Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse(dw.com)
dw.com
Every euro invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse
https://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-climate-mycle-schneider-renewables-fukushima/a-56712368
32 comments
I expect batteries could get pretty cheap if made in the volume we'd need to power whole cities through the night. But for now there's not so much reason to build those because the proportion of power that comes from renewables is so low that excess production is rarely a problem. There's not much incentive to store solar power for the nighttime when you can sell all that power during the day and people still have to run fossil fuel and nuclear to make up the difference. I suppose as the proportion of solar goes up, the price of daytime electricity will drop and it'll be more attractive to use batteries.
(Places with significant hydroelectric might not even need much storage if they just run water through the turbines at night, or whenever they have a shortfall. Or even pump water back uphill when there's a surplus.)
(Places with significant hydroelectric might not even need much storage if they just run water through the turbines at night, or whenever they have a shortfall. Or even pump water back uphill when there's a surplus.)
Batteries are already not really production constrained, lithium based batteries are more supply constrained than anything else the current global supply of lithium isn’t going to sustain current growth rates unless we start extracting lithium from the oceans.
This is one of the primary drivers for alternative chemistries and non battery energy storage such as green hydrogen and kinetic or thermal storage.
Hydroelectric isn’t relevant for the vast majority of the population and hydroelectric that doesn’t have a severe impact on the environment is even rarer.
Not many countries have the topology and water sources as Sweden.
We should’ve been building and advancing nuclear reactors since the 80’s instead we had the likes of Greenpeace blocking coolant intakes and outflow pipes to nuclear plants and the Greens in countries like Germany running a hybrid war against nuclear power for decades.
This is one of the primary drivers for alternative chemistries and non battery energy storage such as green hydrogen and kinetic or thermal storage.
Hydroelectric isn’t relevant for the vast majority of the population and hydroelectric that doesn’t have a severe impact on the environment is even rarer.
Not many countries have the topology and water sources as Sweden.
We should’ve been building and advancing nuclear reactors since the 80’s instead we had the likes of Greenpeace blocking coolant intakes and outflow pipes to nuclear plants and the Greens in countries like Germany running a hybrid war against nuclear power for decades.
> Anyone who claims to be an environmentalist who is against nuclear power doesn't really believe warming is a threat.
Also, their funding profile could inform their stance.
Also, their funding profile could inform their stance.
[deleted]
I think what you're saying has been true in the past: estimates of the cost of solar energy have often overlooked storage. But that has been changing, thanks to people like you raising it as a concern.
There are now some fairly good estimates including these 2020 calculations by the International Energy Agency that illustrate that onshore wind, utility-scale solar, and hydro are competitive with nuclear power:
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...
Solar, wind and hydro power all benefit from relatively short (and safe) construction times and (as I naively understand it) usually require less complicated on-site security, maintenance and monitoring.
It feels like there is a large opportunity for renewable sources of energy to gain momentum and scale up.
There are now some fairly good estimates including these 2020 calculations by the International Energy Agency that illustrate that onshore wind, utility-scale solar, and hydro are competitive with nuclear power:
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...
Solar, wind and hydro power all benefit from relatively short (and safe) construction times and (as I naively understand it) usually require less complicated on-site security, maintenance and monitoring.
It feels like there is a large opportunity for renewable sources of energy to gain momentum and scale up.
From Wikipedia:
Mycle Schneider (pronounce Michael, /ˈmaɪkəl/) (born 1959 in Cologne)[1] is a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant and anti-nuclear activist.[2][3]
Mycle Schneider (pronounce Michael, /ˈmaɪkəl/) (born 1959 in Cologne)[1] is a Paris-based nuclear energy consultant and anti-nuclear activist.[2][3]
[deleted]
Yes, the fact that they choose a neutral association name ("The World Nuclear Industry Status Report") when they are actually a militant antinuclear association[0] makes their message way less credible.
Using this kind of shady tactics may have some superficially good effect, but once people catch you manipulating them so grossly, they tend to disregard your arguments afterward.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_Industry_Status_...
Using this kind of shady tactics may have some superficially good effect, but once people catch you manipulating them so grossly, they tend to disregard your arguments afterward.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Nuclear_Industry_Status_...
Unfortunately, his main point is 100% correct. According to the recent IPCC report, if we want to limit warming to 1.5C, we need to be at zero net carbon by 2025. But, we literally can't build the plants fast enough to accomplish that. See my comment a few weeks ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27835924
There is nothing we can do at this point to hit the 2025 target of net zero using anything…
People like him are just as responsible for the current crisis as Halliburton et al.
France has one of the cleanest grids on the planet with less than 10% of electricity produced using fossil fuels. And it has been the case for decades. If all developed countries would’ve been even close to this we would’ve been at a very different situation right now.
People like him are just as responsible for the current crisis as Halliburton et al.
France has one of the cleanest grids on the planet with less than 10% of electricity produced using fossil fuels. And it has been the case for decades. If all developed countries would’ve been even close to this we would’ve been at a very different situation right now.
Exactly. Had we started decarbonizing 25 years ago, we'd be in great shape today, too.
> Many environmentalists are opposed, pointing to the risk of nuclear meltdowns and the difficulty of properly disposing of nuclear waste.
These must be different from the environmentalists that think the world is on the verge of a grisly doom where war and famine tear us apart that we have to pay any price to avert.
If the climate crisis is remotely comparable to a nuclear meltdown then we can go back to sleep. The fallout from all the nuclear disasters has been much more bark than bite.
These must be different from the environmentalists that think the world is on the verge of a grisly doom where war and famine tear us apart that we have to pay any price to avert.
If the climate crisis is remotely comparable to a nuclear meltdown then we can go back to sleep. The fallout from all the nuclear disasters has been much more bark than bite.
Yeah, and I wonder if these idiots know much about it. Depending on the reactor type and whatnot, you can re-use waste, and what you are usually left with is a very tiny amount.
Anyway, I had this discussion many times here so I won't get into it, but nuclear is pretty damn safe, and I can't wait for ITER.
Anyway, I had this discussion many times here so I won't get into it, but nuclear is pretty damn safe, and I can't wait for ITER.
Even without multi fuel cycle reactors, burry it in a salt mine or anything similar and cover it with concrete there’s enough places to literarily dump nuclear waste in a safe manner.
As long as it doesn’t get into the water supply you can build your house on top of it, anything really nasty burns out quickly anything that has a half life in the 1000’s not to mention millions of years isn’t a concern.
As long as it doesn’t get into the water supply you can build your house on top of it, anything really nasty burns out quickly anything that has a half life in the 1000’s not to mention millions of years isn’t a concern.
If renewable energy is as cheap as he claims, why do I pay more than 20ct/kWh for it in Germany with a ~50% renewables mix?
Because the price of energy generation is only a small part of the cost: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-house...
50% are levies, fees and taxes, which partly pay for the built up of the renewable energy generation.
50% are levies, fees and taxes, which partly pay for the built up of the renewable energy generation.
I'm really appalled by what German lobbying for gas and renewables at the cost of nuclear is doing to climate. I get that it's profitable for them to be a hub for Russian gas in Europe but at the same time they should be aware that natural disasters (see recent floods there) are quite expensive as well.
Its not surprising that there is a strong lobby for gas.
There is a lot of obvious evidence german politicians are pushing for Nord Stream 2.
When ex German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder becomes the chairman of Nord Stream 2 after his term is over some warning lights should be going off.
Do you think the campaign to kill off all the evil nuclear plants is a random happening? When you have to make room for all that gas?
There is a lot of obvious evidence german politicians are pushing for Nord Stream 2.
When ex German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder becomes the chairman of Nord Stream 2 after his term is over some warning lights should be going off.
Do you think the campaign to kill off all the evil nuclear plants is a random happening? When you have to make room for all that gas?
> every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse ...
> ... because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.
> ... because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options.
Literally shows that Nuclear energy cheaper than wind and solar under statement that it is most expensive. Why post easily falsifiable crap?
Nuclears costs are mostly spent on planning/design/r&d/permitting/consultants.
The actual amount of concrete and steel needed is very low.
If we could get a consortium of countries together to design and build 500 identical nuclear plants to power 50% of the world for the next 50 years, it would surely work out cheaper.
But the minute every reactor is custom the cost advantage will vanish.
The actual amount of concrete and steel needed is very low.
If we could get a consortium of countries together to design and build 500 identical nuclear plants to power 50% of the world for the next 50 years, it would surely work out cheaper.
But the minute every reactor is custom the cost advantage will vanish.
Nuclear is expensive largely due how it's financed and because investors expect their investments profitable sooner rather that later (see LCOE). So it's mostly the cost of capital. When you account for for 60-80 (or 100) year lifespan nuclear power is actually quite cheap. So maybe the solution is using retirement funds towards funding nuclear power, expecting low capital but huge environmental gains?
I find the efficiency angle of his argument to hold some merit but as I scan the article I cannot find anything about how to solve grid fluctuations. In my home country of Sweden, solarpanels are not a viable suloution in the northern part of the country as moste of the energy i used for heating in the winter when the sun don’t shine.
Sometimes it's fun to pretend that the real purpose of all the anti-nuclear talk is to gradually create a situation where humanity cannot continue using electricity the way it has been, to literally disempower humanity and cause people to become accustomed to tiny trickles of unreliable electricity.
That's surely just a crazy flight of fancy, though -- since we're in a "climate crisis" where the earth will be overheating, politicians will surely arrange for us to have great bags of cheap, plentiful, reliable power for our air conditioning so that we don't go back to the days of, say, 1911, when tens of thousands of people died in heatwaves.
That's surely just a crazy flight of fancy, though -- since we're in a "climate crisis" where the earth will be overheating, politicians will surely arrange for us to have great bags of cheap, plentiful, reliable power for our air conditioning so that we don't go back to the days of, say, 1911, when tens of thousands of people died in heatwaves.
> "And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options."
The economic arguments in the article might be right, that nuclear just isn't price competitive anymore. But I think the argument that "anything spent on option A is taking away from option B" isn't really all that convincing. I mean, we could take money away from other things, like subsidies to fossil fuel companies and build some new nuclear power plants. Or we could build fewer aircraft carriers, or raise the tax rate on capital gains.
The main problem here isn't that we're spending too much on nuclear power plants, it's that we need to drastically expand our use of solar and wind. (And while we're at it start building out more utility-scale large battery banks, and/or build high-capacity transcontinental HVDC lines so most of the world can buy power at all times from wherever the sun is shining right then.)
It's sort of like saying that paying a thousand dollars to provide rent for someone whose house burned down is killing a bunch of people in Africa because you could have spent that money more efficiently on mosquito nets. I understand the argument, but people everywhere have needs and it's better I think in the long run to help with all the ones we can than to sort all the needs in priority order based on cost/benefit ratio.
The economic arguments in the article might be right, that nuclear just isn't price competitive anymore. But I think the argument that "anything spent on option A is taking away from option B" isn't really all that convincing. I mean, we could take money away from other things, like subsidies to fossil fuel companies and build some new nuclear power plants. Or we could build fewer aircraft carriers, or raise the tax rate on capital gains.
The main problem here isn't that we're spending too much on nuclear power plants, it's that we need to drastically expand our use of solar and wind. (And while we're at it start building out more utility-scale large battery banks, and/or build high-capacity transcontinental HVDC lines so most of the world can buy power at all times from wherever the sun is shining right then.)
It's sort of like saying that paying a thousand dollars to provide rent for someone whose house burned down is killing a bunch of people in Africa because you could have spent that money more efficiently on mosquito nets. I understand the argument, but people everywhere have needs and it's better I think in the long run to help with all the ones we can than to sort all the needs in priority order based on cost/benefit ratio.
> because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today
What a stupid statement.
What a stupid statement.
Reasoning about the price of solar power when the sun is shining does not take into account the intermittent nature of this energy source.
Be aware that this is state-sponsored german media. The only country in the EU absolutely not going to even extend nuclear but instead run lignite plants instead.
Also, most establish environmental protection organizations and activists are deeply anti-capitalist and massively left-leaning, so they automatically are against any technology that can be controlled by large companies. Did you notice how fast Greta Thunberg was away from the front stage of all established EPOs like Greenpeace after daring the sacrilege to endorse nuclear?
Also, most establish environmental protection organizations and activists are deeply anti-capitalist and massively left-leaning, so they automatically are against any technology that can be controlled by large companies. Did you notice how fast Greta Thunberg was away from the front stage of all established EPOs like Greenpeace after daring the sacrilege to endorse nuclear?
Being wary of large companies is very prudent and not necessarily anti-capitalist, though.
No word on power density, where nuclear is probably best. As an example, fuel from biomass looks like a perfect solution, except it would require another planet to provide for our current consumption.
Take the baseline power away and the cost equation dramatically changes.
Nuclear provides more emissionless power than solar and wind combined.
Anyone who claims to be an environmentalist who is against nuclear power doesn't really believe warming is a threat.