5 ms·

Any reason storage + renewables + well connected ‘super grids’ between countries cannot work out? Why do we have to have nuclear?

by gehsty 8y ago

rakoo 8y ago
Because reliable intermittent (what we should call pv/wind + storage or gas for redundancy) pollutes multiple times more than nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest form of electricity generation that we can produce in scale, and the cleanest one for the amount of fossil we want to get rid of. Quick reminder: more than 60% of the world's electricity is fossil-based. To replace that only with nuclear would need 1500 new reactors. Do you really think it will be feasible to do that with wind and/or solar?
- acidburnNSA 8y ago
  Also: the physical footprint of nuclear is tiny compared to energy harvesting + seasonal storage. This really matters at the scales we need. Not that nuclear is free from nimbyism, but its small footprint still counts.
tomatotomato37 8y ago
Electric heating, even with heat pumps, is still a massive inefficient power sink in terms of overall power required when compared to direct heat conversion. As nuclear energy is one of the few renewable heat sources that work independent of weather, it will be required if we want to make district heating carbon free (that being said I believe getting electrics/transportation carbon neutral will be good enough since burning NG purely for heat is efficient enough that we can justify penciling it in under the earth's natural carbon recovery budget)
- dependsontheq 8y ago
  It’s not really independent of weather a lot of European plants had problems in the drought last year https://www.energy-reporters.com/environment/drought-forces-nuclear-shutdowns/ https://www.energy-reporters.com/environment/drought-forces-...
godelski 8y ago
> Why do we have to have nuclear? It's a good question. Really. The reason why is that current renewable tech cannot handle our energy needs. Technology for a "well connected `super grid'" just doesn't exist either. The battery tech isn't there. But don't just believe me. Look at Germany[0]. Many point to it as the leading example of adapting renewable technology. They have some huge advantages places like the US, India, and China don't have: being small and more dense. This means you can have less power loss in transit (theoretically). But you have to ask yourself, why is Germany's use of renewables skyrocketing but their carbon footprint is relatively stationary? Hint: What are they replacing their nuclear with? It isn't just renewables, and there's a reason why. Remember, no pro nuclear person is anti renewable. We just believe we need to act NOW and not when renewables become advanced enough. Personally I just don't think we have the time. Edit: Wanted to share a link I was sharing in another thread. France, which has about 75% of its energy produced from nuclear also has one of the cheapest electricity costs in Europe. [1] [0] https://www.worlddata.info/europe/germany/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/europe/germany/energy-consumption... [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
- petre 8y ago
  > What are they replacing their nuclear with? Russian gas. That's why they're building a new pipeline in the Baltic.
- Faark 8y ago
  Of cause the carbon footprint is stationary, since both nuclear and renewable are good on that front. Replacing nuclear with coal wouldn't be stationary and graphs [0] look like renewable has decently taken over former nuclear. I don't understand where you see something not working. I do understand nuclear advocates arguing the carbon footprint could be even better. Also keep in mind some rural areas fighting tooth and nails to keep brown coal use/mining running, since these areas don't have much other economic prospects. [0] https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&perio...
ThomPete 8y ago
First problem is storage. We simply don't know how to do it and there is nothing even remotely resembling a solution in the work. Second renewables are not going to produce enough energy, currently, they only produce around 1% of the worlds energy needs and that's with a heavily subsidized and politically motivated backing. Third, the cost of these super grids is going to be astronomical. Nuclear is the only optionon of the clean energies that are both: Green (no CO2), cheap and plentiful, scaleable and reliable. The capacity factor of nuclear is handsdown unbeatbale compared to wind https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14611 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14611 The idea of wind and solar being effective is based on the in my opinion faulty idea that energy density isn't the most important factor.

Any reason storage + renewables + well connected ‘super grids’ between countries cannot work out? Why do we have to have nuclear?

by gehsty 8y ago

Any reason storage + renewables + well connected ‘super grids’ between countries cannot work out? Why do we have to have nuclear?

rakoo 8y ago

Because reliable intermittent (what we should call pv/wind + storage or gas for redundancy) pollutes multiple times more than nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest form of electricity generation that we can produce in scale, and the cleanest one for the amount of fossil we want to get rid of. Quick reminder: more than 60% of the world's electricity is fossil-based. To replace that only with nuclear would need 1500 new reactors. Do you really think it will be feasible to do that with wind and/or solar?

acidburnNSA 8y ago
Also: the physical footprint of nuclear is tiny compared to energy harvesting + seasonal storage. This really matters at the scales we need. Not that nuclear is free from nimbyism, but its small footprint still counts.

tomatotomato37 8y ago

Electric heating, even with heat pumps, is still a massive inefficient power sink in terms of overall power required when compared to direct heat conversion. As nuclear energy is one of the few renewable heat sources that work independent of weather, it will be required if we want to make district heating carbon free (that being said I believe getting electrics/transportation carbon neutral will be good enough since burning NG purely for heat is efficient enough that we can justify penciling it in under the earth's natural carbon recovery budget)

dependsontheq 8y ago
It’s not really independent of weather a lot of European plants had problems in the drought last year https://www.energy-reporters.com/environment/drought-forces-nuclear-shutdowns/ https://www.energy-reporters.com/environment/drought-forces-...

godelski 8y ago

> Why do we have to have nuclear? It's a good question. Really. The reason why is that current renewable tech cannot handle our energy needs. Technology for a "well connected `super grid'" just doesn't exist either. The battery tech isn't there. But don't just believe me. Look at Germany[0]. Many point to it as the leading example of adapting renewable technology. They have some huge advantages places like the US, India, and China don't have: being small and more dense. This means you can have less power loss in transit (theoretically). But you have to ask yourself, why is Germany's use of renewables skyrocketing but their carbon footprint is relatively stationary? Hint: What are they replacing their nuclear with? It isn't just renewables, and there's a reason why. Remember, no pro nuclear person is anti renewable. We just believe we need to act NOW and not when renewables become advanced enough. Personally I just don't think we have the time. Edit: Wanted to share a link I was sharing in another thread. France, which has about 75% of its energy produced from nuclear also has one of the cheapest electricity costs in Europe. [1] [0] https://www.worlddata.info/europe/germany/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/europe/germany/energy-consumption... [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...

petre 8y ago
> What are they replacing their nuclear with? Russian gas. That's why they're building a new pipeline in the Baltic.
Faark 8y ago
Of cause the carbon footprint is stationary, since both nuclear and renewable are good on that front. Replacing nuclear with coal wouldn't be stationary and graphs [0] look like renewable has decently taken over former nuclear. I don't understand where you see something not working. I do understand nuclear advocates arguing the carbon footprint could be even better. Also keep in mind some rural areas fighting tooth and nails to keep brown coal use/mining running, since these areas don't have much other economic prospects. [0] https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&period=annual&year=all https://energy-charts.de/energy.htm?source=all-sources&perio...

ThomPete 8y ago

First problem is storage. We simply don't know how to do it and there is nothing even remotely resembling a solution in the work. Second renewables are not going to produce enough energy, currently, they only produce around 1% of the worlds energy needs and that's with a heavily subsidized and politically motivated backing. Third, the cost of these super grids is going to be astronomical. Nuclear is the only optionon of the clean energies that are both: Green (no CO2), cheap and plentiful, scaleable and reliable. The capacity factor of nuclear is handsdown unbeatbale compared to wind https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14611 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14611 The idea of wind and solar being effective is based on the in my opinion faulty idea that energy density isn't the most important factor.