6 ms·

This is research from the 1980s. It is undoubtedly correct, but it does not not apply to today. Today, renewables are competing favorably against coal and nucl

This is research from the 1980s. It is undoubtedly correct, but it does not not apply to today. Today, renewables are competing favorably against coal and nuclear power on price, and they are improving rapidly still. It takes easily 15 years to plan and build a nuclear power plant, while a solar plant can be planned and built in months. The issue of what happens when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine can be addressed through larger HVDC grids with a good energy mix and through storage technology, which is also improving rapidly. Meanwhile, nuclear has its own issues with the elements nowadays. Nuclear relies on huge amounts of freshwater. I've heard of nuclear plants that need to shut down in the summers now because of drought. It will become harder and harder to find locations where they can be built. Finally, new fossil fuel plants built today are mostly gas, not coal. Gas also has its problems, but it has been a reasonable transition technology that is also losing ground now as energy storage technology is improving.

WalterBright 10y ago
The sun not shining at night can also be addressed with variable pricing. Electricity usage is elastic, and a lot of consumption patterns can be time-shifted. The idea that electricity should have a fixed rate 24/7 is obsolete.
awjr 10y ago
Is the sun not shining just a transmission problem? Have we been able to create ultra high voltage long range DC transmission systems?
- LoSboccacc 10y ago
  electricity transmission powers aren't that trivial, even discounting the large saltwater ocean you'd have to cross to power the other side of the world (and the security implications for that infrastructure) it's more of a storage problem. you can get quite efficient batteries using pressure/gravity chambers, but not all places are apt to host them.
- adrianN 10y ago
  Actually we have been able to create high voltage transmission lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
- lyschoening 10y ago
  Usually the sun not shining means higher wind speeds, not necessarily at the same location. In general a larger grid means less overhead is required. HVDC is tested and proven, UHVDC links are also being constructed now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
mpweiher 10y ago
> This is research from the 1980s Nope, it is research from now, about an event in the 80s. These are long-term effects, so obviously there is a delay.
- lyschoening 10y ago
  That is just semantics. I am arguing that a nuclear shutdown event would have different long-term effects today. In the short term of course, fossil fuel plants would still be able to pick up the slack, but there would be a larger share of natural gas than in the 1980s and were the shutdown to last longer it would be less costly to set up renewable energy plants. People in this thread are also using the article to argue about new nuclear development rather than only unplanned shutdowns. I am countering that failing to develop new nuclear energy no longer automatically means more coal pollution.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    > That is just semantics. Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Semantics: the meaning of things, particularly words. That's important. You probably meant "nit-picking", and I would suggest it was you who was engaging in nit-picking (though incorrectly) that this is outdated/irrelevant because it is from the past. So I see your incorrect nit-pick and raise you a correct nit-pick. > I am arguing that... Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear". The thing is that this article is not about arguing about what you believe will/should happen, however strongly you believe that, but about what actually did happen. > no longer automatically means more coal pollution. It wasn't automatic back then either, just as it isn't automatic now. However, then and now the actual replacement is largely with coal, no matter what your preferences might be. Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal" http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh... Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you) https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coal-demand-what-does-the-future-hold-coal2265/ https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa... So your "arguments" don't hold water. Reality is different from what you think it should be.

WalterBright 10y ago

The sun not shining at night can also be addressed with variable pricing. Electricity usage is elastic, and a lot of consumption patterns can be time-shifted. The idea that electricity should have a fixed rate 24/7 is obsolete.

awjr 10y ago

Is the sun not shining just a transmission problem? Have we been able to create ultra high voltage long range DC transmission systems?

LoSboccacc 10y ago
electricity transmission powers aren't that trivial, even discounting the large saltwater ocean you'd have to cross to power the other side of the world (and the security implications for that infrastructure) it's more of a storage problem. you can get quite efficient batteries using pressure/gravity chambers, but not all places are apt to host them.
adrianN 10y ago
Actually we have been able to create high voltage transmission lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects
lyschoening 10y ago
Usually the sun not shining means higher wind speeds, not necessarily at the same location. In general a larger grid means less overhead is required. HVDC is tested and proven, UHVDC links are also being constructed now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

mpweiher 10y ago

> This is research from the 1980s Nope, it is research from now, about an event in the 80s. These are long-term effects, so obviously there is a delay.

lyschoening 10y ago
That is just semantics. I am arguing that a nuclear shutdown event would have different long-term effects today. In the short term of course, fossil fuel plants would still be able to pick up the slack, but there would be a larger share of natural gas than in the 1980s and were the shutdown to last longer it would be less costly to set up renewable energy plants. People in this thread are also using the article to argue about new nuclear development rather than only unplanned shutdowns. I am countering that failing to develop new nuclear energy no longer automatically means more coal pollution.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  > That is just semantics. Yes, it emphatically is semantics. Semantics: the meaning of things, particularly words. That's important. You probably meant "nit-picking", and I would suggest it was you who was engaging in nit-picking (though incorrectly) that this is outdated/irrelevant because it is from the past. So I see your incorrect nit-pick and raise you a correct nit-pick. > I am arguing that... Yes you are. Arguing, that is. And back then, you probably would have argued that shutting down that nuclear plant would have been a boon to health, because "evil/bad nuclear". The thing is that this article is not about arguing about what you believe will/should happen, however strongly you believe that, but about what actually did happen. > no longer automatically means more coal pollution. It wasn't automatic back then either, just as it isn't automatic now. However, then and now the actual replacement is largely with coal, no matter what your preferences might be. Germany: missing nuclear largely replaced with "new coal" http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/wh... Japan: an industry savior? (The coal industry, mind you) https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coal-demand-what-does-the-future-hold-coal2265/ https://www.worldcoal.com/special-reports/13052015/japan-coa... So your "arguments" don't hold water. Reality is different from what you think it should be.