3 ms·

Is there a good comparative analysis somewhere of nuclear vs renewables that looks at how we should best be focusing on each to beat climate change? I'd be sup

Is there a good comparative analysis somewhere of nuclear vs renewables that looks at how we should best be focusing on each to beat climate change? I'd be super interested to read it.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Phwew if only there was a reasoned thing to read on this topic. People on many sides of these issues are saying a lot very strongly that is in strong conflict, so it's not a great time to find something totally trustworthy. Most people agree with the consensus that nuclear and some renewables (wind/solar/hydro) are low carbon. Other renewables (biomass) are not low carbon. Then we quickly descend into a debate that effectively comes down to energy storage for the intermittent renewables vs. the cost of nuclear. Wind is at full power ~35% of the time in the US, solar is at full power ~25% of the time in the US. Recent nuclear builds in the US and Europe have been absolute boondoggles, though S. Korea remembers what the learned from Combustion Engineering and can build standard reactors very well now. Energy storage discussions span daily fluctuations (e.g. the duck curve) and batteries to seasonal fluctuations (much more challenging for know storage tech). Nuclear discussions also inevitability dip into nuclear waste (which has a scientific consensus solution in the deep geologic repository) to safety (where more people die every day from coal as-normal emissions than have been killed by nuclear accidents ever). Renewable discussions dip into land use, San Bernardino Co's recent ban on new large solar in the desert, migratory Hoary bats getting their lungs ripped out by wind turbines, and so on. I consider nuclear a total underdog right now because Wind and Solar are kicking butt while nuclear plants are getting shut down early. Because of this dynamic, I advocate for nuclear as part of the low carbon future. I wrote a thing about these topics in more detail here [1]. Bill Gates recently said that the people who say solving climate change will be easy are now more of a problem than people who outright deny climate change [2]. I agree with him. Lots of headlines you see on /r/Futurology and /r/energy make it seem that decarbonized world is right ahead of us. It's not, and cheap fracked natural gas is enemy number one. Sure, it's half the CO2 of coal, but that's still an order of magnitude too high! Many pro-nuclear people like myself are also very pro low-carbon renewables. The one vs. the other mentality is strong in both camps, but there's a growing number of "centrists". [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2017-12-17-primer-on-energy-ghg-intermittency-and-nuclear.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2017-12-17-primer-on-energy-g... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k
- Haga 7y ago
  > biomass is not low carbon Dishonest argument introduced by the carb industries to shift blame from those who introduce dormant carbon into the atmosphere. Fieldgron boos are essentially solar with a carb battery cycle. Stopped reading after this propaganda included in the wall.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    I think the effort to harvest them uses lots of tractors. Just using consensus numbers. There is certainly room for debate Graph: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Citation: Schlomer S., et.al., 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC) Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  (I remember your handle from previous discussions where we mostly disagree, but I certainly think your current summary of the typical discussion landscape is very accurate) I often wonder about non-compact kinetic energy storage, like huge fly-wheels or railcars, since kinetic energy is quadratic with velocity. When using a large radius circular railway, the limiting factor is no longer tensile strength as in usual fly-wheels. I wonder how low frictional terms can be brought for evacuated tunnels. the rail could be the stator and the circular train the rotor, or the other way around: a constant cross section "train" of mass with a rail as the rotor, and the fixed train wheels as the stator underneath... if it is underground or in a pit accidental energy release could be less catastrophic.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Argonne some decades ago had a small effort looking at magnetically confined kinetic energy storage rings (MCKESR), for just the scaling reason you stated. It started out as "put a magnetically levitated train on a circular track" but was optimized to other configurations after that. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6836648 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6836648 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224376883_Magnetically_Confined_Kinetic-Energy_Storage_Ring_Using_Attractive_Levitation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224376883_Magnetica...
fulafel 7y ago
Look up the lifetime costs per mwh and construction lead times. Spoiler: renewables are cheaper than nuclear and getting cheaper, nuclear is getting more expensive. Then ponder the financing problems of decades long megaprojects counting on a certain minimum electricity price after completion.
strainer 7y ago
Any comparison will be spurious because the candidates are different in so many respects. Renewable generation is a much more broad and varied category than Nuclear power. All nuclear power plants boil water to spin turbines and options of how to do that efficiently and safely with nuclear reactors has been hugely globally researched for about 70 years making the situation today stagnant in comparison to renewables. There are a range of renewable generation and storage options only seriously industrially developed for just a couple of decades yet already wind and solar products are the cheapest form of new generation (without subsidies). So in depth comparative analysis is moot now, current renewable options are cheaper even including current storage options to make them dispatch-able, and they will continue to get cheaper. Nuclear will not catch up without some game changing invention which would practically amount to a new technology that we cant debate yet. Only lingering passionate argument from the years when there was some uncertainty about renewables potential maintains any vision of nuclear competing with them to provide carbon neutral and environmentally friendly power, at the present and into the foreseeable future. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Is there a good comparative analysis somewhere of nuclear vs renewables that looks at how we should best be focusing on each to beat climate change? I'd be super interested to read it.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Phwew if only there was a reasoned thing to read on this topic. People on many sides of these issues are saying a lot very strongly that is in strong conflict, so it's not a great time to find something totally trustworthy. Most people agree with the consensus that nuclear and some renewables (wind/solar/hydro) are low carbon. Other renewables (biomass) are not low carbon. Then we quickly descend into a debate that effectively comes down to energy storage for the intermittent renewables vs. the cost of nuclear. Wind is at full power ~35% of the time in the US, solar is at full power ~25% of the time in the US. Recent nuclear builds in the US and Europe have been absolute boondoggles, though S. Korea remembers what the learned from Combustion Engineering and can build standard reactors very well now. Energy storage discussions span daily fluctuations (e.g. the duck curve) and batteries to seasonal fluctuations (much more challenging for know storage tech). Nuclear discussions also inevitability dip into nuclear waste (which has a scientific consensus solution in the deep geologic repository) to safety (where more people die every day from coal as-normal emissions than have been killed by nuclear accidents ever). Renewable discussions dip into land use, San Bernardino Co's recent ban on new large solar in the desert, migratory Hoary bats getting their lungs ripped out by wind turbines, and so on. I consider nuclear a total underdog right now because Wind and Solar are kicking butt while nuclear plants are getting shut down early. Because of this dynamic, I advocate for nuclear as part of the low carbon future. I wrote a thing about these topics in more detail here [1]. Bill Gates recently said that the people who say solving climate change will be easy are now more of a problem than people who outright deny climate change [2]. I agree with him. Lots of headlines you see on /r/Futurology and /r/energy make it seem that decarbonized world is right ahead of us. It's not, and cheap fracked natural gas is enemy number one. Sure, it's half the CO2 of coal, but that's still an order of magnitude too high! Many pro-nuclear people like myself are also very pro low-carbon renewables. The one vs. the other mentality is strong in both camps, but there's a growing number of "centrists". [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2017-12-17-primer-on-energy-ghg-intermittency-and-nuclear.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2017-12-17-primer-on-energy-g... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k

Haga 7y ago
> biomass is not low carbon Dishonest argument introduced by the carb industries to shift blame from those who introduce dormant carbon into the atmosphere. Fieldgron boos are essentially solar with a carb battery cycle. Stopped reading after this propaganda included in the wall.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  I think the effort to harvest them uses lots of tractors. Just using consensus numbers. There is certainly room for debate Graph: https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-co2-of-fuels.png https://partofthething.com/thoughts/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-... Citation: Schlomer S., et.al., 2014: Annex III: Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC) Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
DoctorOetker 7y ago
(I remember your handle from previous discussions where we mostly disagree, but I certainly think your current summary of the typical discussion landscape is very accurate) I often wonder about non-compact kinetic energy storage, like huge fly-wheels or railcars, since kinetic energy is quadratic with velocity. When using a large radius circular railway, the limiting factor is no longer tensile strength as in usual fly-wheels. I wonder how low frictional terms can be brought for evacuated tunnels. the rail could be the stator and the circular train the rotor, or the other way around: a constant cross section "train" of mass with a rail as the rotor, and the fixed train wheels as the stator underneath... if it is underground or in a pit accidental energy release could be less catastrophic.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Argonne some decades ago had a small effort looking at magnetically confined kinetic energy storage rings (MCKESR), for just the scaling reason you stated. It started out as "put a magnetically levitated train on a circular track" but was optimized to other configurations after that. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6836648 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6836648 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224376883_Magnetically_Confined_Kinetic-Energy_Storage_Ring_Using_Attractive_Levitation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224376883_Magnetica...

fulafel 7y ago

Look up the lifetime costs per mwh and construction lead times. Spoiler: renewables are cheaper than nuclear and getting cheaper, nuclear is getting more expensive. Then ponder the financing problems of decades long megaprojects counting on a certain minimum electricity price after completion.

strainer 7y ago

Any comparison will be spurious because the candidates are different in so many respects. Renewable generation is a much more broad and varied category than Nuclear power. All nuclear power plants boil water to spin turbines and options of how to do that efficiently and safely with nuclear reactors has been hugely globally researched for about 70 years making the situation today stagnant in comparison to renewables. There are a range of renewable generation and storage options only seriously industrially developed for just a couple of decades yet already wind and solar products are the cheapest form of new generation (without subsidies). So in depth comparative analysis is moot now, current renewable options are cheaper even including current storage options to make them dispatch-able, and they will continue to get cheaper. Nuclear will not catch up without some game changing invention which would practically amount to a new technology that we cant debate yet. Only lingering passionate argument from the years when there was some uncertainty about renewables potential maintains any vision of nuclear competing with them to provide carbon neutral and environmentally friendly power, at the present and into the foreseeable future. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...