentives. If the government puts its thumb on the scale and gives lots of incentives for renewables and lots of disincentives for nuclear--which is exactly what the US government has been doing for decades, and what the Green New Deal would mean doing even more of--then resources will be available for renewables but not for nuclear.
Humans can decide to enter different fields; more can choose to enter one field and fewer can choose to enter another. New companies can be started and old ones can go out of business. Resources are fungible; there isn't a fixed pool of resources that are suitable for nuclear but not for renewables, or the reverse.
What determines where those resources get allocated are economic incentives. If the government puts its thumb on the scale and gives lots of incentives for renewables and lots of disincentives for nuclear--which is exactly what the US government has been doing for decades, and what the Green New Deal would mean doing even more of--then resources will be available for renewables but not for nuclear.
> Ignoring possible futures and going with historical pasts, nuclear plants are what are called "megaprojects" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaproject) and that's their main Achilles heel for our times. Americans at least, have stopped believing in them.
This is a valid point as far as the type of nuclear projects that have been done in the past is concerned. However, nuclear has progressed, and many of the designs being worked on now are not megaprojects and would not require the same huge up front investment that traditional designs have.
This is a valid point as far as the type of nuclear projects that have been done in the past is concerned. However, nuclear has progressed, and many of the designs being worked on now are not megaprojects and would not require the same huge up front investment that traditional designs have.
Sure. I've been hearing that for 20 years and I sincerely, eagerly and in good faith welcome their arrival.
However, until then, we have to go off of the existing historical reality. We can't run the numbers with any kind of integrity based on what is currently vaporware.
However, until then, we have to go off of the existing historical reality. We can't run the numbers with any kind of integrity based on what is currently vaporware.
> what is currently vaporware
Designs that are actually operating and producing power are not vaporware. The reasons those designs aren't already doing that in the US are political, not technical.
Anti-nuclear politics in the US has made people believe that every nuclear reactor is a Chernobyl waiting to happen. That was a pernicious lie even in the 1980s, and it is much, much more of a pernicious lie now. In terms of the fairest measurement, which is harm done per unit of energy generated, nuclear power, even with reactors of traditional designs, is orders of magnitude better than any other energy source, including renewables, which in turn are significantly better than oil and coal (coal is by far the worst). And with newer designs, not vaporware but actually operating today, that risk per unit of energy generated is even lower.
A sane US government policy would have had nuclear displacing oil and coal starting in the 1970s, as France and Japan did, and reprocessing the waste instead of beating ourselves over the head with a baseball bat by saying the only option was to store it for 100,000 years, which of course is not practically possible. Then we could have a meaningful conversation about how much of that nuclear base load capacity it makes sense to transition to renewables. Plus, if you really think CO2 emissions are a planetary emergency (I personally don't, but GND advocates do), there would be decades worth of CO2 emissions that the US would not have made at all. Not to mention decades worth of coal still in the ground where it belongs, and oil that could have been used for things much more productive than burning it for energy.
You say we have to go off of the "existing historical reality", and while it's true that we didn't do all those sane things in the past when we should have, that still is no argument for not doing them now. We have an obvious alternative source of base load power that would free us from oil and coal staring us in the face, and instead we're noodling about renewables that can't possibly meet the same demand requirements. That doesn't make sense to me.
Designs that are actually operating and producing power are not vaporware. The reasons those designs aren't already doing that in the US are political, not technical.
Anti-nuclear politics in the US has made people believe that every nuclear reactor is a Chernobyl waiting to happen. That was a pernicious lie even in the 1980s, and it is much, much more of a pernicious lie now. In terms of the fairest measurement, which is harm done per unit of energy generated, nuclear power, even with reactors of traditional designs, is orders of magnitude better than any other energy source, including renewables, which in turn are significantly better than oil and coal (coal is by far the worst). And with newer designs, not vaporware but actually operating today, that risk per unit of energy generated is even lower.
A sane US government policy would have had nuclear displacing oil and coal starting in the 1970s, as France and Japan did, and reprocessing the waste instead of beating ourselves over the head with a baseball bat by saying the only option was to store it for 100,000 years, which of course is not practically possible. Then we could have a meaningful conversation about how much of that nuclear base load capacity it makes sense to transition to renewables. Plus, if you really think CO2 emissions are a planetary emergency (I personally don't, but GND advocates do), there would be decades worth of CO2 emissions that the US would not have made at all. Not to mention decades worth of coal still in the ground where it belongs, and oil that could have been used for things much more productive than burning it for energy.
You say we have to go off of the "existing historical reality", and while it's true that we didn't do all those sane things in the past when we should have, that still is no argument for not doing them now. We have an obvious alternative source of base load power that would free us from oil and coal staring us in the face, and instead we're noodling about renewables that can't possibly meet the same demand requirements. That doesn't make sense to me.
Sure, you could handwave the "mass societal pushback" and change it to "cheering societal acceptance" and then fudge away the costs associated, but that's simply not what is going to happen.
You have to account for greenpeace and all the organized opposition. You have to account for the politics
That's why you need to go off of concrete material historical reality - if you're free to apply counterfactuals as you please than practically any conclusion is permissible because we can tweak and modify whatever we need.
Just like the "business as usual" advocates are hypothesizing a globally deployable massive carbon sucking technology to somehow exist in the future without a shred of evidence that it's at all plausible. It's extremely dubious gambling with the future of society.
Reality overrides counterfactual hypotheticals every time. When ambitious next-generation nuclear is ready to go, then there's a possible opening but right now it's simply not there.
You have to account for greenpeace and all the organized opposition. You have to account for the politics
That's why you need to go off of concrete material historical reality - if you're free to apply counterfactuals as you please than practically any conclusion is permissible because we can tweak and modify whatever we need.
Just like the "business as usual" advocates are hypothesizing a globally deployable massive carbon sucking technology to somehow exist in the future without a shred of evidence that it's at all plausible. It's extremely dubious gambling with the future of society.
Reality overrides counterfactual hypotheticals every time. When ambitious next-generation nuclear is ready to go, then there's a possible opening but right now it's simply not there.
> The GND proponents could finally understand marketing and branding and successfully reposition their project to our collective appetites as a collection of small bite-sized community projects but nuclear cannot do this.
The GND proponents aren't even talking about specifically how individual GND projects would be executed; they aren't talking about whether it would be a collection of small bite-sized projects or a few large ones.
What they're talking about is the government putting its thumb on the scale even more in favor of renewables. And that means even more incentive to do those projects, and less incentive to do others. That's where the conflict is.
The GND proponents aren't even talking about specifically how individual GND projects would be executed; they aren't talking about whether it would be a collection of small bite-sized projects or a few large ones.
What they're talking about is the government putting its thumb on the scale even more in favor of renewables. And that means even more incentive to do those projects, and less incentive to do others. That's where the conflict is.
I've been a proponent of it for 8 years and no, that's inaccurate.
Instead, many advocate for oil, gas, and nuclear to no longer get tax subsidies, government insured loans, preferential treatment with land use, or be able to freely externalize on to the community the damage and debris their products leave behind.
These companies also shouldn't have a Right to profit guaranteed by international trade treaties or be able to sue countries in tribunals when the countries decide against their wishes.
Instead, oil gas and nuclear need to stand on their own two feet, take full fiscal responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products and fund it not from government handouts but from the prices paid for their product. They should also get no preferential treatment and legal rights to their business interests.
Communities should have a right to say no without being sued in international courts.
It's the exact opposite. Take the thumb off the scale, include All the costs, remove all the special privileges and then let the market decide.
Instead, many advocate for oil, gas, and nuclear to no longer get tax subsidies, government insured loans, preferential treatment with land use, or be able to freely externalize on to the community the damage and debris their products leave behind.
These companies also shouldn't have a Right to profit guaranteed by international trade treaties or be able to sue countries in tribunals when the countries decide against their wishes.
Instead, oil gas and nuclear need to stand on their own two feet, take full fiscal responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products and fund it not from government handouts but from the prices paid for their product. They should also get no preferential treatment and legal rights to their business interests.
Communities should have a right to say no without being sued in international courts.
It's the exact opposite. Take the thumb off the scale, include All the costs, remove all the special privileges and then let the market decide.
> oil, gas, and nuclear to no longer get tax subsidies, government insured loans, preferential treatment with land use, or be able to freely externalize on to the community the damage and debris their products leave behind
I'm find with that, as long as it also includes no more government subsidies, etc. to renewables. Which have been given out for decades to renewables projects that, unlike oil and gas, do not even produce any actual energy, but are just "research" that promises to produce something Real Soon Now and has been for decades.
> let the market decide
I'm fine with that too, as long as it really is a free market. I do not think an actual free market is what the GND is proposing.
I'm find with that, as long as it also includes no more government subsidies, etc. to renewables. Which have been given out for decades to renewables projects that, unlike oil and gas, do not even produce any actual energy, but are just "research" that promises to produce something Real Soon Now and has been for decades.
> let the market decide
I'm fine with that too, as long as it really is a free market. I do not think an actual free market is what the GND is proposing.
It's a big tent ... there's some people that want to push social justice, living wage and political equity in the program. I think that's utter folly.
Then it just becomes the DSA agenda under a cape labeled "renewable energy" and it's a political non-starter. There's no way.
The advocates show that each of the issues separately have broad support so they think that by putting it all together you'll get the union as a coalition.
I think they'll more likely get somewhere from the intersection to practically nobody.
It'd be as if Republicans were trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, end obamacare, and ban gay marriage as a single package. Good luck!
I'd almost cynically claim it's only political theater to be leveraged in their reelection campaign. The DSA has a pretty solid ground game but you need to toss them red meat to get them to come out for you.
People like say, hamburgers and ice cream, but not on the same plate. I don't think the AOC GND is good politics. And as we've seen, the support seems to be leveling out.
That's why I side on the mostly-libertarian GND camp which was closer to what Jill Stein was advocating for 8 years ago. Remove all protections, remove all subsidies, open up a market, give consumers choice.
Then they can fight for a living wage if they please, but separately, not together.
I think it's far more politically feasible and achievable.
Then it just becomes the DSA agenda under a cape labeled "renewable energy" and it's a political non-starter. There's no way.
The advocates show that each of the issues separately have broad support so they think that by putting it all together you'll get the union as a coalition.
I think they'll more likely get somewhere from the intersection to practically nobody.
It'd be as if Republicans were trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, end obamacare, and ban gay marriage as a single package. Good luck!
I'd almost cynically claim it's only political theater to be leveraged in their reelection campaign. The DSA has a pretty solid ground game but you need to toss them red meat to get them to come out for you.
People like say, hamburgers and ice cream, but not on the same plate. I don't think the AOC GND is good politics. And as we've seen, the support seems to be leveling out.
That's why I side on the mostly-libertarian GND camp which was closer to what Jill Stein was advocating for 8 years ago. Remove all protections, remove all subsidies, open up a market, give consumers choice.
Then they can fight for a living wage if they please, but separately, not together.
I think it's far more politically feasible and achievable.
Future political generations abusing nuclear power for their own goals is something I hadn't yet considered.
Potentially extremely dangerous.
Potentially extremely dangerous.
If nuclear is so safe then why the subsidized insurance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
That's not a subsidy. It's a claim by a third party (who, coincidentally, exists to advocate for strict regulation of the nuclear industry) that the government is underestimating the risk associated with nuclear power. Differences of opinion regarding actuarial tables aren't subsidies.
The wiki article claims that CATO also supports this, but that claim does not appear to be supported in the cited material.
The wiki article claims that CATO also supports this, but that claim does not appear to be supported in the cited material.
We're killing our planet because we externalise cost.
CO2, deforestation, habitat destruction, species extinction, overfishing, ocean pollution are proximate problems arising from that deeper ultimate problem.
Nuclear is an adequate response to the proximate problem of global heating, it the worst possible response to ultimate problem of externalising cost.
To advocate nuclear in good faith it is essential to acknowledge this tension, and the complex social and philosophical challenges to resolving that tension.
Nuclear also externalizes cost -- to future generations, for thousands of years.
Wave energy, wind and solar is different though.
> ... Nuclear is an adequate response to the proximate problem of global heating ...
It's not the only way -- what about heavier taxes for energy from burning oil and coal.
But I guess people like their cars and getting stuck in the daily 08:00 traffic jams too much. Who wants trains or buses or bikes or running shoes.
Wave energy, wind and solar is different though.
> ... Nuclear is an adequate response to the proximate problem of global heating ...
It's not the only way -- what about heavier taxes for energy from burning oil and coal.
But I guess people like their cars and getting stuck in the daily 08:00 traffic jams too much. Who wants trains or buses or bikes or running shoes.
I think we don't have a good way to transport energy which makes green energy slightly impractical as the main source of energy.
If we find a way to connect the world on a common electricity grid, we might be able to skip nuclear and go full green (ofc this ignores the cost of producing/disposing those green energy generators)
If we find a way to connect the world on a common electricity grid, we might be able to skip nuclear and go full green (ofc this ignores the cost of producing/disposing those green energy generators)
With a diversified mix (with solar pannel facing different position also), energy efficiency, demand response, thermal storage and a bit of electrical storage, we definitely don't need a world grid
> First off, you can have both. Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.
The FAQ AOC released after the document explicitly ruled out nuclear energy, iirc.
The FAQ AOC released after the document explicitly ruled out nuclear energy, iirc.
No. It said we need to decommission our old reactors, which we do regardless. It’s linked in the first major thread in this discussion.
There is an economic reason you cannot have both: Nuclear power plants need to run near capacity to be economical. If you have a lot of intermittent power from wind and solar then nuclear plants will only be able to get a reasonable price for their output 40% of the time (at night when it's not windy).
Conversely, if the nuclear power plant is running anyway and has enough capacity to cover a windless night, you may as well get rid of the solar and wind.
This equation will change if we ever get storage to be cheap enough so we can store intermittent power, but there is nothing on the horizon that will do that.
Conversely, if the nuclear power plant is running anyway and has enough capacity to cover a windless night, you may as well get rid of the solar and wind.
This equation will change if we ever get storage to be cheap enough so we can store intermittent power, but there is nothing on the horizon that will do that.
If your concerns are valid, perhaps we should just stay with coal and gas. Renewables amid other problems are not going to work without massive energy storage systems, which we don't and won't have anytime soon
Please please please stop repeating this. It’s an assumption about a solution to a problem that doesn’t even exist yet.
As we build more renewables, we’re also building better grid connections to serve demand response. You build until most places are overproducing.
As we build more renewables, we’re also building better grid connections to serve demand response. You build until most places are overproducing.
> whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear.
And if that's not the case then what do you think will happen to the other programs critical in keeping climate change at bay? Taken to its ultimate conclusion this line of thinking leads to analysis paralysis, i.e. to shut down our government and do nothing. Which may be good thinking; especially for government policy likely full of unintended consequences. I don't think this should stop perfectly good technology from being developed and built out though. Or for the government to effectively kneecap it via regulation so restrictive it's tantamount to a ban, as the US has done with nuclear power.
> Nuclear is amazing and could solve all of our short term energy needs, but it's ultimately people and our political structures that I don't trust, not the science.
I agree yet have drawn strikingly different conclusions. Nuclear development should be encouraged to proceed. Collectively we need to figure out how to incentivize the actors to behave safely without kneecapping their ability to do something.
And if that's not the case then what do you think will happen to the other programs critical in keeping climate change at bay? Taken to its ultimate conclusion this line of thinking leads to analysis paralysis, i.e. to shut down our government and do nothing. Which may be good thinking; especially for government policy likely full of unintended consequences. I don't think this should stop perfectly good technology from being developed and built out though. Or for the government to effectively kneecap it via regulation so restrictive it's tantamount to a ban, as the US has done with nuclear power.
> Nuclear is amazing and could solve all of our short term energy needs, but it's ultimately people and our political structures that I don't trust, not the science.
I agree yet have drawn strikingly different conclusions. Nuclear development should be encouraged to proceed. Collectively we need to figure out how to incentivize the actors to behave safely without kneecapping their ability to do something.
"Nuclear is amazing"... but much much more expensive than wind and solar
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019/
If humanity is going to survive the next few decades with a quality of life even remotely resembling what we have now, we'll need to stop looking at the pocket book for a short while.
[deleted]
...why not both? Obviously we would still need a green new deal even with massive nuclear investment.
Green new deal is something we can have now, and something we needed ten years ago. Nuclear (on the scale needed for the climate disaster) takes decades to implement. We simply don’t have the time to omit a real and solution we can start now, for a more expensive dream solution.
... is what people have been saying about Nuclear literally since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Had we started back then we wouldn't be in this mess. I argue not pursuing any nuclear solutions in favor of solely investing in solar and wind, we may well find ourselves saying the same thing a few decades from now. Time to get going!
leonixyz(2)
This article fails to present a fair view and it's too shallow to be taken seriously.
I have had the opportunity to be involved with a big player in the mid-C power market and it quickly showed me that the real challenges are different than what Reddit armchair experts identify.
tl;dr: just head over to [MIT's EN-Road Climate Simulator](https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/), move the Nuclear dial to maximum adoption, and see what changes. You have gone from 4.1 degrees of temperature change to 3.9C. The 0.2C that is almost negligible compared to other solutions like reducing methane emissions.
The US's Green New Deal is a comprehensive document not only about climate protection but also about social injustice. The US does need something like this Deal and making a case for a "Nuclear New Deal" does not address the same issues. The internet appears to think of nuclear energy as this misunderstood miracle that the interest groups and politicians have killed.
I do think nuclear has an important role in lowering electrification costs when the carbon pricing goes up and we do need to start looking at SMRs and nuclear fusion much more seriously; below I will try to balance some of the article's points.
Before I start, I'd like to highlight that to my understanding, the biggest sustainable energy challenges come from the demand side not the supply.
> when wildfires broke out the following month, a blanket of ash blotted out the sun in some places, cutting the state’s solar energy output by one-third.
Under the wildfire circumstances many of the energy generation plants, including nuclear, may need to adjust. Solar is 20% of california's generation, so the roughly 7% cut is significant but [was not the culprit as someone pointed out](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/why-renew...).
Solar has an important advantage over nuclear in a disaster: it is decentralized. Independent communities can rely on their own solar power while they connect to the bigger grid as well. This creates resilience in case one of them is cut.
> Energy in California is incredibly expensive for ratepayers
Some reasons for this are environmental restrictions that stops California from buying relatively cheaper hydro power, inefficiencies in PG&E, and just generally not enough ratepayer anger.
> Reactors from civilian plants don’t blow up like atomic bombs and nuclear waste isn’t a glowing toxic ooze.
The reactors work under extreme safety considerations. Prior to Chernobyl the scientists [did not hold the concern](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d3rzFTrLg) that a reactor is capable of making such disaster. The problem is that like most engineering we need to see what happens to fix it, and the sensitivity around nuclear increases the cost of that. The waste does glow, just not in the visible spectrum.
> elements such as uranium and plutonium have such long half-lives, the radiation they emit is low enough to safely hold in your hand.
You probably do not want to do that for a prolonged period. Also, the big issue is not only with the direct radiation but with the particles getting into the body.
The article mentioned half-lives, it is long enough that [we can't quite comprehend what to do about it](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/ten-thousand-years/). That is true even for Thorium, though relatively much better.
The idea behind our green movement is not leaving a problem for the next generations. The nuclear energy at the advancement level of today does not guarantee that.
I have had the opportunity to be involved with a big player in the mid-C power market and it quickly showed me that the real challenges are different than what Reddit armchair experts identify.
tl;dr: just head over to [MIT's EN-Road Climate Simulator](https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/), move the Nuclear dial to maximum adoption, and see what changes. You have gone from 4.1 degrees of temperature change to 3.9C. The 0.2C that is almost negligible compared to other solutions like reducing methane emissions.
The US's Green New Deal is a comprehensive document not only about climate protection but also about social injustice. The US does need something like this Deal and making a case for a "Nuclear New Deal" does not address the same issues. The internet appears to think of nuclear energy as this misunderstood miracle that the interest groups and politicians have killed.
I do think nuclear has an important role in lowering electrification costs when the carbon pricing goes up and we do need to start looking at SMRs and nuclear fusion much more seriously; below I will try to balance some of the article's points.
Before I start, I'd like to highlight that to my understanding, the biggest sustainable energy challenges come from the demand side not the supply.
> when wildfires broke out the following month, a blanket of ash blotted out the sun in some places, cutting the state’s solar energy output by one-third.
Under the wildfire circumstances many of the energy generation plants, including nuclear, may need to adjust. Solar is 20% of california's generation, so the roughly 7% cut is significant but [was not the culprit as someone pointed out](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/08/why-renew...).
Solar has an important advantage over nuclear in a disaster: it is decentralized. Independent communities can rely on their own solar power while they connect to the bigger grid as well. This creates resilience in case one of them is cut.
> Energy in California is incredibly expensive for ratepayers
Some reasons for this are environmental restrictions that stops California from buying relatively cheaper hydro power, inefficiencies in PG&E, and just generally not enough ratepayer anger.
> Reactors from civilian plants don’t blow up like atomic bombs and nuclear waste isn’t a glowing toxic ooze.
The reactors work under extreme safety considerations. Prior to Chernobyl the scientists [did not hold the concern](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d3rzFTrLg) that a reactor is capable of making such disaster. The problem is that like most engineering we need to see what happens to fix it, and the sensitivity around nuclear increases the cost of that. The waste does glow, just not in the visible spectrum.
> elements such as uranium and plutonium have such long half-lives, the radiation they emit is low enough to safely hold in your hand.
You probably do not want to do that for a prolonged period. Also, the big issue is not only with the direct radiation but with the particles getting into the body.
The article mentioned half-lives, it is long enough that [we can't quite comprehend what to do about it](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/ten-thousand-years/). That is true even for Thorium, though relatively much better.
The idea behind our green movement is not leaving a problem for the next generations. The nuclear energy at the advancement level of today does not guarantee that.
Article praising nuclear power, referencing pro-nuclear think tanks and not referecing Fukushima even once. Yeah, nah.
> Reactors from civilian plants don’t blow up like atomic bombs...
No they don't, but they do blow up like industrial hydrogen gas explosions. Loss of coolant accidents are unforgiving in boiling water reactors and quickly fail catastrophically (in the engineering sense).
> the 1950s design CANDU reactor is small enough to be considered “modular”
Ummm, no. I stood in front of reactor #4 at Darlington just before it went into production. I think this was the last CANDU reactor to go into service in Canada. The scale of the reactor, the turbine hall, and the containment building are incomparable to anything else man-made that I've experienced.
The large size compared to equivalent boiling water reactors accounts for the CANDU's primary failing: it costs too much. Especially in the age of fracking, nuclear is uncompetitive cost wise compared to natural gas.
The supporters of nuclear energy and The Green New Deal both rely on a working assumption that the cost of CO2 emissions is the only important factor moving forward. Geographic and geopolitical considerations may play a significant role in continental Europe, Japan, and China but I have yet to hear a reasonable non-ideological argument against a natural gas centric strategy in North America.
No they don't, but they do blow up like industrial hydrogen gas explosions. Loss of coolant accidents are unforgiving in boiling water reactors and quickly fail catastrophically (in the engineering sense).
> the 1950s design CANDU reactor is small enough to be considered “modular”
Ummm, no. I stood in front of reactor #4 at Darlington just before it went into production. I think this was the last CANDU reactor to go into service in Canada. The scale of the reactor, the turbine hall, and the containment building are incomparable to anything else man-made that I've experienced.
The large size compared to equivalent boiling water reactors accounts for the CANDU's primary failing: it costs too much. Especially in the age of fracking, nuclear is uncompetitive cost wise compared to natural gas.
The supporters of nuclear energy and The Green New Deal both rely on a working assumption that the cost of CO2 emissions is the only important factor moving forward. Geographic and geopolitical considerations may play a significant role in continental Europe, Japan, and China but I have yet to hear a reasonable non-ideological argument against a natural gas centric strategy in North America.
Fast reactors could, in principle, blow up like atomic bombs (in the sense of having a prompt supercritical reaction with unmoderated neutrons.)
In practice though, there are control rods and MSRs have freeze plugs into drain tanks right?
I was thinking fast reactors with fuel elements that could rearrange in a serious accident. That would be harder in a MSR, but concentration by precipitation or volatilization and condensation would have to be ruled out.
Yes, nuclear power is more expensive than natural gas. But natural gas still emits carbon dioxide. If our goal is to curtail climate change, then our goal is to decarbonize our economy. There are additional culprits too like methane and some refrigerants. But carbon dioxide accounts for the lion's share of climate change.
And nuclear is much much more expensive than solar or wind !
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2019/
In terms of raw generation costs, maybe. Nuclear's price is historically a factor of 4 less when built at scale. Building nuclear plants one at time, like the US is doing currently, does not leverage economies of scale.
And when taking into account cost of storage, which is necessary when using intermittent sources, the actually cost increases drastically.
And when taking into account cost of storage, which is necessary when using intermittent sources, the actually cost increases drastically.
I’m tempted to go in on some long term GE stock options for this reason - stock is very cheap but they are the only major US nuclear manufacturing player.
Green New Deal isn’t an energy or environmental program. It is a greenwashed policy proposal that includes essentially the entire far left’s agenda - it uses the word “justice” affixed to many different causes and the cause of environmental protection (rebranded as “environmental justice”) and a dose of mental gymnastics to drag in many unrelated policy proposals that are part of either the social justice or socialist agenda.
If we want to expedite environmental protection, what we need is an unbundling of individual policy proposals from GND, which will speed up adoption of the pieces that matter (like supporting nuclear energy) without all the controversial social justice or socialist cruft riding on it.
If we want to expedite environmental protection, what we need is an unbundling of individual policy proposals from GND, which will speed up adoption of the pieces that matter (like supporting nuclear energy) without all the controversial social justice or socialist cruft riding on it.
> the entire far left’s agenda
Or as the rest of the world calls it, center's agenda. The actual far-left is pretty critical of the GND: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/05/deal-m05.html
Or as the rest of the world calls it, center's agenda. The actual far-left is pretty critical of the GND: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/05/deal-m05.html
The “rest of the world” doesn’t call it the “center’s agenda” in my observation - what are you basing that on? I have noticed there is a tendency on HN to treat Scandinavian countries with small homogeneous populations as “the rest of the world”, ignoring other nations out there as well as the diversity of opinions within Scandinavian countries.
In my view, the far left - as far as those in the center are concerned - is “progressives” in America (and their equivalents elsewhere): those pushing for equity (equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity), those using a victim/oppression narrative as a foundation for every political position, those seeking collectivist society/policy instead of individualist perspectives, etc. There is room for relativism certainly, but characterizing the GND as the “center” is not just without evidence but in conflict with the reality of political cultures around the world.
In my view, the far left - as far as those in the center are concerned - is “progressives” in America (and their equivalents elsewhere): those pushing for equity (equality of outcomes instead of equality of opportunity), those using a victim/oppression narrative as a foundation for every political position, those seeking collectivist society/policy instead of individualist perspectives, etc. There is room for relativism certainly, but characterizing the GND as the “center” is not just without evidence but in conflict with the reality of political cultures around the world.
This excellent video delves into the economics of nuclear power plants and compares them with the alternatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw
Although nuclear energy is profitable of the LONG term, it is financially infeasible over the short-to-medium term.
Although nuclear energy is profitable of the LONG term, it is financially infeasible over the short-to-medium term.
Does anybody know a company or institution that they trust to operate a reactor for decades with the right safety standard?
Everywhere safety is being cut back if it reduces profits.
We may have the technology for safe nuclear energy but we lack the right society.
We might want new nucelar power plants for industrial centers. But what we certainly shouldn't be doing is using them as an excuse to propagate the idea of a centralized grid of power authorities distributing power nationally or globally.
Centralized grids are incredibly expensive, difficult to manage, and introduce single points of failure in the physical and information domains. We should be doing everything we can to decentralize our grids, promote distributed power generation and storage in urban and commercial installments, and focus on letting the municipal levels of government coordinate bulk storage appropriate to their needs.
Folks get so worked up about highly efficient new nuclear power plants that they forget about transit and storage, or argue that these aspects shouldn't be considered. Both ideas are deleterious to making a modern, resilient power infrastructure that's able to adapt to climate change, changes in the economic environment, and the increasing pace of modern technology in the space of power storage and delivery.
Until these goals can coexist with the call for a "nuclear new deal", we should view them for what they are: short-sighted and misguided attempts to make profit off a need without considering the actual long term goals that society has.
Centralized grids are incredibly expensive, difficult to manage, and introduce single points of failure in the physical and information domains. We should be doing everything we can to decentralize our grids, promote distributed power generation and storage in urban and commercial installments, and focus on letting the municipal levels of government coordinate bulk storage appropriate to their needs.
Folks get so worked up about highly efficient new nuclear power plants that they forget about transit and storage, or argue that these aspects shouldn't be considered. Both ideas are deleterious to making a modern, resilient power infrastructure that's able to adapt to climate change, changes in the economic environment, and the increasing pace of modern technology in the space of power storage and delivery.
Until these goals can coexist with the call for a "nuclear new deal", we should view them for what they are: short-sighted and misguided attempts to make profit off a need without considering the actual long term goals that society has.
Folks also get so worked up about highly efficient new renewable power sources that they forget about transit and storage.
I don't know about the situation today, but for years the massive wind farms on Tehachapi weren't even connected to the grid. Even after PG&E bought the electricity to meet their renewables quota, it was cheaper to waste it than to build the transmission infrastructure.
Renewables have the inverse of the problem you described: They are too distributed, and it's hard to get enough to power a community without running transmission lines over hundreds of miles.
Yes, the centralization of infrastructure required for efficient nuclear energy production is a problem. But don't forget that renewables have equivalent problems.
I don't know about the situation today, but for years the massive wind farms on Tehachapi weren't even connected to the grid. Even after PG&E bought the electricity to meet their renewables quota, it was cheaper to waste it than to build the transmission infrastructure.
Renewables have the inverse of the problem you described: They are too distributed, and it's hard to get enough to power a community without running transmission lines over hundreds of miles.
Yes, the centralization of infrastructure required for efficient nuclear energy production is a problem. But don't forget that renewables have equivalent problems.
Transmission on a local level is a MUCH easier problem to solve. Storage on a local level is plummetting in price and rising in efficiency; while also reducing its reliance in rare minerals.
PG&E's failures should show that running one big statewide grid is so difficult and expensive it shouldn't be done. We should reclaim to copper and use the savings to make communities self sufficient, which for many small communities is entirely possible
PG&E's failures should show that running one big statewide grid is so difficult and expensive it shouldn't be done. We should reclaim to copper and use the savings to make communities self sufficient, which for many small communities is entirely possible
[deleted]
Why not both? The Green New Deal doesn’t exclude nuclear power. I know some policy makers are hesitant about nuclear power, but from what I understand the authors of the Green New Deal framework (AOC and Markey) have said they are open to nuclear power.
In light if how the U.S. is handling the pandemic, your concern is extremely valid.
Please don't take HN threads on generic flamewar tangents. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24747057.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24747057.
The parent comment talked about political policy in the future putting lives at risk with regards to proper decommissioning of nuclear reactors. The administration's current policies towards the covid crisis are an example of the type of possible political irresponsibility the parent comment mentioned. I don't see this comment as a flame war or tangential. It's fine to remove it, of course, next time I'll add more substance to the comment. Hope you are having a good day, and thanks for the hard work on moderating this site.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I have one question for all the articles that write, rightly so, about how efficient nuclear is. Can you guarantee that another Dyatlov won’t be put in charge of the plant and potentially cause massive devastation?
Liquid Salt and Thorium are the best wins we have today until we figure out fusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
Simple facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
Simple facts.
As long as Nuclear Power costs don't include the long term waste storage it's dishonest about the real costs (just like the oil industry).
Also - current nuclear power plants need cold water for cooling - france had to turn of plants due to heat [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa...
Also - current nuclear power plants need cold water for cooling - france had to turn of plants due to heat [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa...
TFA makes it abundantly clear that waste storage is a vanishingly small portion of the cost. Dig a giant hole in a mountain in the desert. Put waste in. Station security guards. Continue for a century. Repeat.
There are a bunch of startups developing new reactor designs that should be cheaper and safer than existing plants. Some are ready or close to building demonstration plants.
I'd rather we fund the most promising dozen or so of those funding to build demos over the next decade than start building conventional plants now and locking ourselves in to those for decades.
There was an interesting Nova episode a few years ago that looked at a bunch of these new designs.
I remember one that used a liquid fuel in a spherical vessel, with an opening in the bottom to drain into a wider, long, shallow rectangular vessel. The fuel would react in the spherical vessel, but if you drained it into the rectangular vessel it would not react.
This is because in the spherical vessel if a given atom reacts and produces a neutron there are many directions it can go which have to pass through enough fuel that it has a good chance of causing another reaction. It's enough to achieve a self-sustaining reaction.
In the rectangular vessel, there are much fewer directions for a neutron that pass through enough fuel to react. You can't get a self-sustaining reaction.
The best part was how they plugged the drain when the reactor was operating. They plugged it by having some frozen fuel in the pipe. The heat from the reaction in the spherical vessel would quickly melt the plug unless it was heavily and continuously cooled.
Note that unlike other plants where if something goes wrong with cooling you have to take explicit action to stop the reactor before meltdown, in this one if something goes wrong with the cooling the reactor stops itself.
Another good one is the traveling wave reactor. There was a joint venture between TerraPower (a company founded by Bill Gates) and China National Nuclear Corporation to build a 600 MWe demo reactor from 2018-2025 followed by commercial 1150 MWe plants later that decade, but TerraPower was made to stop in early 2019 by the US government.
Besides having a much lower chance of doing something that can harm people in the surrounding area than current designs, many of these new designs allow for much smaller reactors so that even if something does happen the area affected will be small.
I'd rather we fund the most promising dozen or so of those funding to build demos over the next decade than start building conventional plants now and locking ourselves in to those for decades.
There was an interesting Nova episode a few years ago that looked at a bunch of these new designs.
I remember one that used a liquid fuel in a spherical vessel, with an opening in the bottom to drain into a wider, long, shallow rectangular vessel. The fuel would react in the spherical vessel, but if you drained it into the rectangular vessel it would not react.
This is because in the spherical vessel if a given atom reacts and produces a neutron there are many directions it can go which have to pass through enough fuel that it has a good chance of causing another reaction. It's enough to achieve a self-sustaining reaction.
In the rectangular vessel, there are much fewer directions for a neutron that pass through enough fuel to react. You can't get a self-sustaining reaction.
The best part was how they plugged the drain when the reactor was operating. They plugged it by having some frozen fuel in the pipe. The heat from the reaction in the spherical vessel would quickly melt the plug unless it was heavily and continuously cooled.
Note that unlike other plants where if something goes wrong with cooling you have to take explicit action to stop the reactor before meltdown, in this one if something goes wrong with the cooling the reactor stops itself.
Another good one is the traveling wave reactor. There was a joint venture between TerraPower (a company founded by Bill Gates) and China National Nuclear Corporation to build a 600 MWe demo reactor from 2018-2025 followed by commercial 1150 MWe plants later that decade, but TerraPower was made to stop in early 2019 by the US government.
Besides having a much lower chance of doing something that can harm people in the surrounding area than current designs, many of these new designs allow for much smaller reactors so that even if something does happen the area affected will be small.
At this point, I will take any and every mix of non-polluting energy we can get.
I do worry about the stability-of-nations risk, but I think if we could plan as a global community for such contingencies we could come up with plans for securing or perhaps even permanent shutdown of nuclear facilities in the event of the collapse of a nation.
Ultimately, I think we are at the point where we need to take more drastic action, and nuclear can certainly fit into that for avoiding the worst outcomes of climate change.
I also hope that we come to a point as a society where we are willing to make and enforce laws that will help us prevent a similar event as the ones that brought us climate change. We were systematically and intentionally lied to, over and over, by oil and related industries. Technology that would aid us was scrapped for the sake of short term profits. Scientific analysis was hidden. Lobbying allowed the practices to continue. Lies were allowed to be propagated to the public to the extent that, even today, many people doubt climate change is even happening despite overwhelming evidence. These need to be crimes, as they have real victims: and unlike many person-to-person crimes, these corporate crimes can affect our entire society.
I do worry about the stability-of-nations risk, but I think if we could plan as a global community for such contingencies we could come up with plans for securing or perhaps even permanent shutdown of nuclear facilities in the event of the collapse of a nation.
Ultimately, I think we are at the point where we need to take more drastic action, and nuclear can certainly fit into that for avoiding the worst outcomes of climate change.
I also hope that we come to a point as a society where we are willing to make and enforce laws that will help us prevent a similar event as the ones that brought us climate change. We were systematically and intentionally lied to, over and over, by oil and related industries. Technology that would aid us was scrapped for the sake of short term profits. Scientific analysis was hidden. Lobbying allowed the practices to continue. Lies were allowed to be propagated to the public to the extent that, even today, many people doubt climate change is even happening despite overwhelming evidence. These need to be crimes, as they have real victims: and unlike many person-to-person crimes, these corporate crimes can affect our entire society.
My Airbnb host is a full time nuclear engineer and even he doesn’t back the technology. “Too risky”
Problem with nuclear deals is that the technology solutions are so centralized they put control in the hands of big government and big corporations.
And take control out of the hands of individuals.
Which means people are no longer free to decide for themselves where their energy dollars will be spent.
Who can afford to put solar panels on their home, when they are footing the bill through taxes for huge projects typically ridden by massive cost overruns, failure to properly account for decommissioning costs, and ample opportunities for corruption?
Decentralized solutions like solar, which can be paired with fast-improving battery technology, are much more appealing, even if they perhaps necessarily need to be augmented with fraught solutions like nuclear.
And take control out of the hands of individuals.
Which means people are no longer free to decide for themselves where their energy dollars will be spent.
Who can afford to put solar panels on their home, when they are footing the bill through taxes for huge projects typically ridden by massive cost overruns, failure to properly account for decommissioning costs, and ample opportunities for corruption?
Decentralized solutions like solar, which can be paired with fast-improving battery technology, are much more appealing, even if they perhaps necessarily need to be augmented with fraught solutions like nuclear.
That just means we need small nuclear reactors.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-n...
Solar and wind are much more demanding regarding space and greenhouse effects related to manufacturing and installation.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-u-s-small-n...
Solar and wind are much more demanding regarding space and greenhouse effects related to manufacturing and installation.
Show me a nuclear reactor a middle class family can afford. Solar can be on the roof. Or even be the roof. Hard to get more space efficient than that. The greenhouse gas effects of solar manufacturing are a PR myth pushed by the oil and gas industry.
Nuclear power is, by far, safer than fossil fuel power. The problem is that it has a branding deficit.
The BP logo is a green-yellow sun; it's happy, because it's capitalism-- shiny and happy on the surface, and please don't read the fine print-- whereas most nuclear projects require government involvement, and government doesn't invest money into advertising or branding, preferring quiet competence (when you hear a lot about your government, that's usually because someone screwed up). So, people have a relative over-focus on the problems with nuclear power (which are serious, and need to be addressed) compared to other sources of energy.
The BP logo is a green-yellow sun; it's happy, because it's capitalism-- shiny and happy on the surface, and please don't read the fine print-- whereas most nuclear projects require government involvement, and government doesn't invest money into advertising or branding, preferring quiet competence (when you hear a lot about your government, that's usually because someone screwed up). So, people have a relative over-focus on the problems with nuclear power (which are serious, and need to be addressed) compared to other sources of energy.
Do Nuclear plants really create that many jobs though? Sure it's labor intensive during construction but it's highly specialized work and doesn't exactly create a lot of working class jobs. The key part of the green new deal is the "new deal" bit, not the "green" bit. The "Green" bit is just a good way of spending the money if you are doing a "new deal". If you don't get many jobs per dollar, it's a bad deal.
Government subsidies of an industry are an important tool where private sector investment is not sufficient to reach positive feedback loops and move up the manufacturing efficiency curve; either at all, or just not fast enough naturally.
The efficiency of public investment is often measured as the ratio of private dollars you can entice someone to invest in return for the public subsidy.
So for example, offer someone a $5,000 tax credit to install $55,000 of solar panels is a 10:1 private investment factor. This has two very important results;
1) If you have a high private investment factor it means that the thing you are subsidizing has substantial positive economic value in the real world. Those private dollars means someone has skin in the game, and actually wants the product they are buying.
2) It means the net total effect of resources being allocated to the industry is much higher per dollar of public funds being invested.
The problem I have with the Green New Deal or similar ideas is they seem to be trying to achieve a specific industrial energy base irrespective of the economic value of that basis, or the current limits of technology.
First, because it’s being driven primarily by public dollars — literally printed money whose only cost is the debasement of all savings. Second, because the goal is not fundamentally economic, it means a significant sustained drag on the economy due to more expensive energy which is a multiplicative negative effect going into the future.
Energy needs to cost less and less going into the future while also being produce cleaner and cleaner. Cheap abundant energy is a necessity for not only a growing economy but even a matter of equitable treatment and human rights.
Over the next 20 years the technological progress in renewables and storage will naturally and fundamentally change our national energy supply. Similar to the mythical man month theory, we can’t spend 10x as much and get there 10x faster.
Smart and efficient public spending with high ratios of private dollar participation has been and will continue to be successful in motivating an economical shift to clean energy. I don’t think we want to or should be spending trillions of dollars here, because frankly most of it will be wasted.
The fundamental solution to cleaner energy is in making the clean energy solutions abundantly cheaper and more reliable. Anything else is akin to trying to stay warm by lighting money on fire.
The efficiency of public investment is often measured as the ratio of private dollars you can entice someone to invest in return for the public subsidy.
So for example, offer someone a $5,000 tax credit to install $55,000 of solar panels is a 10:1 private investment factor. This has two very important results;
1) If you have a high private investment factor it means that the thing you are subsidizing has substantial positive economic value in the real world. Those private dollars means someone has skin in the game, and actually wants the product they are buying.
2) It means the net total effect of resources being allocated to the industry is much higher per dollar of public funds being invested.
The problem I have with the Green New Deal or similar ideas is they seem to be trying to achieve a specific industrial energy base irrespective of the economic value of that basis, or the current limits of technology.
First, because it’s being driven primarily by public dollars — literally printed money whose only cost is the debasement of all savings. Second, because the goal is not fundamentally economic, it means a significant sustained drag on the economy due to more expensive energy which is a multiplicative negative effect going into the future.
Energy needs to cost less and less going into the future while also being produce cleaner and cleaner. Cheap abundant energy is a necessity for not only a growing economy but even a matter of equitable treatment and human rights.
Over the next 20 years the technological progress in renewables and storage will naturally and fundamentally change our national energy supply. Similar to the mythical man month theory, we can’t spend 10x as much and get there 10x faster.
Smart and efficient public spending with high ratios of private dollar participation has been and will continue to be successful in motivating an economical shift to clean energy. I don’t think we want to or should be spending trillions of dollars here, because frankly most of it will be wasted.
The fundamental solution to cleaner energy is in making the clean energy solutions abundantly cheaper and more reliable. Anything else is akin to trying to stay warm by lighting money on fire.
No, we need a geothermal new deal. Nuclear is way too problematic, and MIT has estimated 240+ years worth of GT energy in the US alone.
FFS. As Saint Jobs taught us "Real artists ship."
We needed nuclear. And everything else. Two decades ago.
Now must do anything and everything to get to zero carbon as fast as possible. Not tomorrow. Not a decade from now. Today. Now.
If we went all in for nukes, ignoring all the financial and technical and policy downsides, what's the soonest it'd go live? A decade?
Too late.
So while we build out wind, solar, storage... And while we rebuild our grid... We should also triple down on nukes. Dump money into every feasible and semifeasible and farfetched variation. And hope that in a decade some of those bets pay off. (I especially wish traveling wave reactors can work.)
Meanwhile, per disagree and then commit, get with the program. All this narcissism of small differences makes the concern trolls part of the problem. If nukes are your thing, knock yourself out. And praise all the complimentary efforts. Because we need all of it, as soon as possible.
Source: Saul Griffith
We needed nuclear. And everything else. Two decades ago.
Now must do anything and everything to get to zero carbon as fast as possible. Not tomorrow. Not a decade from now. Today. Now.
If we went all in for nukes, ignoring all the financial and technical and policy downsides, what's the soonest it'd go live? A decade?
Too late.
So while we build out wind, solar, storage... And while we rebuild our grid... We should also triple down on nukes. Dump money into every feasible and semifeasible and farfetched variation. And hope that in a decade some of those bets pay off. (I especially wish traveling wave reactors can work.)
Meanwhile, per disagree and then commit, get with the program. All this narcissism of small differences makes the concern trolls part of the problem. If nukes are your thing, knock yourself out. And praise all the complimentary efforts. Because we need all of it, as soon as possible.
Source: Saul Griffith
“Two terawatts of photovoltaic would require installing 100 square meters of 15- percent- efficient solar cells every second, second after second, for the next 25 years. (That’s about 1,200 square miles of solar cells a year, times 25 equals 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic cells.) Two terawatts of solar thermal? If it’s 30 percent efficient all told, we’ll need 50 square meters of highly reflective mirrors every second. (Some 600 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of biofuels? Something like 4 Olympic swimming pools of genetically engineered algae, installed every second. (About 61,000 square miles a year, times 25.) Two terawatts of wind? That’s a 300- foot- diameter wind turbine every 5 minutes. (Install 105,000 turbines a year in good wind locations, times 25.) Two terawatts of geothermal? Build three 100- megawatt steam turbines every day— 1,095 a year, times 25. Three terawatts of new nuclear? That’s a 3- reactor, 3- gigawatt plant every week— 52 a year, times 25.” Add it up, and when you’re done, you’ve got an area about the size of America—“ Call it Renewistan,” says Griffith— covered with stuff dedicated to generating humanity’s energy.[1]
The green new deal is just political theater in order for the democratic party to get more money. You're deluding yourself if you think a political party is single handedly capable of solving climate change. As much as I want something like the green new deal to work, it probably won't even make a dent in the grand scheme of things unless they go full nuclear.
[1] Stewart brand whole earth discipline
The green new deal is just political theater in order for the democratic party to get more money. You're deluding yourself if you think a political party is single handedly capable of solving climate change. As much as I want something like the green new deal to work, it probably won't even make a dent in the grand scheme of things unless they go full nuclear.
[1] Stewart brand whole earth discipline
Does anyone here know much about how they validate correct operation of hardware / firmware / software in the nuclear industry? I'm interested in this question but don't know where to start reading about it.
Author has good intentions, but absolutist and dangerous thoughts here. For example: "In order for this to work in the United States, the federal government could consolidate the nuclear arms of General Atomics, General Electric, Westinghouse, and others into a single public corporation. This federal entity would be mandated to decarbonize the American electricity grid."
They suggest making a monopoly for nuclear? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for bad technology choices and taking advantage of customers. Let the market figure it out, with dozens of designs and vendors and demonstrations. It's already an oligopoly with maybe 2 or 3 incumbents in the US. And it's been that way since the 60s when the government created that market power for military and international nuclear export reasons. Essentially they picked water cooled technologies because they made sense for the Navy, and picked just two companies to export them internationally, subsidized, etc for civilian use. We need more companies not less. And we need the government to stay out of it. The only thing federal government should do is help lower licensing costs and timelines and establish locations for rapid and responsible demonstration of advanced nuclear projects. The only way to do this is smaller reactors that take less money and time to demonstrate and verify. Think small not big. The DOE might be doing this with the Advanced Reactor Demonstration, but it seems they may be in the business of monopoly creation with just two companies out of 20 or more selected to demonstrate billion dollar mega projects.
Whatever we do, we should not deploy more water cooled technologies just to decarbonize. Yes, they work; yes they have not caused damage human life the US. But the GE designed Fukushima reactors and the RMBK water reactors are astonishingly close to catastrophe. People don't understand how much effort goes into avoiding meltdowns. We need new meltdown proof designs that don't need active cooling to keep the reactor at safe temperatures.
TO THE FEDS: prevent monopolies - make demonstrating new nuclear technologies easier
They suggest making a monopoly for nuclear? Are you kidding me? That is a recipe for bad technology choices and taking advantage of customers. Let the market figure it out, with dozens of designs and vendors and demonstrations. It's already an oligopoly with maybe 2 or 3 incumbents in the US. And it's been that way since the 60s when the government created that market power for military and international nuclear export reasons. Essentially they picked water cooled technologies because they made sense for the Navy, and picked just two companies to export them internationally, subsidized, etc for civilian use. We need more companies not less. And we need the government to stay out of it. The only thing federal government should do is help lower licensing costs and timelines and establish locations for rapid and responsible demonstration of advanced nuclear projects. The only way to do this is smaller reactors that take less money and time to demonstrate and verify. Think small not big. The DOE might be doing this with the Advanced Reactor Demonstration, but it seems they may be in the business of monopoly creation with just two companies out of 20 or more selected to demonstrate billion dollar mega projects.
Whatever we do, we should not deploy more water cooled technologies just to decarbonize. Yes, they work; yes they have not caused damage human life the US. But the GE designed Fukushima reactors and the RMBK water reactors are astonishingly close to catastrophe. People don't understand how much effort goes into avoiding meltdowns. We need new meltdown proof designs that don't need active cooling to keep the reactor at safe temperatures.
TO THE FEDS: prevent monopolies - make demonstrating new nuclear technologies easier
This mistakenly assumes that the Green New Deal is about averting climate change. It’s not: https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-chief-staff-admits-green-12440835...
> The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.
> “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
> The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.
> “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
The GND is a quick read (or even a quicker skim). People should just read it [1, 2].
I support GND and it's surprising how the news outlets let this narrative grow. GND is a social justice document more than a Renewable Future. I hope others take the brief time to read it.
[1] - Reader read: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-...
[2] - Official document, pdf: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.go...
I support GND and it's surprising how the news outlets let this narrative grow. GND is a social justice document more than a Renewable Future. I hope others take the brief time to read it.
[1] - Reader read: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-...
[2] - Official document, pdf: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasio-cortez.house.go...
It’s not merely a social justice document. It’s about achieving social justice in a specific way: through government, union, and activist group-led “national mobilization.”
It’s far from the market-oriented approaches being implemented in Europe, such as carbon pricing.
It’s far from the market-oriented approaches being implemented in Europe, such as carbon pricing.
It's very similar to what is being implemented in Europe. The European Green Deal is a government-, union-, and activist-led (inter)national mobilization. They summarize the plan as a "Europ[ean] growth strategy" with a primary goal of "no person and no place is left behind".
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/euro...
The EU plan you link to is completely different. It’s actually about environmental issues. It uses words like growth, efficiency, and competition, markets, economic incentives, etc. It’s a serious plan for addressing climate change using modern tools of governance. (The “no person left behind” point isn’t an amorphous reference to social justice, but is referring specifically to those affected by decarbonization, like coal workers.)
The GND, by contrast, spends tremendous amounts of ink addressing unions, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing, racial justice, gender equity, income inequality, indigenous people, the disabled, migrants, historical oppression, etc. It’s a wishlist, not a serious framework for addressing climate change.
The GND, by contrast, spends tremendous amounts of ink addressing unions, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed housing, racial justice, gender equity, income inequality, indigenous people, the disabled, migrants, historical oppression, etc. It’s a wishlist, not a serious framework for addressing climate change.
[deleted]
It depends on who "we" is.
If "we" want to spend several times as much money for our power, and only start getting it 10+ years from now, "we" can go all in on nukes. But that "we" looks an awful lot like "them" to me.
My expectation is that if CO2 production has not taken a nosedive by 2030, we are looking at a worldwide collapse after mass migration pushes fascist governments into the driver seat, leading directly to global thermonuclear war. (I would welcome being shown wrong.)
The only problem cited for renewables is energy storage, for which we have numerous alternatives that look like they will all work.
Besides gravity storage, with weights that may be lowered into disused mine shafts, underground compressed air, batteries, and molten salt baths, a surprising synthesis is solar panels floating on dam reservoirs.
They operate more efficiently by staying cool, and are easily cleaned without consuming water. They relieve daytime load, and the existing turbines run at night. There is already a grid tap in place.
If "we" want to spend several times as much money for our power, and only start getting it 10+ years from now, "we" can go all in on nukes. But that "we" looks an awful lot like "them" to me.
My expectation is that if CO2 production has not taken a nosedive by 2030, we are looking at a worldwide collapse after mass migration pushes fascist governments into the driver seat, leading directly to global thermonuclear war. (I would welcome being shown wrong.)
The only problem cited for renewables is energy storage, for which we have numerous alternatives that look like they will all work.
Besides gravity storage, with weights that may be lowered into disused mine shafts, underground compressed air, batteries, and molten salt baths, a surprising synthesis is solar panels floating on dam reservoirs.
They operate more efficiently by staying cool, and are easily cleaned without consuming water. They relieve daytime load, and the existing turbines run at night. There is already a grid tap in place.
Matt Yglesias makes a great point about differing views of environmentalism in his new book: https://www.aei.org/economics/the-case-for-one-billion-ameri....
> The reason I say “eco-pessimist” rather than “environmentalist” is that to me if you’re an environmentalist, it means you’re somebody who takes environmental problems seriously. You are aware of the literature on the problems of air pollution. You’re not saying the Chinese made up climate change. I’m 100 percent on board with that. I think we need to take that seriously. I think we need to invest money in green electricity and in the electrification of our vehicle fleet. But I think if you are smart about environmental problems, you recognize that to resolve climate change, you either need a cataclysmic fall in living standards — and that’s not going to happen — or you need new technologies and a new technological paradigm.
> Still, it is a fundamental difference in worldview. Some people are very driven by a pastoralist notion that we can conserve our way to solving the problem. A billion Americans is not about that. It is about a bigger, richer, more dynamic society.
I think nuclear is part of this difference in world view. Even if windmills and solar are part of the solution in the short term, that’s not going to be enough in the long term. You need keep increasing the amount of available energy. You’re not going to create a Star Trek society without investing in nuclear.
> The reason I say “eco-pessimist” rather than “environmentalist” is that to me if you’re an environmentalist, it means you’re somebody who takes environmental problems seriously. You are aware of the literature on the problems of air pollution. You’re not saying the Chinese made up climate change. I’m 100 percent on board with that. I think we need to take that seriously. I think we need to invest money in green electricity and in the electrification of our vehicle fleet. But I think if you are smart about environmental problems, you recognize that to resolve climate change, you either need a cataclysmic fall in living standards — and that’s not going to happen — or you need new technologies and a new technological paradigm.
> Still, it is a fundamental difference in worldview. Some people are very driven by a pastoralist notion that we can conserve our way to solving the problem. A billion Americans is not about that. It is about a bigger, richer, more dynamic society.
I think nuclear is part of this difference in world view. Even if windmills and solar are part of the solution in the short term, that’s not going to be enough in the long term. You need keep increasing the amount of available energy. You’re not going to create a Star Trek society without investing in nuclear.
> But I think if you are smart about environmental problems, you recognize that to resolve climate change, you either need a cataclysmic fall in living standards
This seems to be just another way of saying: "I'll rather go down with the ship than risk losing my current privileges".
This seems to be just another way of saying: "I'll rather go down with the ship than risk losing my current privileges".
Not too happy about a liquid-sodium fast breeder reactor as a good example.[1]
The General Atomics TRIGA is a good safe research reactor, and inherently stable, but not a power reactor.
China is plugging away with the Hualong One, which is a classic pressurized-water reactor similar to the Westinghouse AP-1000 and a French design. Nothing exotic. Output is around a gigawatt. Fuel loading on the first one started last month. Full power this year, if things go well. The second one is already under construction. More are planned.
China now gets 5% of its power from nuclear, up from half that five years ago.
[1] https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi...
The General Atomics TRIGA is a good safe research reactor, and inherently stable, but not a power reactor.
China is plugging away with the Hualong One, which is a classic pressurized-water reactor similar to the Westinghouse AP-1000 and a French design. Nothing exotic. Output is around a gigawatt. Fuel loading on the first one started last month. Full power this year, if things go well. The second one is already under construction. More are planned.
China now gets 5% of its power from nuclear, up from half that five years ago.
[1] https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi...
Elon Musk probably has a couple of hours a night he could devote to getting large-scale private nuclear off the ground.
I am very very pro-nuclear and I don't have any major disagreements with this article. However, any such article needs to also address accidents. I believe the most fervent anti-nukers fear accidents and while you'll never be able to fully placate them you can't allow them to accuse the pro-nuke movement of ignoring it.
The green lobby would rather have a new coal plant (with no pollution control at all) than a nuclear power plant.
There are no new coal plants being built in the US.
Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in France, with a generation of 379.5 TWh, or 70.6% of the country's total electricity production of 537.7 TWh, the highest percentage in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
I have two main points against solar and wind @ large scale. Please destroy them.
First point. Solar relies on rare earth materials and are mostly being bought from China since they are cheaper. The estimate is that these solar panels last less than other panels. So imagine the land area needed to power the USA and China top polluters in the world and then imagine replacing all of that every n years. Plus we will run out way faster in rare earth material for solar than fission material for nuclear. For wind turbines maintenance costs increases as the structure ages. Imagine this at large scale.
Second point. Dams are way better than solar and wind. But they are dependent on the region, so is solar and panel. So picture the winter where the sun sets @ around 3pm-5pm and wakes up around 7am. Or cloudy days. And @ night! We're talking storage that can last weeks, months. I don't know if in 30 years grid level storage will reach a level that can satisfy these requirements.
so nuclear energy per density kills solar and wind, can produce 24/7 energy on the order of MW to GW and produces minimal waste with current technologies.
If the argument is that solar/wind energy will improve, then so will nuclear energy.
First point. Solar relies on rare earth materials and are mostly being bought from China since they are cheaper. The estimate is that these solar panels last less than other panels. So imagine the land area needed to power the USA and China top polluters in the world and then imagine replacing all of that every n years. Plus we will run out way faster in rare earth material for solar than fission material for nuclear. For wind turbines maintenance costs increases as the structure ages. Imagine this at large scale.
Second point. Dams are way better than solar and wind. But they are dependent on the region, so is solar and panel. So picture the winter where the sun sets @ around 3pm-5pm and wakes up around 7am. Or cloudy days. And @ night! We're talking storage that can last weeks, months. I don't know if in 30 years grid level storage will reach a level that can satisfy these requirements.
so nuclear energy per density kills solar and wind, can produce 24/7 energy on the order of MW to GW and produces minimal waste with current technologies.
If the argument is that solar/wind energy will improve, then so will nuclear energy.