7 ms·

The only solution to rapid reduction in co2 emissions that can be deployed right now at sufficient scale is nuclear. There are passively safe designs built rig

The only solution to rapid reduction in co2 emissions that can be deployed right now at sufficient scale is nuclear. There are passively safe designs built right now. It can provide electricity, heat and desalination if lack of water is an issue. There is enough nuclear fuel in sea water to consider it an infinite source as far as humans are concerned [1]. Further, USA alone can be powered by its existing nuclear _waste_ for many years. Surprisingly, nuclear is almost never mentioned as an option. [1https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-the-sea https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-fuel-from-t...

Retric 8y ago
Nuclear still costs far to much vs Wind and Solar. If all greenhouse gases came from electricity generation then doing the France model might work, but it's much better to cheaply go 95+% renewable and use the savings to cut down on transportation and home heating etc. PS: Grid scale solar is rapidly hitting 2 cents per kWh in sunny places. Nothing else is anywhere near competing with that.
- korantu 8y ago
  If you factor in cost of storage required to provide continuous power, then you get way more expensive and less reliable. Now this problem is solved by, surprise, fossil fuels. [0] Ofcourse solar is cheaper when it is sunny, provider might even need to pay consumer to get them to consume. [1] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-negative-electricity-cost-2017-12/?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-nega...
  - Retric 8y ago
    Continuous aka base-load power is considered a defect as it's not load following. You can load follow with nuclear but then it becomes ridiculously expensive. France gets around this largely by buying and selling to other countries, but that does not scale. Really, going 100% nuclear takes either massive over supply or large scale energy storage just like solar. Wind however can supplement solar while still costing less than nuclear and allowing you to more closely match the demand curve. A little peaking power allows you to avoid significant grid storage at very reasonable costs, and as I said fix transportation etc. PS: The need for grid electricity storage is overblown. Storing energy for more than 1 day means you very rarely use that stored energy making in non-viable. When you can have 2x as much solar and still only pay 4c/kwh that's pointless. Within the day it needs to compete with an over supply of energy most of the time.
    - korantu 8y ago
      We are comparing two energy sources: one where output depends on the weather, and can go to near 0 another where output is strictly predictable but takes time to change. Option 2 have the problem of oversupply and undersupply. This forces either storage or fossil fuels in the picture. Option 1, however, only deals with oversupply, which does not require expensive mitigations. Not obvious why option 2 is preferable here
      - Retric 8y ago
        First, you can go off grid using 100% solar and a relatively small battery system as long as you get enough solar cells. The reason this works is your daytime input never drops to 0 and it's generally lower when you need less energy for AC systems. In terms of the grid, Wind and solar really can't go to 0 over large areas. The minimum vs maximum output shows high variance, but maximum output is largely irrelevant. Really what you care about is minimum vs average output and that's more narrow band than you might think. Even better by locating Wind / Solar you can more closely match your daily demand curve. Option 1, costs far more per kWh even if you can use every kWh, it's just get's worse from there. As it still needs over supply as power plants need occasional maintenance and the grid maximum and minimum demand over a year are wildly separated. You can setup maintenance around peak annual demands, but even then you will have occasional unexpected shutdowns.
        korantu 8y ago
        Majority of energy consumption and population happens in cities / industry, so if we are talking significant co2 soonest, we should really focus on these. For large consumers like these to go solar/wind, you will have to really over-provision solar/wind so that minimum possible power output is still enough. (Calm night, anyone?) This looks highly inefficient and tough to predict. Whereas nuclear can and are already operating in load following mode routinely: [1] [1] http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-loa...
        8y ago
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  In northern climates in the winter, people use hundreds of thousands of BTU per day burning fossil fuels to heat their homes. Translated to electricity, that's 30+kwh per day with a huge portion of that during non peak solar and wind. In order to solve the energy problem, you also have to solve the heating one... and wind / solar currently can't do that.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Solar hot water heaters are cheap and work very well for home heating outside the arctic circle. In the US we mostly use them for pool heating, as anything else costs to much, but somehow they are ignored for other uses.
    - anonuser123456 8y ago
      Solar water heaters are not cheap. 1 square meter of evacuated solar tubing with a storage tank is > 4k, before installation. That 1 m^2 will give you at most 500w of solar gain for 2-3 hours... in total maybe 5k BTU. That's a factor of 20 off relative to existing systems.
      - Retric 8y ago
        That's not what I am talking about. Bulk collectors for a single home are ~500$. Flat plates run $1,000 - $2,500 per home. Evacuated tubes cost more and collect less energy, but produce hotter water. https://modernize.com/home-ideas/34541/solar-water-heater-collector-types https://modernize.com/home-ideas/34541/solar-water-heater-co... 1 square meter evacuated solar tubing is used for hot water systems not home heating. It's a question of output temperature, the warmer the water the less cost efficient and more costly the system. High end systems include a backup water heater which means you directly save 1k on a hot water heater. Anyway, for home heating you don't need 'hot' water, a heat pump operating on even 60f water vs 0f or below air is very efficient. You can also pre heat cold water with a flat plate feed that into your normal water heater and again save a lot of energy. PS: Also, many people pay 1,000-2000$ / year on home heating even with a well insulated house. These systems generally have payback period under 10 years, assuming you actually need significant amounts of heat.
dubya123 8y ago
Given that historically it's taken decades to build new plants from scratch this doesn't look like it will be nearly in time to make an impact.
- korantu 8y ago
  Historically in US and Europe yes, but China Japan and South Korea are way more efficient in deploying nuclear, and for good reason. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/10/02/4-ways-to-lower-nuclear-plant-construction-costs/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/10/02/4-ways-t...
natch 8y ago
There is also plenty of hydrogen in sea water. As with the nuclear fuel you claim is infinite, there are costs and complications with extracting it, though. So it’s a silly claim. Nuclear has its own problems starting with the fact that it’s a highly centralized solution, with attendant problems following from that.
- korantu 8y ago
  Well, there is plenty of hydrogen in the water indeed. If there was any worry that we are going to run out of hydrogen, and willing to pay hundreds of dollars per kg (uranium fuel cost), we would totally get it from sea water. In which case hydrogen supply would be technically infinite. As for your second concern, could you elaborate, why centralisation such a critical barrier to achieving co2-free energy production? Never heard this argument before.
  - natch 8y ago
    Big government, big industry, crony capitalism, corruption, political control of an essential resource, politics generally, secrecy, coverups, payoffs, concentration of power, etc. etc. which you would not get or to a much lesser extent (verging on negligible relative to nuclear) with some alternative energy sources like solar.
    - korantu 8y ago
      Solar and wind are fine for residential, which is 13% of global consumption. Transportation and industry, with their 75% , would need some clean source of energy, for which calm nights are not a problem, crony capitalism or not.
      - natch 8y ago
        Yes, you need some source of clean energy for which calm nights are not a problem. If only batteries were getting really good... oh, they are. Batteries are not a source, but coupled with a source, your calm night problem is mostly taken care of. And batteries+renewable sources don't need to be 100% of the solution in order for them to effectively wipe out the value proposition of nuclear power in most situations. Yes, you can find exceptions, I'm sure.

Retric 8y ago

Nuclear still costs far to much vs Wind and Solar. If all greenhouse gases came from electricity generation then doing the France model might work, but it's much better to cheaply go 95+% renewable and use the savings to cut down on transportation and home heating etc. PS: Grid scale solar is rapidly hitting 2 cents per kWh in sunny places. Nothing else is anywhere near competing with that.

korantu 8y ago
If you factor in cost of storage required to provide continuous power, then you get way more expensive and less reliable. Now this problem is solved by, surprise, fossil fuels. [0] Ofcourse solar is cheaper when it is sunny, provider might even need to pay consumer to get them to consume. [1] [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15/solar-and-wind-lock-in-fossil-fuels-that-makes-saving-the-climate-harder-slower-more-expensive/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/15... [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-negative-electricity-cost-2017-12/?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-nega...
- Retric 8y ago
  Continuous aka base-load power is considered a defect as it's not load following. You can load follow with nuclear but then it becomes ridiculously expensive. France gets around this largely by buying and selling to other countries, but that does not scale. Really, going 100% nuclear takes either massive over supply or large scale energy storage just like solar. Wind however can supplement solar while still costing less than nuclear and allowing you to more closely match the demand curve. A little peaking power allows you to avoid significant grid storage at very reasonable costs, and as I said fix transportation etc. PS: The need for grid electricity storage is overblown. Storing energy for more than 1 day means you very rarely use that stored energy making in non-viable. When you can have 2x as much solar and still only pay 4c/kwh that's pointless. Within the day it needs to compete with an over supply of energy most of the time.
  - korantu 8y ago
    We are comparing two energy sources: one where output depends on the weather, and can go to near 0 another where output is strictly predictable but takes time to change. Option 2 have the problem of oversupply and undersupply. This forces either storage or fossil fuels in the picture. Option 1, however, only deals with oversupply, which does not require expensive mitigations. Not obvious why option 2 is preferable here
    - Retric 8y ago
      First, you can go off grid using 100% solar and a relatively small battery system as long as you get enough solar cells. The reason this works is your daytime input never drops to 0 and it's generally lower when you need less energy for AC systems. In terms of the grid, Wind and solar really can't go to 0 over large areas. The minimum vs maximum output shows high variance, but maximum output is largely irrelevant. Really what you care about is minimum vs average output and that's more narrow band than you might think. Even better by locating Wind / Solar you can more closely match your daily demand curve. Option 1, costs far more per kWh even if you can use every kWh, it's just get's worse from there. As it still needs over supply as power plants need occasional maintenance and the grid maximum and minimum demand over a year are wildly separated. You can setup maintenance around peak annual demands, but even then you will have occasional unexpected shutdowns.
      - korantu 8y ago
        Majority of energy consumption and population happens in cities / industry, so if we are talking significant co2 soonest, we should really focus on these. For large consumers like these to go solar/wind, you will have to really over-provision solar/wind so that minimum possible power output is still enough. (Calm night, anyone?) This looks highly inefficient and tough to predict. Whereas nuclear can and are already operating in load following mode routinely: [1] [1] http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-loa...
        8y ago
anonuser123456 8y ago
In northern climates in the winter, people use hundreds of thousands of BTU per day burning fossil fuels to heat their homes. Translated to electricity, that's 30+kwh per day with a huge portion of that during non peak solar and wind. In order to solve the energy problem, you also have to solve the heating one... and wind / solar currently can't do that.
- Retric 8y ago
  Solar hot water heaters are cheap and work very well for home heating outside the arctic circle. In the US we mostly use them for pool heating, as anything else costs to much, but somehow they are ignored for other uses.
  - anonuser123456 8y ago
    Solar water heaters are not cheap. 1 square meter of evacuated solar tubing with a storage tank is > 4k, before installation. That 1 m^2 will give you at most 500w of solar gain for 2-3 hours... in total maybe 5k BTU. That's a factor of 20 off relative to existing systems.
    - Retric 8y ago
      That's not what I am talking about. Bulk collectors for a single home are ~500$. Flat plates run $1,000 - $2,500 per home. Evacuated tubes cost more and collect less energy, but produce hotter water. https://modernize.com/home-ideas/34541/solar-water-heater-collector-types https://modernize.com/home-ideas/34541/solar-water-heater-co... 1 square meter evacuated solar tubing is used for hot water systems not home heating. It's a question of output temperature, the warmer the water the less cost efficient and more costly the system. High end systems include a backup water heater which means you directly save 1k on a hot water heater. Anyway, for home heating you don't need 'hot' water, a heat pump operating on even 60f water vs 0f or below air is very efficient. You can also pre heat cold water with a flat plate feed that into your normal water heater and again save a lot of energy. PS: Also, many people pay 1,000-2000$ / year on home heating even with a well insulated house. These systems generally have payback period under 10 years, assuming you actually need significant amounts of heat.

dubya123 8y ago

Given that historically it's taken decades to build new plants from scratch this doesn't look like it will be nearly in time to make an impact.

korantu 8y ago
Historically in US and Europe yes, but China Japan and South Korea are way more efficient in deploying nuclear, and for good reason. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/10/02/4-ways-to-lower-nuclear-plant-construction-costs/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/10/02/4-ways-t...

natch 8y ago

There is also plenty of hydrogen in sea water. As with the nuclear fuel you claim is infinite, there are costs and complications with extracting it, though. So it’s a silly claim. Nuclear has its own problems starting with the fact that it’s a highly centralized solution, with attendant problems following from that.

korantu 8y ago
Well, there is plenty of hydrogen in the water indeed. If there was any worry that we are going to run out of hydrogen, and willing to pay hundreds of dollars per kg (uranium fuel cost), we would totally get it from sea water. In which case hydrogen supply would be technically infinite. As for your second concern, could you elaborate, why centralisation such a critical barrier to achieving co2-free energy production? Never heard this argument before.
- natch 8y ago
  Big government, big industry, crony capitalism, corruption, political control of an essential resource, politics generally, secrecy, coverups, payoffs, concentration of power, etc. etc. which you would not get or to a much lesser extent (verging on negligible relative to nuclear) with some alternative energy sources like solar.
  - korantu 8y ago
    Solar and wind are fine for residential, which is 13% of global consumption. Transportation and industry, with their 75% , would need some clean source of energy, for which calm nights are not a problem, crony capitalism or not.
    - natch 8y ago
      Yes, you need some source of clean energy for which calm nights are not a problem. If only batteries were getting really good... oh, they are. Batteries are not a source, but coupled with a source, your calm night problem is mostly taken care of. And batteries+renewable sources don't need to be 100% of the solution in order for them to effectively wipe out the value proposition of nuclear power in most situations. Yes, you can find exceptions, I'm sure.