3 ms·

>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 70

>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
        Was it actually renewables slumping in production or demand surging? If the second, how different would the situation have been with traditional power? I ask because a 40C day sounds like a problem due to AC usage, but would probably come with pretty effective solar, and decent wind near the sea.
    - DennisP 8y ago
      France and Sweden built very low-carbon electric grids with nuclear. No country in the world has done that with wind/solar. Some have done it with lots of hydro/geothermal, but those aren't available everywhere.
      - pfdietz 8y ago
        No country did it with wind/solar in the past, because wind/solar weren't competitive. No country will do it with nuclear in the future, because nuclear won't be competitive.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. I get that. But it's worth going through the exercise how bad well-intentioned policies can be. It's worth to consider that anti-nuke activism is much worse than Conservative denialism. And if nuclear is too late now, then there's nothing we can do to replace carbon-based 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. Oh come on. Hydro is great if you can get it. Places that can get hydro, already get hydro. Most places can't get hydro. Ditto for geothermal. So what's the solution to replacing carbon emitting power sources? I want someone to explain that to me. Because all I hear is how solar and wind one day will be cheap and prices are falling every day - even though price is not the problem with solar and wind. Variability is. We need power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, and power requirements keep growing. People want electric cars and trains, those need huge amount of energy. I hear how batteries will save the day, except that we are not anywhere close to having battery technology capable of storing city-sized power requirements for a few minutes, much less hours or days. It may not even be physically possible to create a battery like that. So what's left? Coal and Gas - and this is exactly what EVERY nation is doing if they are not investing in (or divesting from) nuclear.

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
      Was it actually renewables slumping in production or demand surging? If the second, how different would the situation have been with traditional power? I ask because a 40C day sounds like a problem due to AC usage, but would probably come with pretty effective solar, and decent wind near the sea.
  - DennisP 8y ago
    France and Sweden built very low-carbon electric grids with nuclear. No country in the world has done that with wind/solar. Some have done it with lots of hydro/geothermal, but those aren't available everywhere.
    - pfdietz 8y ago
      No country did it with wind/solar in the past, because wind/solar weren't competitive. No country will do it with nuclear in the future, because nuclear won't be competitive.
macspoofing 8y ago
>I think OPs point is essentially that, even if nuclear would have helped in the 70s, it is now too late. I get that. But it's worth going through the exercise how bad well-intentioned policies can be. It's worth to consider that anti-nuke activism is much worse than Conservative denialism. And if nuclear is too late now, then there's nothing we can do to replace carbon-based 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. Oh come on. Hydro is great if you can get it. Places that can get hydro, already get hydro. Most places can't get hydro. Ditto for geothermal. So what's the solution to replacing carbon emitting power sources? I want someone to explain that to me. Because all I hear is how solar and wind one day will be cheap and prices are falling every day - even though price is not the problem with solar and wind. Variability is. We need power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, and power requirements keep growing. People want electric cars and trains, those need huge amount of energy. I hear how batteries will save the day, except that we are not anywhere close to having battery technology capable of storing city-sized power requirements for a few minutes, much less hours or days. It may not even be physically possible to create a battery like that. So what's left? Coal and Gas - and this is exactly what EVERY nation is doing if they are not investing in (or divesting from) nuclear.