5 ms·

> developing advanced nuclear power Deploying renewable energy generators is just so much fast and more flexible, and demolition (either controlled or uncontro

by TomK32 8y ago

> developing advanced nuclear power Deploying renewable energy generators is just so much fast and more flexible, and demolition (either controlled or uncontrolled) isn't such a risk as with a nuclear power plant. Stopping our existing coal power plants while cutting down on energy consumption; Sure, it's an educational problem but during WWII people collected scrap metal for the war effort.

DennisP 8y ago
The problem with renewables alone is storage. The big Tesla grid battery in Australia does 100MW and stores 129MWh. Its capital cost was $90 million: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-australias-tesla-battery-on-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-aus... That's great as part of a diverse grid but some areas don't have hydro/geothermal, so if those places want to go entirely carbon-free without nuclear we need to rely entirely on wind/solar/battery. That means, at a minimum, we need to get through a windless night. So let's say about 12 hours. For 12 GWh we'd need 12,000/129=93 Tesla-scale plants, costing $8.3 billion. That's just for minimum storage, not including the wind turbines and solar panels. We have to take the current cost of wind/solar and add another 50% or so, since we need to generate enough to fill the storage, not just meet current needs during the day. Then we need to overbuild even more, because on a cloudy day we only get about half as much energy out of our solar panels. Another issue is the sheer amount of lithium and cobalt you'd need; we're pushing the limits already, and we'll need a lot more for electric cars. At this point you're probably thinking long-distance transmission to collect wind power from a wide area, but that's also expensive. More importantly, it's politically difficult and time-consuming to get the land rights. By comparison, construction cost for modern conventional nuclear plants is under $8 billion/GW: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as... Of course, there are emerging technologies to help with all of this. Wind, solar, and batteries are all getting cheaper, and batteries using other raw materials are being developed. But if we're going to look to future technologies, let's do that with nuclear as well. Molten salt reactors look way cheaper than conventional reactors, and fast reactors can eat nuclear waste. At least half a dozen startup companies are working on molten salt reactors, several are working on fast reactors, and Russia has two commercial fast reactors on their grid right now.

by TomK32 8y ago

DennisP 8y ago

The problem with renewables alone is storage. The big Tesla grid battery in Australia does 100MW and stores 129MWh. Its capital cost was $90 million: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-australias-tesla-battery-on-track-to-make-back-a-third-of-cost-in-a-year https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-aus... That's great as part of a diverse grid but some areas don't have hydro/geothermal, so if those places want to go entirely carbon-free without nuclear we need to rely entirely on wind/solar/battery. That means, at a minimum, we need to get through a windless night. So let's say about 12 hours. For 12 GWh we'd need 12,000/129=93 Tesla-scale plants, costing $8.3 billion. That's just for minimum storage, not including the wind turbines and solar panels. We have to take the current cost of wind/solar and add another 50% or so, since we need to generate enough to fill the storage, not just meet current needs during the day. Then we need to overbuild even more, because on a cloudy day we only get about half as much energy out of our solar panels. Another issue is the sheer amount of lithium and cobalt you'd need; we're pushing the limits already, and we'll need a lot more for electric cars. At this point you're probably thinking long-distance transmission to collect wind power from a wide area, but that's also expensive. More importantly, it's politically difficult and time-consuming to get the land rights. By comparison, construction cost for modern conventional nuclear plants is under $8 billion/GW: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-as... Of course, there are emerging technologies to help with all of this. Wind, solar, and batteries are all getting cheaper, and batteries using other raw materials are being developed. But if we're going to look to future technologies, let's do that with nuclear as well. Molten salt reactors look way cheaper than conventional reactors, and fast reactors can eat nuclear waste. At least half a dozen startup companies are working on molten salt reactors, several are working on fast reactors, and Russia has two commercial fast reactors on their grid right now.