2 ms·

Thank you for your well-written comment. I just want to that I think it's unlikely new big reactors will have a place in a grid with plenty of renewables. You'

by olau 10y ago

Thank you for your well-written comment. I just want to that I think it's unlikely new big reactors will have a place in a grid with plenty of renewables. You're going to have a hard time making the ends meet up if you can't sell all the power the reactor produces, and that won't happen as it can't beat the marginal costs of wind turbines or solar panels. Burning biomass, biogas or some sort of mass storage will be much cheaper. Regarding the latter, in Denmark the former CTO of Siemens Wind Power has devised a plan for heated stone storage. So you heat the stone with electricity to around 600 degrees C and can thus use the heat to drive a turbine later. Last I heard another company in Denmark recently got EU funding to build a demonstration plant. (Not saying this will be the future, just putting it out there for people who think the only alternatives are hydro and chemical batteries.)

philipkglass 10y ago
My personal guess is that you are right and that large reactors will not find any more popularity after renewable penetration reaches high levels. But I want to keep alternative scenarios in mind even if I consider them unlikely. Ten years ago I also thought that fluid hydrocarbon prices (both oil and gas) were going to stay high, if they didn't just keep climbing, but the shale revolution upended that expectation. If any of the miraculous-on-paper new reactor designs being pitched by evangelists ever perform up to expectations in real life that could make nuclear power a low-cost electricity source again. I know that public opinion and environmental activism are often cited as reasons for nuclear power's failure to thrive in the developed world, and there's some truth to that. But I also think that if new reactor designs ever live up to the hype of producing the cheapest electricity around, they will become widespread despite opposition from activists. For a parallel, again look at the shale revolution. Fracking is vocally opposed by environmentalists and celebrities (many ordinary members of the public too), but it still grew rapidly because it actually delivered lower cost energy to buyers. The fact that nuclear keeps failing to deliver low costs/predictable construction schedules is a bigger factor in its weak market prospects than opposition by Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes many things and usually fails to stop them.

by olau 10y ago

philipkglass 10y ago

My personal guess is that you are right and that large reactors will not find any more popularity after renewable penetration reaches high levels. But I want to keep alternative scenarios in mind even if I consider them unlikely. Ten years ago I also thought that fluid hydrocarbon prices (both oil and gas) were going to stay high, if they didn't just keep climbing, but the shale revolution upended that expectation. If any of the miraculous-on-paper new reactor designs being pitched by evangelists ever perform up to expectations in real life that could make nuclear power a low-cost electricity source again. I know that public opinion and environmental activism are often cited as reasons for nuclear power's failure to thrive in the developed world, and there's some truth to that. But I also think that if new reactor designs ever live up to the hype of producing the cheapest electricity around, they will become widespread despite opposition from activists. For a parallel, again look at the shale revolution. Fracking is vocally opposed by environmentalists and celebrities (many ordinary members of the public too), but it still grew rapidly because it actually delivered lower cost energy to buyers. The fact that nuclear keeps failing to deliver low costs/predictable construction schedules is a bigger factor in its weak market prospects than opposition by Greenpeace. Greenpeace opposes many things and usually fails to stop them.