4 ms·

Somebody gets it! It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Even if you could guarantee 10 year build time at a fixed cost today (which you c

by BluSyn 8y ago

Somebody gets it! It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Even if you could guarantee 10 year build time at a fixed cost today (which you can't), by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. The cost curves are simply too favorable for any private market to favor nuclear over solar currently. Everyone in this thread keeps talking about the technology, but it's purely about the economics. Solar+storage at grid-scale will be cheaper than basically all other forms of power generation within 5 years based on current cost curves. Within 10 years the cost of new solar+battery will be cheaper than the operational cost of nuclear, not even accounting for the billions in construction costs over decades. If the billions spent on nuclear plants now was instantly diverted to solar, we'd have way more clean energy in the grid on a way shorter timeline. That's the reality today. It's time to stop arguing and stop wasting money. Nuclear is dead.

macspoofing 8y ago
>It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Imagine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? You can talk about Republican denialism, but it is anti-nuke lobby that will be held responsible for climate change. >by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. Will it? Will the sun shine at night? when it's cloudy? No? Then it doesn't matter how cheap solar and wind are. You're not going to use either as a cornerstone of modern energy generation. So if not solar and wind, then what else is left? Germany knows - they are signing multi-decade deals for natural gas and coal-based power (from Russia and neighbors), as they are shutting down their nuclear plants.
- rocqua 8y ago
  "magine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? " I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. As for the intermittent issues of power. I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable output like hydro, existing nuclear, and perhaps later tidal.
  - antt 8y ago
    Don't build this trillion dollar proven technology, build this unproven trillion dollar technology instead!
    - BluSyn 8y ago
      Both technologies are proven. One has proven to be cheaper than the other.
      - antt 8y ago
        I'm from Australia, the only thing that a grid without nuclear or coal has proven is that it can't deal with sustained demand. This year we came perilously close to having to choose which hospitals to cut power to when the there were two 40C days in a row. If we have a week of that weather Mad Max will be a become a documentary.
        BluSyn 8y ago
        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... This is the solution, but currently only operating at a small scale. This is something that can be scaled up insanely quickly for a fraction the cost of alternatives. The success of this relatively small installation has already resulted in many more battery projects coming online this year.
        antt 8y ago
        The Tesla battery stores enough energy to run the South Australian grid for 5 minutes and cost 40 million. It's only use is to keep the frequency of the grid from drifting. This being my day job, it would add $8k to the electricity bill of the two child household in Australia if we used your solution to store the wind and solar power.
        rocqua 8y ago
rocqua 8y ago
Is storage a solved problem yet? Afaik, dams are the only viable option, and not universally available. I thought batteries just weren't there yet. Especially if you take wear cycles into account.
- BluSyn 8y ago
  Batteries are much farther along than most realize, and decreasing in cost rapidly. 2019 will see the first GWh-scale battery installations (plural, as in multiple of them). Grid-scale lithium-ion battery storage is at the beginning of an exponential growth curve.
  - jki275 8y ago
    What is the environmental cost of mining that lithium? How much lithium is there, actually?
- jki275 8y ago
  It’s not, and likely never will be.
antt 8y ago
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png One should add wind and solar, both at around 0.5MJ/h per m2.
- BluSyn 8y ago
  Energy density and cost have almost no correlation. Gasoline is less dense, but I can package a gas generator into a small box for very little cost. Uranium requires a giant reactor the size of a small town and costs billions. $/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Edit: http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    >$/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Given this statement and the chart that shows solar and wind already being the cheapest energy sources this must mean we can just switch to solar and wind ... right? Except we know we can't. We know that the variablity of solar and wind makes those impossible replacements for coal and gas. I guess price isn't the only metric that matters.
    - BluSyn 8y ago
      Touche. I agree, "only metric" is hyperbolic, but it is the main metric that determines future investments. This is why the most important number is $/MWh for "solar/wind + storage". Storage has to be included in the equation. At current prices that puts "solar/wind + storage" about equal with natural gas, but those prices are dropping rapidly. Installation times are also very significant factors in reaching emission reduction targets. Waiting 10+ years for nuclear to come online just isn't viable. Solar+storage can be operational at the same scale as a nuclear plant within 2-3 years.
doikor 8y ago
It really depends on the location if nuclear makes sense. For example to fully go solar here in Finland you would need enough storage to basically store 2 or 3 months of winter usage of power as the efficiency of the panels goes down to less then 5% of peak during winter as the sun just isn’t up and when it is it at such a low angle that it produces next nothing. So basically one would need a lot of overcapacity to be able to produce and store enough power during the summer to last over the winter. But in places like California sure go full solar as it actually works all year around.
- tim333 8y ago
  Or a power cable south to somewhere sunny.
  - doikor 8y ago
    Ok so now we are beholden to whatever political powers that are south of us (or our friendly neighbor to the east "accidentally" cutting the sea cable). For now it is a bunch of friendly EU countries but putting the lives our citizens in their hands doesn't sound that nice. Freezing to death during winter if power gets cut for more then a day or two is a very real possibility in huge parts of the country as we have moved from oil/gas to electric heating. You realize this is like the US saying "lets give money to Mexico to build all of our solar power there (it is closer to the equator and thus would provide more even output throughout the year and would make more econimical sense) and just rely on them selling it to us forever at a nice price as they are a friendly country at this very moment". Or even better would be the countries further south and build a sea cable on international waters so anyone with a sub can go and cut it to fuck with you, From a national security perspective relying on such a vital resource as electricity on someone else is just plain stupid. I realize most countries are in such a relationship with oil/gas countries at the very moment but I think the goal should be to lessen this kind of relationships not increase them.

by BluSyn 8y ago

macspoofing 8y ago

>It makes absolutely no sense to start building nuclear now. Imagine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? You can talk about Republican denialism, but it is anti-nuke lobby that will be held responsible for climate change. >by the time it is operational solar+storage will be even more economical than it is today. Will it? Will the sun shine at night? when it's cloudy? No? Then it doesn't matter how cheap solar and wind are. You're not going to use either as a cornerstone of modern energy generation. So if not solar and wind, then what else is left? Germany knows - they are signing multi-decade deals for natural gas and coal-based power (from Russia and neighbors), as they are shutting down their nuclear plants.

rocqua 8y ago
"magine if the developed world invested in nuclear to the extent that France did in the 60s and 70s - how many trillions of tons of CO2 would NOT have been emitted into the atmosphere? " I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. As for the intermittent issues of power. I think there's a lot to gain from long distance transportation combined with reliable output like hydro, existing nuclear, and perhaps later tidal.
- antt 8y ago
  Don't build this trillion dollar proven technology, build this unproven trillion dollar technology instead!
  - BluSyn 8y ago
    Both technologies are proven. One has proven to be cheaper than the other.
    - antt 8y ago
      I'm from Australia, the only thing that a grid without nuclear or coal has proven is that it can't deal with sustained demand. This year we came perilously close to having to choose which hospitals to cut power to when the there were two 40C days in a row. If we have a week of that weather Mad Max will be a become a documentary.
      - BluSyn 8y ago
        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... This is the solution, but currently only operating at a small scale. This is something that can be scaled up insanely quickly for a fraction the cost of alternatives. The success of this relatively small installation has already resulted in many more battery projects coming online this year.
        antt 8y ago
        The Tesla battery stores enough energy to run the South Australian grid for 5 minutes and cost 40 million. It's only use is to keep the frequency of the grid from drifting. This being my day job, it would add $8k to the electricity bill of the two child household in Australia if we used your solution to store the wind and solar power.
      - rocqua 8y ago

rocqua 8y ago

Is storage a solved problem yet? Afaik, dams are the only viable option, and not universally available. I thought batteries just weren't there yet. Especially if you take wear cycles into account.

BluSyn 8y ago
Batteries are much farther along than most realize, and decreasing in cost rapidly. 2019 will see the first GWh-scale battery installations (plural, as in multiple of them). Grid-scale lithium-ion battery storage is at the beginning of an exponential growth curve.
- jki275 8y ago
  What is the environmental cost of mining that lithium? How much lithium is there, actually?
jki275 8y ago
It’s not, and likely never will be.

antt 8y ago

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale_2x.png One should add wind and solar, both at around 0.5MJ/h per m2.

BluSyn 8y ago
Energy density and cost have almost no correlation. Gasoline is less dense, but I can package a gas generator into a small box for very little cost. Uranium requires a giant reactor the size of a small town and costs billions. $/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Edit: http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg http://solarcellcentral.com/images/avg_cost_of_energy.jpg
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >$/MWh is the only real metric that matters. Given this statement and the chart that shows solar and wind already being the cheapest energy sources this must mean we can just switch to solar and wind ... right? Except we know we can't. We know that the variablity of solar and wind makes those impossible replacements for coal and gas. I guess price isn't the only metric that matters.
  - BluSyn 8y ago
    Touche. I agree, "only metric" is hyperbolic, but it is the main metric that determines future investments. This is why the most important number is $/MWh for "solar/wind + storage". Storage has to be included in the equation. At current prices that puts "solar/wind + storage" about equal with natural gas, but those prices are dropping rapidly. Installation times are also very significant factors in reaching emission reduction targets. Waiting 10+ years for nuclear to come online just isn't viable. Solar+storage can be operational at the same scale as a nuclear plant within 2-3 years.

doikor 8y ago

It really depends on the location if nuclear makes sense. For example to fully go solar here in Finland you would need enough storage to basically store 2 or 3 months of winter usage of power as the efficiency of the panels goes down to less then 5% of peak during winter as the sun just isn’t up and when it is it at such a low angle that it produces next nothing. So basically one would need a lot of overcapacity to be able to produce and store enough power during the summer to last over the winter. But in places like California sure go full solar as it actually works all year around.

tim333 8y ago
Or a power cable south to somewhere sunny.
- doikor 8y ago
  Ok so now we are beholden to whatever political powers that are south of us (or our friendly neighbor to the east "accidentally" cutting the sea cable). For now it is a bunch of friendly EU countries but putting the lives our citizens in their hands doesn't sound that nice. Freezing to death during winter if power gets cut for more then a day or two is a very real possibility in huge parts of the country as we have moved from oil/gas to electric heating. You realize this is like the US saying "lets give money to Mexico to build all of our solar power there (it is closer to the equator and thus would provide more even output throughout the year and would make more econimical sense) and just rely on them selling it to us forever at a nice price as they are a friendly country at this very moment". Or even better would be the countries further south and build a sea cable on international waters so anyone with a sub can go and cut it to fuck with you, From a national security perspective relying on such a vital resource as electricity on someone else is just plain stupid. I realize most countries are in such a relationship with oil/gas countries at the very moment but I think the goal should be to lessen this kind of relationships not increase them.