4 ms·

Nuclear is obsolete to what? As far as I understand, nuclear is the replacement for coal, nothing else comes close to being able to provide a stable constant su

Nuclear is obsolete to what? As far as I understand, nuclear is the replacement for coal, nothing else comes close to being able to provide a stable constant supply in large quantities. What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns?

will_hughes 9y ago
> Nuclear is obsolete to what? As far as I understand, nuclear is the replacement for coal, nothing else comes close to being able to provide a stable constant supply in large quantities. The article pretty clearly demonstrates that grid-scale battery storage systems are able to provide very fast reaction times. More battery storage systems, along with other forms of energy storage such as Solar-Thermal and pumped-hydro can take daytime generation and make it usable at night. They're proven workable grid-scale technologies. Large widely distributed deployments of Wind generation can also provide a lot of capacity. For those who claim wind doesn't always blow - well, it's always blowing somewhere. Having a lot more individually smaller generators plus energy storage will inherently permit a more stable grid - one smaller generator tripping offline doesn't cause a massive issue.
nl 9y ago
What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns? Gas fire plants Hydro Pump Solar Liquid salt storage Geothermal Wind + Large Scale Solar + Storage Tidal Decentralized PV solar plus decentralized storage. There are enormous numbers of combinations of solutions which don't involve coal or nuclear. Both coal and nuclear power are slow to respond to changes in demand (or supply problems), and both are very expensive centralized solutions. Much more efficient solutions can be built using smaller numbers of smaller, faster, cheaper power stations (ie, gas fired) plus a diverse combination of other sources.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Start a business then! But I think investors may be hard to find - because most of that hasn't proved cost effective.
  - nl 9y ago
    In Australia? Almost all power companies are already doing combinations of these, while shutting down coal-fired stations - they just aren't economical to run: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/electricity-markets-struggling-as-coal-shuts-down-aemo-says/8875874 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/electricity-markets-st... They are all have large renewable generation. See here for the mix: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/Generation-information https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Mar...
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Don't forget the price of carbon. There's billions of $ of profitable business done in these areas recently.
  - nl 9y ago
    There's plenty of investor interest: Pump Hydro in disused mine: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/pumped-hydro-in-queensland-ready-in-2021 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/pumped-hydro-in-queensland-ready... (more details: http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project-250mw.html http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydr...) Solar Thermal Generation: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-plant-announcement-for-port-augusta/8804628 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-pl... Solar/battery combination: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/sanjeev-gupta-joins-sa-power-race/9103020 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/sanjeev-gupta-joins-sa... Solar/Wind combination: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/yorke-peninsula-battery-to-be-installed-by-may/9011788 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/yorke-peninsula-batter...
  - cromulent 9y ago
    Yeah, but investors in coal would be hard to find in a free market as they are not cost effective without government subsidies. Fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 were 6.5% of global GDP. That's quite a lot of money. Coal subsidies were about half of that. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...
- KaiserPro 9y ago
  Gas: Shits out CO2 and others, short lifespan, order of minutes to respond (less if forewarned) Hydro: Used in the UK to provide peak backup (however thats pumped storage not generation. given the droughts and irrigation usage in aus, not the best idea) requires time to warm up. Has large environmental impact unless using a natural dam (~60 seconds to respond) pump solar: I'm assuming you mean CSP (https://www.sulzer.com/en/applications/power-generation/renewables/solar-power-generation https://www.sulzer.com/en/applications/power-generation/rene...) for the sunny parts of Aus, possibly a good choice. Not cheap though (No response time, cannot operate as a base load) Liquid salt storage: See above, less efficient, slow response time (unknown response time. Suspect in the order of tens of minutes, as heat has to be transfered into water for steam, better as base load) Geothermal: needs the correct rock formation (again, unknown response time, better as base load) Large scale solar + wind: Storage is the problem. The amount of lithium required to proper storage is utterly vast. (depends very much on the storage medium and controller, also the amount of wind solar in the preceding days) Tidal: requires the right geology, can have massive environmental impact, power comes when it wants, but is predictable.(Has some ability to provide backup outside of high/low tide. ) Decentralised x: horrifically expensive, however the cost can be passed directly to consumers. Keeping it all in sync requires decent infrastructure. (without a new and secure mechanism unlikely to provide grid backup, but could be used to dynamically cut load. ) In conclusion nuclear provide a brilliant base load, which can be used for things like charging the various storage devices, or allowing for solar to not work at night. Its relatively cheap across an entire life cycle, and surprisingly dependable. In terms of environmental impact, significantly less that the constant low-level pollutants that are emmited by coal & gas, and the environmental changes caused by hydro. Also Lithium mining has a large environmental impact too, as does PV production.
  - nl 9y ago
    pump solar No, this: http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project-250mw.html http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydr... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable... base load Oh, the old baseload argument. I haven't heard that one for a couple of years now. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-thr... http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.ht... https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... nuclear... relatively cheap across an entire life cycle > Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar. https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power Plenty of other studies showing similar.

will_hughes 9y ago

> Nuclear is obsolete to what? As far as I understand, nuclear is the replacement for coal, nothing else comes close to being able to provide a stable constant supply in large quantities. The article pretty clearly demonstrates that grid-scale battery storage systems are able to provide very fast reaction times. More battery storage systems, along with other forms of energy storage such as Solar-Thermal and pumped-hydro can take daytime generation and make it usable at night. They're proven workable grid-scale technologies. Large widely distributed deployments of Wind generation can also provide a lot of capacity. For those who claim wind doesn't always blow - well, it's always blowing somewhere. Having a lot more individually smaller generators plus energy storage will inherently permit a more stable grid - one smaller generator tripping offline doesn't cause a massive issue.

nl 9y ago

What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns? Gas fire plants Hydro Pump Solar Liquid salt storage Geothermal Wind + Large Scale Solar + Storage Tidal Decentralized PV solar plus decentralized storage. There are enormous numbers of combinations of solutions which don't involve coal or nuclear. Both coal and nuclear power are slow to respond to changes in demand (or supply problems), and both are very expensive centralized solutions. Much more efficient solutions can be built using smaller numbers of smaller, faster, cheaper power stations (ie, gas fired) plus a diverse combination of other sources.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Start a business then! But I think investors may be hard to find - because most of that hasn't proved cost effective.
- nl 9y ago
  In Australia? Almost all power companies are already doing combinations of these, while shutting down coal-fired stations - they just aren't economical to run: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/electricity-markets-struggling-as-coal-shuts-down-aemo-says/8875874 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-06/electricity-markets-st... They are all have large renewable generation. See here for the mix: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/Generation-information https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Mar...
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Don't forget the price of carbon. There's billions of $ of profitable business done in these areas recently.
- nl 9y ago
  There's plenty of investor interest: Pump Hydro in disused mine: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/pumped-hydro-in-queensland-ready-in-2021 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/pumped-hydro-in-queensland-ready... (more details: http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project-250mw.html http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydr...) Solar Thermal Generation: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-plant-announcement-for-port-augusta/8804628 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/solar-thermal-power-pl... Solar/battery combination: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/sanjeev-gupta-joins-sa-power-race/9103020 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-31/sanjeev-gupta-joins-sa... Solar/Wind combination: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/yorke-peninsula-battery-to-be-installed-by-may/9011788 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-03/yorke-peninsula-batter...
- cromulent 9y ago
  Yeah, but investors in coal would be hard to find in a free market as they are not cost effective without government subsidies. Fossil fuel subsidies in 2015 were 6.5% of global GDP. That's quite a lot of money. Coal subsidies were about half of that. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867?via%3Dihub http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16...
KaiserPro 9y ago
Gas: Shits out CO2 and others, short lifespan, order of minutes to respond (less if forewarned) Hydro: Used in the UK to provide peak backup (however thats pumped storage not generation. given the droughts and irrigation usage in aus, not the best idea) requires time to warm up. Has large environmental impact unless using a natural dam (~60 seconds to respond) pump solar: I'm assuming you mean CSP (https://www.sulzer.com/en/applications/power-generation/renewables/solar-power-generation https://www.sulzer.com/en/applications/power-generation/rene...) for the sunny parts of Aus, possibly a good choice. Not cheap though (No response time, cannot operate as a base load) Liquid salt storage: See above, less efficient, slow response time (unknown response time. Suspect in the order of tens of minutes, as heat has to be transfered into water for steam, better as base load) Geothermal: needs the correct rock formation (again, unknown response time, better as base load) Large scale solar + wind: Storage is the problem. The amount of lithium required to proper storage is utterly vast. (depends very much on the storage medium and controller, also the amount of wind solar in the preceding days) Tidal: requires the right geology, can have massive environmental impact, power comes when it wants, but is predictable.(Has some ability to provide backup outside of high/low tide. ) Decentralised x: horrifically expensive, however the cost can be passed directly to consumers. Keeping it all in sync requires decent infrastructure. (without a new and secure mechanism unlikely to provide grid backup, but could be used to dynamically cut load. ) In conclusion nuclear provide a brilliant base load, which can be used for things like charging the various storage devices, or allowing for solar to not work at night. Its relatively cheap across an entire life cycle, and surprisingly dependable. In terms of environmental impact, significantly less that the constant low-level pollutants that are emmited by coal & gas, and the environmental changes caused by hydro. Also Lithium mining has a large environmental impact too, as does PV production.
- nl 9y ago
  pump solar No, this: http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project-250mw.html http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydr... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable-energy-sites-australia-anu-research/8966530 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable... base load Oh, the old baseload argument. I haven't heard that one for a couple of years now. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-thr... http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.ht... https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... nuclear... relatively cheap across an entire life cycle > Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar. https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power Plenty of other studies showing similar.